1. Kavya Prakasa , Analysis Of The Contents The Kavyaprakasa Amareswar Thakur

I

CHAPTER I

Invocation of the appropriate divinity—the poet's Muse (कविमातृ = the poet's inspiration). Superiority of the poet's creation to the creation of Brahmā. The utility of kāvya—it brings forth fame and riches, averts evils, teaches the ways of the world, gives pure and unmixed pleasure and contains useful instruction. The essential qualifications of the poet—poetic genius ( प्रतिभा ), facility in composition ( निपुणता ) arising from a careful observation of the world and the study of various kāvyas and śastras, and practice ( वश्यम् ) under experts. Definition of kāvya—it consists of word and sense without faults ( दोष ), with merits ( गुण ) and with rhetorical excellence ( अलंकार ) which may at times remain absent. Three classes of kāvya—kāvya of the highest, of the middle and of the lowest kind. When the suggested sense ( व्यंग्य ) dominates the expressed one ( वाच्यार्थ ) it is the best, when the suggested sense is not dominant but is at a par with or inferior to the expressed sense, it is of the middle class, and when there is no suggested sense at all (but mere rhetoric etc.) the kāvya is of the lowest kind.

II

CHAPTER II

Three kinds of meanings are to be recognised in Rhetoric : (i) directly expressed or current or important meaning ( वाच्यार्थ, मुख्यार्थ );

(2) indirectly expressed or figurative meaning (लक्ष्यार्थ); and (3) a suggested or implied meaning (व्यङ्ग्यार्थ)—of a word happening to have one of these meanings. Words having these meanings are respectively called directly expressive word (वाचक) indirectly expressive or figuratively used word (लक्षणा) and suggestive word (व्यञ्जक).

According to a class of Mīmāṃsakas, the followers of Kumārila as well as older Naiyāyikas and Vaiśeṣikas who are अभिहितान्वयवादी, a fourth meaning viz., तात्पर्यार्थ (import) is also to be admitted.

The followers of Prabhākara, another class of Mīmāṃsakas who are अन्विताभिधानवादी, do not see any utility in admitting it.

[ According to the former view the words in a sentence express merely their own meanings (and thereby their force is exhausted) and the connected meaning of the sentence comes through a separate शक्ति called तात्पर्यशक्ति, while according to the latter view the constituent words themselves express the full meaning of the sentence. ]

Each of the three kinds of meanings—the current (वाच्य), the figurative (लक्ष्य) and the suggested (व्यङ्ग्य)—may give rise to a suggestion (व्यञ्जना).

वाचक or a word used in its current sense directly expresses the meaning given to it by संकेत ( convention or common consent actual or supposed—‘अस्माच्छब्दादादयमर्थो बोद्धव्य इत्याकारः शक्तिमाहकः समय:’ ).

संकेत is to be placed not on the व्यक्ति (individual) but on उपाधि i.e., the characters of व्यक्ति (जाति, गुण, क्रिया and संज्ञा ) according to the Mahābhāṣya, or, simply on जाति, according to the Mīmāṃsakas. For, individuals are endless and it is not possible to go round the world and observe each and every individual and place संकेत on it. If to avoid this difficulty संकेत is to be placed on a limited number of individuals, there would arise a defect, namely व्यभिचार or violation of a principle. If घट, for instance, were to signify those jars only which are संकेतित i.e., on which संकेत has been placed, the jars that have not been seen and consequently not संकेतित would not have been signified by the term. If they be, then there would be व्यभिचार or violation of the rule that ‘a word signifies only those things on

which संकेत has been placed.' Further, if संकेत were restricted to व्यक्ति alone, the well-known classification of the meanings of words into जाति, गुण, क्रिया and द्रव्य would be impossible. When we see a white ox by name दिश्य moving, we use the expression गौः शुवलो दिश्यः i. e., the ox which is white and named दिश्य is walking. If every one of these four words denotes merely 'the individual' and not its characters then there would be no reason why we shall use four words instead of one, for one word be sufficient to indicate 'the individual'.

Now what is उपाधि on which संकेत is to be placed ? उपाधि is either वस्तुप्रभं ( a property or character that belongs to the व्यक्ति ) or वक्तृदृच्तासरिदेवितधर्मं ( a something fastened upon the व्यक्ति by the wish of the speaker i. e., संज्ञा). The former,( i.e., वस्तुप्रभं ) is again divided into सिद्ध (actually existing) and साध्य (that which is to be accomplished i. e., क्रिया). सिद्ध वस्तुप्रभं is further of two kinds : (1) प्राणप्रदः* (that which constitutes the life or essence of the thing denoted by the word i.e., जाति ) and निमित्तोपाधिहेतु: (that which is the means of distinguishing one object from another i. e., गुण). The following table shows the division of उपाधि into four kinds :--

उपाधि

वस्तुप्रभं वक्तृदृच्तासरिदेवितधर्मं

( i.e., संज्ञा )

सिद्ध (i.e., क्रिया )

साध्य ( i.e., किया )

प्राणप्रद ( i.e., जाति)

निमित्तोपाधिहेतु ( i.e., गुण )

So संकेत i: to be placed on जाति, गुण, क्रिया and संज्ञा conceived as a property of द्रव्य or व्यक्ति (individual). These are the four divisions of उपाधि.

• प्राणप्रदत्वं यदत्नं स्पिति-समभितत्वम् ।

† It would seem to be more logical to hold with Śrīrāma Tarkavāgīśa that the आरोपः of a proper name is placed upon the individual सङ्केतच्तनाय व्यक्ति एव महदुपरि, for the argument from अनन्वय and व्यभिचार does not apply in this case.

The Mīmāṃsakas hold that there is a जाति of गुण such as शुक्ल (them being something in all white substances such as snow, milk etc., by virtue of which they are called white), a जाति of द्रव्य such as गुड (in the making of diverse things such as molasses, rice etc.), a जाति of क्रिया such as क्रय (in the object named क्रय undergoing change at every moment) : and as such जाति is to be placed on जाति alone and not on द्रव्य, गुण, क्रिया and जाति.

लक्षणा word (a word used in a figurative sense) is the basis or substratum of वृत्ति (the वृत्ति or function by which is understood a new meaning connected with the principal or current meaning of a word).

When the current meaning is barred by incompatibility and another meaning connected with the current meaning (वाच्यार्थ) comes to be attached to the word either through usage (रूढि = प्रसिद्धि or प्रयोजनप्राप्त) or for a special purpose (प्रयोजन) then the function (वृत्ति) by which this new meaning is presented is called लक्षणा.*

[ कुशलः कुमारः†—Here the primary meaning of kuśala i.e., a gatherer of kuśa grass is barred by incompatibility and its meaning is 'expert'. This meaning is related to the primary sense of gathering of kuśa in that both an expert and a gatherer of kuśa are possessed of discrimination etc., and the meaning 'expert' of the term kuśala is sanctioned by usage.

गङ्गायां घोषः—Here the primary meaning river is barred because a ghoṣa (a village of cowherds) cannot be located in the river itself. So the term Gaṅgā has the sense of 'Ganges' bank' which is related to the primary sense 'river' by reason of its proximity and the special purpose served by the use of this word Gaṅgā (instead of गङ्गातट) is to convey more emphatically the idea of special sanctity and coolness enjoyed by the village, an idea which could not be expressed with equal emphasis by the expression गङ्गातटे घोषः.]

• These are the three conditions of लक्षणा (1) मुख्यार्थबाध, (2) मुख्यार्थयोग and (3) either रूढि or प्रयोजन।

† This example is unhappy. See Sāhityadarpana Ch. II, which rightly points out the distinction between the derivative and current meanings of words, अन्यस्य शब्दानां प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तं अन्यस्य वृत्तिप्रतिनिमित्तम्‌.

29

The following table shows the six kinds of लक्षणा .—

1. उत्पादानलक्षणा—कुन्ता प्रविशति (lances enter the battle field) Here in order to establish the logical connection of the lances with the act of entering, the soldiers armed with lances must be understood to be the meaning of the word कुन्तः स्वसिद्धये परार्थे—कुन्ता प्रविशति इलादौ स्वरय कुन्तादि. मिड्ये ऽथन्वसिद्धये परस्य कुन्तपार्णि. आक्षेप बोधनम् उत्पादानलक्षणेत्यच्युच्यते The special purpose served by लक्षणा here is to draw pointed attention to the instruments of वार

2 लक्षणगालक्षणा*—गङ्गाया घोप. Here the term Gangā gives up its current meaning for the sake of the figurative one परार्थे स्वस्मरणं—गङ्गाया घोप इलादौ परार्थे तयादित्युपाधिप्रतीतस्य स्वस्य प्रवाहरूपाप्रर्थस्य समर्पण त्याग लक्षणगक्षणेत्युच्यते

3 (शुद्धा) सारोपलक्षणा—आयुर्जयतं (clarified butter is longevity) Here आयु: means आयुर्जनक (giver of longevity), the primary meaning of आयु. being bailed. In this example the viṣayin (आयु) and the viṣaya of that upon which the viṣayin is imposed (e g, घृत) are mentioned as correlated, both of them being distinctly mentioned The purpose served is to bring about the notion that clarified butter gives longevity better than anything else

4 (शुद्धा) साध्यवसanalक्षणा—आयुर्वेदम् or butter आयुरिदं Here the visayin (आयु) swallows as it were the visaya (घृत), the latter being

° स्वार्थपरित्यागेन परार्थेनैव स्वार्थबोधनात् i e., 1 figurative use in which pal or current meaning is not given up i e., is 1 , गौण्याद्वारेणैव स्वार्थबोधनात् स्वार्थ परित्यागेन परार्थनयणं

use of 1 word in which the principal or the connected figurative meaning

not mentioned at all. The purpose served is to bring about a notion of infallibility of clarified butter in producing longevity.

These four kinds of लक्षणा are शुद्धा because they do not involve any idea of similitude (सादृश्य). उपचारामिश्रिता शुद्धा । उपचारामिश्रिता गौणी । अत्यन्तं विशाकलितयोः सादृश्यातिशयमहिम्ना भेदप्रतीतिस्थगनमुपचारः.

5

गौणी सारोपलक्षणा—गौर्वाहीकः (The वाहीक * is an ox). Here the viṣayin, (e. g., गो) and the viṣaya—(e. g., वाहीक) are both distinctly mentioned. The purpose served is to show the extreme stupidity of the वाहीक.

6

गौणी साध्यवसानलक्षणा—गौरयं बः. Here the viṣayin swallows as it were the viṣaya. Here the purpose is to bring about a notion that the stupidity of the वाहीक is still greater as is shown by the assertion of complete identity between the two.

These last two kinds are गौणी‡ because certain qualities (गुण) are common to the वाच्यार्थ and लक्ष्यार्थ and thus they are based upon the relation of similarity (सादृश्य).

When लक्षणा is based upon रूढि (usage) as in कर्मणि कुशलः there is no suggested meaning at all, but when it is based upon प्रयोजन (special purpose) there is a suggested meaning, and the suggested meaning (व्यङ्ग्यार्थ) itself is the purpose (प्रयोजन). This suggested meaning may either be hidden (गूढ) or explicit (अगूढ ). Thus लक्षणा considered from another point of view is of three kinds—लक्षणा ithout any suggested meaning, लक्षणा with a hidden suggested reaning, लक्षणा with an explicit suggested meaning.

The purpose ( प्रयोजन ) for which a word is used figuratively unnot be brought out by any function other than suggestion (व्यञ्जना). विधा is totally powerless, as the प्रयोजन is not the current meaning

• The term वाहीक ineans one of an ancient tribe notorious for outlandish haviour and stupidity. वाहिक may mean 'a carrier of loads'. Śrīrāma Tarka-vāgīśn's explanation 'वाहीको हलकवारकः' is of doubtful authenticity.

† श्लाघ्य प्रतत्त्वस्यारोह्यविग्रहप्राप्ता न तु वाहीकस्येदन्त्योपस्थितिः । गौर्ज्यप्ति would be a less nisleading example.

‡ 'अत्यन्तमगुणैर्योगाद् विशेषोक्तौ तु गोपसा' । 'अभिधेयार्थगुणयोगो' गौणी ।

31

of the word. Thus in the case of an expression like गङ्गाया घोपः, the sanctity, coolness and such other qualities which constitute the प्रयोजन are not the direct meanings of the word Gaṅgā. Nor has लक्षणा any scope here, because the necessary conditions* thereof are wanting. In the expression गङ्गाया घोपः, लक्षणा is resorted to because the primary meaning of Gaṅgā is incompatible If, in the same manner, the sense of ‘Ganges-bank’ also were incompatible then alone could the word by a second लक्षणा mean the intended sanctity, coolness and so forth. But this is not so.

The figurative meaning ( लक्षणाभे ) of the word in the example गङ्गाया घोप: cannot include the intended idea of sanctity and so forth or in other words, the लक्षणाभे of गङ्गा in गङ्गाया घोप: cannot be शीतत्वपावनत्वादिविशिष्ट गङ्गातट.† For, it is a well-known dictum that the विषय (object) and the फल (fruit) of ज्ञान (knowledge) are different fiom each other —ज्ञानस्य विषय: फलमन्यदुदाहरतम्. The object of perception is नीलघट and the fruit thereof is some such idea as नीलघटो ज्ञातव्या मया (the black jar is known by me) Now if the लक्षणाभे be taken as including the प्रयोजन or फल of लक्षणाशान then the विषय and फल of ज्ञान will not be different fiom each other. For the विषय or the object of knowledge which is taken to be पावनत्वादिनिर्दिष्ट in the sentence गङ्गाया घोप: is not difierent fiom पावनत्वादि the recognised फल of लक्षणाशान.

[ Some are of opinion that फल of लक्षणाशान is पावनत्वादिप्रतीति and not पावनत्वादि. They explain the कारिका of Mammaṭa above referred to viz., ज्ञानस्य विषय: फलमन्यदुदाहृतम् as ज्ञानस्य विषयो या फलं ज्ञानस्य प्रतीतिर् कारकं विषयम्. The फल of ज्ञान in this case being पावनत्वप्रतीति is not difierent fiom ज्ञान itself. ]

After desciibing the suggestion based upon लक्षणा the author proceeds to describe the suggestion based upon अभिधा. When a word has several primary meanings and thus when there is uncertainty

• See p. 28. F. N. 1.

† A simpler and apparent solution of this problem is as follows : Lak sanī is based on अन्ययानुपपत्ति (incompatibility of the current meaning) and hence the लक्षणाभे will include the अनुपपत्ति and hence the minimum requisite for remo ing this incompatiblity ( अनुपपत्ति ) and hence the लक्षणाभे is गङ्गातट and not विशिम्टगङ्गातट. अन्ययानुपपत्या प्रकरणी नवचा याददृश्योपपादक शाब्देव विभोकरोतु ।

as to the meaning which suits it best in a particular sentence, the determinant factors are such conditions as संयog, विप्रयोग, साहचर्ये, विरोधिता etc. Thus in the expression सशङ्खचक्रो हरि:, the meaning of the word 'Hari' which has many meanings is restricted to Viṣṇu on account of his शङ्ख (connection) with शङ्ख (conch) and चक्र (discus). When such a word after being fastened to a particular meaning in a sentence gives rise to another meaning, the function by which such a meaning is brought about is suggestion based upon अभिधा.

वाचक or suggestive word is a word endowed with the function of suggestion.

III

CHAPTER III

आर्थी व्यञ्जना (Suggestiveness of meaning)—Suggestiveness of meaning is that function of the meaning which gives rise to another meaning to be comprehended by persons endowed with appreciating genius, through the peculiarities of (1) the spoken to, (2) the person spoken to, (3) intonation i. e., characteristics of dicating emotions, (4) the stated (5) the expressed (6) neither वक्ता (speaker) and (7) श्रोता (listener) and (9)

III

The suggests before the buting cau however, wl be suggestiv

कुरू'—'I tell you, do it' is an example of the former kind. Here the expression 'I tell you' is superfluous if it is taken in a literal sense. So 'I tell you' means 'I advise you' and suggests that the advice cannot be neglected with impunity (अनुपेक्षनीयत्व). उपकृत बहु त्वं किसुच्यते—

'You have done much good to me, what shall I say of it' ? is an example of अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्य. This being addressed to a man who has caused much injury to the speaker the expressed sense is wholly inapplicable and 'उपकृतन' means 'अवकृतम्'. The suggestion is the seriousness of the injury or the crookedness and insincerity of the pietended fiend.

विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य ध्वनि is one where though the expressed meaning is not barred yet it is subservient to the suggested meaning. This kind of ध्वनि is of two kinds, असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य and संलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य. In the former the sequence of the expressed meaning in regard to the suggested meaning is not perceptible while in the latter such a sequence is perceptible. The असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य is treated first as it has fewer varieties than the संलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य. असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य has eight varieties—रस, भाव, रसाभास, भावाभास, भावशान्ति, भावोदय, भावसन्धि and भावशबलता.*

When they appear as predominant factors they constitute ध्वनि and are to be embellished (अलङ्कार्य) but when the literal meaning (वाच्यार्थे) dominates over the suggested meaning i. e., when रस, भाव and others assume a secondary character then they become embellishments (अलङ्कार) known as रसवत्, प्रेय etc. Instances of th—

are to be found in chapter V.

The author now describes the nature of रस.

[ It is necessary to explain here ————etc. A व्यभिचारिभाव is a permanence =—= (murth), शोक (sorrow), क्रोध (reentment)1 =—= etc. (fe ur), जुगुप्सा (loathing) and त्रास (f—= = —th in the mind of men but gen—=lly de—=loped into रस by fir—= र—= etc. are the causes of thee =—=—= =—= = शान्तरसादिविभाव is the persa ce

• In this connec——= =—= =—= etc (—=ते).

KĀ-P—5

produced (श्रालम्बनं नायिकादिष्वमालम्बते रसीद्गमात्). They are thus the root causes of the स्थायिभावs being called up. Thus Sakuntalā is the श्रालम्बनविभाव of the permanent feeling of love of Duṣyanta.

उद्दोपनविभावs are the inflaming or exciting causes, such as the moon, the garden, the Malayā breeze, the cooing of the cuckoo etc., in the case of the feeling of love. श्रनुभावs are the external manifestations or effects of the स्थायिभाव when called up, such as amorous glances, embraces, smiling and the like in the case of the permanent sentiment of love. A व्यभिचारिभाव or सञ्चारिभाव is a transient subordinate feeling, such as self-disparagement (निवेद ), apprehension (शङ्का ), depression (दैन्य ), lassitude (श्रालस्य ) and the like, which makes its appearance and stays for the time being and then disappears.

Bharata's sūtra about रस is—‘विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसंयोगाद् रसनिष्पत्ति:’ ( निष्पत्ति of रस is effected through the conjunction of विभाव, अनुभाव and व्यभिचारिभाव ).

[ Four different interpretations have been put on this sūtra. The interpreters Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa, Śrīśaṅkuka, Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka and Abhinavagupta have taken the word निष्पत्ति to mean respectively उत्पत्ति, श्रनुमिति, भुक्ति and श्रभिव्यक्ति which thus form the basis of four distinct theories about रस viz., उत्पत्तिवाद, श्रनुमितिवाद, भुक्तिवाद and श्रभिव्यक्तिवाद. ]

1. Bhaṭṭa Lollaṭa and his followers explain it in the following manner :-

The स्थायिभाव (i. e., the permanent feeling of love etc.) being called up by basic causes (ग्रालम्बनविभाव) such as women and excited by the exciting causes (उद्दोपनविभाव) such as gardens, and made cognizable by effects (ग्रनुभाव) such as sidelong glances, embraces etc., and developed by the transient subordinate feelings (व्यभिचारिभाव) such as self-disparagement becomes रस (poetic sentiment of love) originally produced in the character personated e. g., Rāma and subsequently recognised as subsisting in the actor by reason of his imitation. When thus recognised it becomes a source of charm to the spectator and is called रस. Thus रसोत्पत्ति caused by संयोग or the relation of जन्यजनकभाव (विभावादि being जनक or producer and रस being जन्य or produced) is रसनिष्पत्ति. This is the view of the Mīmāṃsakas and is known as उत्पत्तिवाद.

[ This theory is weak as it fails to explain how the spectator can be charmed by the emotion which is originally produced in the character

personated and is subsequently recognised in the actor and does not at all exist in the spectator himself. ]

The theory of Śriśaṅkuka is as follows :-

When a place is covered with fog looking like smoke we infer the existence of fire which is inseparably connected with smoke. In the same way when an actor personates Rāma the spectator has with regard to him the peculiar idea that ‘this is Rāma himself.’ The विभाव, अनुभाव and व्यभिचारिभावs though artificially assumed and really non-existent are also thought to be those of Rāma himself. Hence is inferred the existence of emotion (रति) in the artificial Rāma. Though an inference, it is different from ordinary inferences and gives immense delight to the spectator on account of its peculiar charm. This inference of emotion brought about by संयोग or the relation of व्यग्यव्यञ्जकभाव ( the विभाव etc., being व्यञ्जक or indicative and the रस being व्यग्य or indicated ) is रसनिष्पत्ति. This is the view of the Naiyāyikas and is known as अनुमितिवाद.

[ This interpretation is also defective as it disregards the fact that it is the direct cognition of a thing and not its inference that can give us such an extraordinary bliss. ]

Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka explains the sūtra in the following manner :-

In poetry and drama words are endowed with three powers —अभिधा (including लक्षणा), भावकत्व and भोजकत्व. भावकत्व is the power of generalised presentation (साधारणीकरण). This power generalises the विभाव, अनुभाव and व्यभिचारिभावs or in other words, by the force of this power these constituents of रस and the love (रति) of Rāma towards Sītā assume a general form giving up their specific properties. For instance, Sītā does not appear as a particular woman but as a woman in general; Rāma’s love towards her assumes a detached nature, i. e., it appears without any reference to the person who loves or the object loved. Then the generalised विभाव etc., through the power of भोजकत्व makes the रस (which appears in its general form having cast off its specific character by the power of भावकत्व) to be relished through the predominance of the gu... II...

(सत्त्व). Thus रसास्वाद through the संयोज or relation of भोज्यभोजकभाव ( विभाव etc., being the भोजक or instrumental in causing enjoyment and रस being भोज्य or the thing enjoyed) is रसनिष्पत्ति. This is the Sāṅkhya view of the sūtra and is known as युक्तिवाद.

[ This view is also not acceptable as there is no authority for the assumption of the two powers भावकत्व and भोजकत्व and further, the रति non-existent in the spectator is enjoyed through an extraordinary process. ]

4

The explanation propounded by Abhinavagupta is as follows :-

In the mind of spectators endowed with appreciating capacity (सहृदय), there remain already present the permanent feelings of love and other emotions in the form of impression (वासना). These feelings are manifested by such agencies as women and other things which are known as causes. In poetry and drama, however, they cease to be called causes and come to be spoken of as विभाव, अनुभाव, व्यभिचारिभाव etc.. When a kāvya is read or heard, or the staging of a drama is seen, there is expansion of the mind caused by the force of विभावs etc., which are recognised in their general form without any specific relation by the power of भावकत्व. The स्थायिन् (the permanent emotion) also appears in its generalised form and the spectator loses for the time being all sense of separate personality and has his consciousness merged in the universal. The emotion thus manifested becomes the source of transcendental bliss and is spoken of as रस. Thus रसास्वाद is रसाभिव्यक्ति through the संयोज or relation of व्यङ्ग्यव्यञकभाव ( the विभाव etc., being व्यञ्जक or instrumental in causing manifestation and रस being व्यङ्ग्य or manifested). This is view of the Grammarians and Ālaṅkārikas and known as अभिव्यक्तिवाद.

[ According to this theory though the manifestation of the permanent feeling in a spectator is what constitutes रस, yet its essence lies in being relished by him. रस indeed is nothing but relishment itself full of bliss, yet it is said to be relished just as objects of knowledge which are nothing but knowledge itself are said to be known. The difference between the third and the fourth interpretation is that according to the former the emotion which is not present in the spectator's mind is relished, while according to the latter the emotion is present in his mind in the form of वासना (pre-disposition).]

रम् is not an effect (कार्यं) i.e., something produced by the विभाव etc., as all effects, such as jars, are seen to exist even after the destruction of their causes such as stick etc., but रस disappears with the disappearance of विभाव etc. which are popularly known to be its causes.

रम् is manifested and as such is not something to be made known ( ज्ञाप्य ) because it is always an accomplished entity ( सिद्धावस्थ ) that can be known, just as a jar is known through the help of a lamp.

रस cannot be grasped by निर्विकल्पकज्ञान (indeterminate cognition i. e., the cognition of an object without its distinguishing properties) as the रस exists so long as the विभाव, अनुभाव and व्यभिचारिभाव exist and thus its existence after all is dependent upon the investigation of विभाव etc. Nor can रस be grasped by सविकल्पकज्ञान (determinate cognition, i e., the cognition of an object with its distinguishing properties) as रस consists in nothing but its own realisation : it absorbs the mind completely and at the time of its relish all other ideas are lost.

रस is transcendental (अलौकिक) in character and its transcendental nature (अलौकिकत्व ) is thus e-tablished.

The same विभाव, the same अनुभाव and the same व्यभिचारिभाव may relate to more than one रस. Tiger is a विभाव for भयानक, वीर, अद्भुत and रौद्र. The shedding of tears is an अनुभाव for शृङ्गार, करुण and भयानक. Anxious thoughts are व्यभिचारिभावs for शृङ्गार, करुण and भयानक.

There is no hard and fast rule that विभाव, अनुभाव and व्यभिचारिभाव— all the three should be mentioned in every poetry. Direct mention may be made of even only one of them—the other two being left to be indirectly implied.

Eight kinds of रस :– 1. शृङ्गार (The Erotic), 2. हास्य (The Comic), 3. करुण (The Pathetic), 4. रौद्र (The Furious), 5. वीर (The Heroic), 6. भयानक (The Frightful), 7. बीभत्स (The Disgustful) and 8. अद्भुत (The Marvellous).

Two kinds of the Erotic—संयोग (The Erotic in 'on' ). (The Erotic in privation).

The Exuti¢ in privation in its turn is of five kinds—the feeling of (a) afifiT (longing), (b) BIER (separation), (c) ERET (jealousy), (d) gata (residence abroad) and (e) gap (curse i.e., separation due to a curse of banishment etc.)—Examples.

Examples of the Comic and other rasas.

The basic feelings or ratyas of these rasas:—

1. Of rata (the Erotic) ... Love (रति)

2. Of garat (the Comic) ... Mirth (हास)

3. Of rata (the Pathetic) ... Grief (शोक)

4. Of rata (the Furious) ... Resentment (क्रोध)

5. Of rata (the Heroic) ... Heroism (उत्साह)

6. Of garast (the Fearful) ... Fear (भय)

7. Of gigay (the Disgustful) ... Loathing (जुगुप्सा)

8. Of gata (the Marvellous) ... Wonder (विस्मय)

The gigayriyar (subordinate emotions)—FRET (self-disparagement), agai (apprehension), atat (indolence) etc.

The gata (the Quietistic) is the ninth ram of which FRET (self-disparagement) is the basic feeling.

Definition of rata (emotion)—Love of which the subject is a god (or a bralunin, a sage, a king, a preceptor or a friend), as also a garigriyarat when suggested not as a subordinate sentiment but as a primary factor being nourished by causes like girat etc., become rata.

[The love of which the subject is a beloved is rasa.]

rasayras and garayras—when rasas and garas (gyayriyaritas such as girta etc.) are improperly manifested they constitute what are called rasayras and garayras (semblance of ras and gar).

[ Love of a man towards a woman who does not entertain any such feeling for him or the activities of a woman directed towards several men would be manifested as rasayras. Rāvana’s girta for Sītā would be garayras. ]

Of subordinate emotions (gara i.e., gyayriyaritat) there are (a) allayment (gyarti ), (b) manifestation (yday ), (c) mixture (sgrith ) and (d) variegation (gavaltā ).

[ garasrany and garagavaltā—When two opposite emotions striving for supremacy are represented as relished in one and the same place and at the same .

39

time, they constitute a mixture of emotions ( भावश्रयी ). When, however, a number of emotions, each succeeding one putting down the preceding one, is represented as not being relished simultaneously, they constitute a variegation of emotions ( भावशबलता ).

Though it is रस which is the predominant factor in poetry and the व्यभिचारिभावs (their श्राधि, उदय etc ) are subservient to it, still they also become predominant sometimes—their predominance being like that of a servant of the king whose marriage is attended by the king himself (who thus for the time being becomes subservient to his servant).

Here ends the description of the eight kinds of असङ्केतवाक्यार्थ (suggestion with imperceptible sequence)—they being रस, भाव, रसाभास, भावाभास, भावोदय, भावशान्ति, भावसन्धि and भावशबलता

सङ्केतवाक्यार्थ (The suggestive poetry in which the order of sequence between the suggested meaning and the suggestive word is perceptible) is of three kinds—(1) that in which the suggested meaning arises from the force of the word ( शब्दशक्त्युद्भव ), (2) that in which the same arises from the force of the sense ( अर्थशक्त्युद्भव ) and (3) that in which the same arises from the force of both—word and sense ( उभयशक्त्युद्भव).

[ How to determine whether suggestion proceeds from the force of a word or its sense or both ? The simple test is to see whether the word giving the suggested meaning admits of the substitution of any of its synonyms If it does ( i e, when it is परित्यक्तिमद ) then the suggestion should be regarded as arising from the force of its meaning But when the slightest change in the word mars the suggestion,( i e, when the word is not परित्यक्तिमत् ) it should be regarded as arising from that of the word When some words are परित्यक्तिमत् ( i e, can be replaced by a synonym ) and some words are not so, then the suggestion should be regarded as proceeding from both ]

Of these varieties again, the first ( शब्दशक्त्युद्भव ) is of two kinds—(1) where a figure is suggested ( अलङ्कार्यमाणि ) and (2) where matter is suggested ( वस्तुयमाणि )

Examples where figures are suggested

Examples where matter is suggested

The second division of सङ्केतवाक्यार्थ is अर्थशक्त्युद्भव (that in which the suggested meaning arises from the force of the sense) It is

primarily of three kinds : (1) when the suggestive sense is selfexistent (i.e., not owing its existence to the poet's assertion but existing by itself), (2) when it is कविप्रौढोक्तिमात्रसिद्ध (i.e., not existing by itself but by the bold assertion of the poet) and (3) when it is कविनिबद्धवक्रोक्तिप्रौढोक्तिमात्रसिद्ध (i. e., owing its existence to the bold assertion of some character delineated by the poet). Each of these suggestive factors is either a figure of speech ( अलङ्कार ) or a bare fact ( वस्तु ). Thus अर्थशक्त्युद्भव comes to be of six kinds. Each of these may suggest a figure ( अलङ्कार ) or a fact ( वस्तु ). Thus we have twelve varieties of अर्थशक्त्युद्भव.

Examples in due order of :— 1. स्वतः सम्भविना वस्तुना वस्तुनो ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a fact by a self-existent fact]. 2. स्वतः सम्भविना वस्तुना अलङ्कारस्य ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a figure by a self-existent fact]. 3. स्वतः सम्भविना अलङ्कारेण वस्तुनो ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a fact by a self-existent figure]. 4. स्वतः सम्भविना अलङ्कारेण अलङ्कारस्य ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a figure by a self-existent figure]. 5. कविप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धवस्तुना वस्तुनो ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a fact by a fact, the creation of poet's fancy]. 6. कविप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धवस्तुना अलङ्कारस्य ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a figure by a fact, the creation of poet's fancy]. 7. कविप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण वस्तुनो ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a fact by a figure, the creation of poet's fancy]. 8. कविप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण अलङ्कारस्य ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a figure, by a figure, the creation of poet's fancy]. 9. कविनिबद्धवक्रोक्तिप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धवस्तुना वस्तुनो ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a fact by a fact based upon the bold assertion of a character portrayed by the poet]. 10. कविनिबद्धवक्रोक्तिप्रौढोक्तिसिद्ध वस्तुना अलङ्कारस्य ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a figure by a fact based upon the bold assertion of a character portrayed by the poet]. 11. कविनिबद्धवक्रोक्तिप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण वस्तुनो ध्वनि: [The suggestion of a fact by a figure based upon the bold assertion of a character portrayed by the poet].

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

12. कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

[ The suggestion of a figure by a figure based upon the bold assertion of a character portrayed by the poet. ]

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

The third division of संलक्ष्य क्रमव्यङ्ग्य is शब्दार्थोंभयप्रकृत्युद्रव (i.e., that in which the suggested meaning arises from the force of both word and sense) and it is one and one only.

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

So there are eighteen varieties of व्यङ्ग्य.

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

[ The following table illustrates these varieties. ]

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

Of these again उभयप्रकृत्युद्रव (the suggestion based upon the force of both word and sense) is present only in a sentence ( वाक्य ).

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

Each of the other seventeen varieties is found both in a sentence ( वाक्य ) and in a word ( पद ).

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

So व्यङ्ग्य comes to be of 1+(17×2) or 35 kinds. Each of the twelve varieties of अभिधानयुज्युद्रव is found also in a प्रकरण (composition or a collection of connected sentences). So व्यङ्ग्य comes to be of (35+12) or 47 kinds. रस, भाव, रत्नास, भावाभास etc., (which are comprised under अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्य, and which on account of their endless forms are counted as a single variety) can be suggested (1) by parts of words ( पदांशे ), (2) by style ( रचना ), (3) by individual letters ( वर्णे ) as well as (4) by a composition ( प्रकरण ). So अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्य which is a subdivision of विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य may be said to be of four kinds.

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

So व्यङ्ग्य comes to be of (47+4) or 51 kinds.

12

कथनिवदवचनप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

K—P—6

[ The 51 varieties may be more distinctly shown in the following way :

पदवद्रिता- { 1-2. पद्यांतरमंकृतविलयाय ( पद्गत and वाक्यगत )—2 varieties.

वाक्यवद्रिता { 3-4. पद्यनांतरंकृतविलयाय ( पद्गत and वाक्यगत)—2 varieties.

पदपद्यामपरवाय. { 5-10. पदंवृत्यंकमध्यस्थ i. e., तस्मिन् ( पद्गत, वाक्यगत, पद्यांगत, अर्थांगत, वचनांगत, प्रयत्नगत )—6 varieties.

वाक्य (चमत्कारकम)

वाक्यपद्यामपरवाय-{ 11-14. पद्यगुणाढ़च ( वत्थुध्वनि—पदगत, वत्थुध्वनि—वाक्यगत, अलङ्कारध्वनि— पदगत, अलङ्कारध्वनि—वाक्यगत )—4 varieties.

वाक्य (चमत्कारकम) { 15-50. पद्यगुणाढ़च ( 12 varieties, each of them being again पदगत, वाक्यगत and प्रयत्नगत )—36 varieties.

51. अत्ययगुणाढ़च.]

Each of these simple 51 varieties has its own 51 varieties again, so the varieties come to be 51 × 51 = 2601 in number. Each of these varieties again has 3 kinds of saṃkara (commixture) and one kind of saṃsṛṣṭi (uniform conjunction). So the total number of varieties comes to be 2601 × 4 = 10404.

These mixed varieties along with the 51 simple varieties make the number 10455.

CHAPTER V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

CHAPTER V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

[ Suggestive poetry being described, the author proceeds to describe the varieties of poetry in which the suggested meaning is not more charming than the direct meaning. ]

CHAPTER V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

There are eight varieties of the poetry of subordinate suggestion ( गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयकाव्य ) according as the suggested meaning is :

CHAPTER V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

1. अगूढ (obvious i. e., capable of being grasped even by those who have no special appreciative capacity )—असहृदयैरपि झटिति संवेद्यम्.

CHAPTER V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

2. अपराजित (subservient to something else i. e., to another रस or to the direct meaning—वाच्यार्थ )—तस्मादे वाच्यस्य वा अङ्गम्.

CHAPTER V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

3. वाच्यसिद्ध्यङ्ग (an essential factor for the understanding of the direct meaning—वाच्यार्थ )—वाच्यसिद्धये निदानं वाच्यस्य सिद्धिरेव यदधीनातदिति यावत्.

4

4. अस्पष्ट (abstruse i. e, grasped with difficulty even by the appreciative minds )—सहृदयैरपि डुर्खसवेद्यम्.

5

5. सदिग्धप्राधान्य (of doubtful prominence in comparison with the direct meaning in the matter of creating charm)—सन्दिग्ध चमत्कारजनने वाच्यवयवयोः सन्देहपियवस्तु प्राधान्य यत्र तत्र.

6

6. तुल्यप्राधान्य (of equal prominence with the direct meaning in the matter of creating charm)—तुल्यमपि वाच्येन तुल्यं प्राधान्य यत्र तत्र.

7

7. काकाक्षि (rendered manifest only by intonation without which the meaning of the sentence loses its being altogether ; or manifested abruptly by intonation and thus giving no scope for ध्वनि to come in).

7

—काकुर्वचनेरकारः । तथा आक्षित् हृदयिति प्रकाशितम्, यत्काकू विनाऽपि वाच्यार्थ एव नात्मानं लभते तथा प्रकारयमिति यावत् ; काकाहेतनोऽपरस्याऽविनिमित्तं वा, अतएव यत्र मुख्यार्थस्यावाधायानुनयप्रतिनियम्बभावात् श्रृङ्गारादिवसरः ।

8

8. असुन्दर (less charming than the direct meaning)—स्वभावादेव वाच्य-प्रेयस्यान्नार.

Illustration of each of these varieties

Illustration of each of these varieties

Illustration of each of these varieties

These eight kinds of poetry of the middle kind where the suggested sense is subordinate to the direct sense have in their turn a very large number of varieties like suggestive poetry ( ध्वनिकाव्य ).

Illustration of each of these varieties

It should be noted, however, that the काव्य where a figure is suggested by a mere fact ( वाच्य वस्तु ) should be regarded not as a गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयकाव्य ( a काव्य of subordinate suggestion ) but as a ध्वनिकाव्य ( a काव्य of suggestion, the best kind of poetry ), because the beauty of काव्य rests more on figures than on the facts directly expressed and as such figures cannot be regarded as subordinate to the direct meaning.

Illustration of each of these varieties

—वाच्याद् वस्तुनोडङ्गीकृतस्य काल्पनिकतयेमे अगृहीत्स्वादिना व्यङ्ग्यप्रातिलब्धनग्नतावपनयेदुषि अलङ्कारत्कृताऽपि हि सत्ता अभ्याहतरीति सर्वत्र वस्तुनः प्रातिलन्याय्यतया ध्वनिरेव न गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयत्वमिति ।

Illustration of each of these varieties

Of the things that are suggested some are वयपसह* (i.e., capable

Illustration of each of these varieties

यत्र वस्यपमहारादपस यम* वाच्यतया चितिर्यम् व्ययति ।

of being directly expressed also) and others are not so. Of the first kind again some are विचित्र (beautiful i. e., ornamented) and others are अविचित्र (not ornamented). What is विचित्र is a figure ( अलङ्कार ) and what is अविचित्र is a mere fact ( वस्तु )†. Of the second kind (i. e., the suggested things that can never be directly expressed) are रस, भाव, रसाभास etc. So considered from the point of view of the ‘suggested’, व्यञ्जना is of three varieties. The following table illustrates it :-

Now how can an अलङ्कार, when it is suggested and thus becomes fit to be ornamented, still goes by the name of अलङ्कार (ornament) ? The answer is that it is on the नामणश्रमण्याय (i. e., the principle by which a Brāhmaṇa who has become a Buddhist ascetic and thereby has ceased to be a Brāhmaṇa is still called a Brāhmaṇa because he had once been a Brāhmaṇa).

[Now follows a discussion as to why रस etc., cannot be वाच्यतासह but can only be व्यङ्ग्य.]

If रस is to be वाच्यतासह (capable of being expressed), it should be expressed either by the generic word रस or by the specific words such as शृङ्गार, हास्य, करुण etc. As a matter of fact, none of these words can generate रस when विभाव, अनुभाव etc., are absent. On the other hand, when विभाव, अनुभाव etc., are present, रस is cognized even in the absence of words like रस, शृङ्गार, करुण etc. So the cause of the cognition of रस is विभाव, अनुभाव etc., and not any words signifying रस such as रस, शृङ्गार, करुण etc.

† श्रचायं सम्प्रदाय:—यदि लोके जातिगुणादि वस्तु तदेव कविकल्पितवैचित्र्यसंसर्गेऽपि प्रतौतं ‘वस्तुमात्र-मुख्यतया, वैचित्र्यस्याप्रीचीनसया वलङ्कार इति.’

25

रस is not capable of being presented by 'लक्षणा for the requisites of रस (मुख्यार्थबन्धाय, तयोग etc.) are wanting.*

रस is therefore व्यङ्ग्य, that is, presented by व्यञ्जनावृत्ति.

Suggestion (व्यञ्जना) cannot but be admitted as a separate वृत्ति (function) of words. We have seen its operation in the cases of रस, भाव, रसाभास etc. Its operation has to be admitted in other cases as well.

In लक्षणामूलख्यनि such as अर्थान्तरसङ्क्रमितवाच्य and अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्य there can be no लक्षणा at all without the suggestion of fact. In रसाद्राक्तिमूलख्यनि also अभिधा (power of denotation) being restricted to a certain meaning, any other meaning (which is after all a वृत्ति)† not capable of being expressed by अभिधा as also the simile (उपमा) or any other figure that may be perceptible, must be regarded as arising through the force of suggestion.

In अभिधाक्तिमूलख्यनि, suggestion (of a fact or ligure) comes out after the meaning of a sentence is understood through the help of अभिधावृत्ति. The question is whether this अभिधानवृत्ति can include व्यञ्जना.

Now there are अभिहितान्वयवादिनः and अन्विताभिधानवादिनः who hold different views as to how the sense of a sentence arises. According to the former, words have general meanings and the logical connection (अन्वय) between these meanings (पदार्थे) is known not from the words themselves but from आकाङ्क्षा, योग्यता and सन्निधि: When this connection

• पदयोः शक्तयो वाच्यौौौ ते वाक्यार्थैव प्रतिपाद्य इत्य भिधीयते ।—मु० प्र० ।

† पद्यार्थो वाक्यार्थो वा वाक्यार्थात् ।

‡ पदयार्थोः पर्याप्तत्वेऽपि वाक्यार्थबोधकत्वमाकाद्ध्यत् । गौरवात् । पद्योः इत्यादि—these words do not constitute a sentence, because they lack one of the requisites of a sentence, viz., आकाङ्क्षा ; these words have no expectancy as regards one another, i.e., when the word गौः is uttered, desire is produced in the mind to know something about the cow, but this desire is not satisfied by the word इति.

योग्यता means the absence of absurdity in the mutual relation of the things denoted by the words. A sentence like पयः शिरति has योग्यता because water has the fitness which is necessary for sprinkling. वह्निना विच्छति has no योग्यता because वह्नि has no such fitness. सन्निधि:—proximity of words being heard) without any long pause. If we utter the two words गाम् and आनय at the interval of some hours no sense will be apprehended. See Sāhityadarpana by P. V. Kane (Ch. II).

whole sentence signifies. Thus the relation subsisting between the sentence (वाचक) and its meaning (वाच्य) is understood by three means of cognition (प्रत्यक्ष, अनुमान and अभियोगपत्ति).

Another time he hears such sentences 'चैत्र गामानय'—'Chaitra, bring the cow', 'देवदत्त अशमानय'—'Devadatta, bring the horse', 'देवदत्त गाम् नय'—'Devadatta, take away the cow' etc., and from the use and non-use of different words in these sentences he comes to know the meanings of words like गो and अश्व. It must be noted that a sentence (and not mere disconnected words) can set a man to action and stop him from it (प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तिसामर्थ्य वाक्यभव) ; so वाक्य (= वाक्यात अर्थ i.e., the direct meaning) pertaining to each individual word is known only from sentences (i. e., as connected with other words). The meaning of a sentence therefore is nothing but the meanings of its component words, the relations between which meanings are involved in or form a part of the meanings themselves. It is wrong to think that each word expresses its own meaning and then the meanings of different words in a sentence become correlated with one another through आकाङ्क्षा etc.

From this it might be thought that in the sentence गाम् आनय, आनयन means गवाननित आनयन and गो means आनयनान्वित गो. But it is not so really. For, in the sentence अश्वम् आनय the meaning गवान्वित आनयन of आनय will not do. Similarly in the sentence गाम् परय, the meaning आनयान्वित गो of गो would be incompatible. If it be admitted that in गाम् अनय, आनयन means गवान्वित आनयन, in अश्वम् आनय, आनयन means अश्वान्वित आनयन and so on, innumerable meanings of the word 'आनय' will have to be acknowledged and moreover there would be no recognition (प्रतिभिज्ञा)* of the word आनय when the sentence अश्वम् आनय is heard, because आनयन here is different from all other आनयनय.

So the meaning of आनय in गाम आनय is पदार्थान्विताननयन (आनयन as related with other objects including the object गो) and of गो, इत्पदार्थाभिधित गो (*According to the dictum वृक्षेन्द्रमदोद्गतः: (गो meaning 'earth' is not the same word as गो meaning 'cow', गाननय in गामानय is not the same word as गाय in गवामनय because they have different meanings—in the former case गाय means गवाननतानन and in the latter गवाननानन ) and as such there will be no प्रतिभिज्ञा.

( गो as related to other objects including the object आनयन). In other words, in the sentence गाम् आनय, आनयन means not the particular आनयन of गो but आनयन in general and गो means not गो as the कर्मे of आनयन but गो in general, i.e., as merely related to other objects. Now the question is how from the sentence गाम् आनय does the meaning गवानितानयन (the bringing of a cow) and not अश्वानितानयन (the bringing of a horse) come to be comprehended. The answer is when different words are correlated in a sentence they denote their specific character, implied by their generic one.*

So according to the अभिधानवादिनः, अभिधाद्रत्ति (of the indivi- dual words) cannot yield the meaning of the sentence (गवानयन) in the manner in which the meanings of the words are connected with each other (गवानयनत्वरूपेण) though such a meaning is present actually in the sentence itself. It is futile to expect therefore that अभिधाद्रत्ति will yield the suggested sense ( व्यङ्ग्यार्थ ) which is understandable only after the meaning of the sentence is realized.

Now there is a maxim 'such causes only are to be supposed as are appropriate to (i.e., as are sufficient to account for) the effect'. So some say–when we see a particular expression producing a suggested sense, we should infer that it is that expression which through अभिधाद्रत्ति has given rise to that idea and should not think of any other cause. Here व्यङ्ग्यार्थ (suggested sense) or rather the understanding of the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ being नैमित्तिक (effect), शब्द (words) may be regarded as निमित्त (cause) and the वृत्ति (function) by which the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ is presented may be said to be अमिधा. In reply to this view may be said the following :–

A निमित्त (cause) is either कारक (that which produces) or ज्ञापक (that which makes known)†. Now words cannot be regarded as कारक- निमित्त of the suggested sense, as it is well-known that words do not produce the things they signify. Nor can they be regarded

• This is on the principle ‘सामान्यस्य विशेषेषु विना अप्रथग्भावनम्’. In the expression घटस्य रूपम्, the षष्ठी विभक्ति ultimately means the particular relation called सम्बन्ध, though the meaning of षष्ठी विभक्ति is सवन्तस्सामान्य (relation in general).

† In the instances विद्यया यशः and धूर्तेन वञ्जिमानं, विद्या and धूर्त are कारकनिमित्त and ज्ञापकनिमित्त respectively.

as आपकनिमित्त of व्यञ्जार्थ—if व्यञ्जना (process of suggestion) be denied, because a word, though द्यापक, cannot, through the process of अभिधा, make known a thing which has never been known as being its meaning. व्यञ्ज (what is suggested) is not known as the meaning because it is not संकेलित i. e., no संकेत has been observed that संकेत is placed on the primary meanings of words which are correlated in a sentence and not on any other meaning (such as व्यञ्जार्थ) which is known afterwards.

Others argue about the power of अभिधा in this way :—As an arrow discharged by a strong man becomes endowed with a single power namely the संस्कार called वेग, and cuts through the enemy's armour, pierces his vitals and takes away his life, so a word may, by the single power of अभिधा, bring home to us its ordinary or current 'meaning, its अन्वय and the sense it suggests. In other words, according to the maxim यत्प्रः: शास्त्रः स शास्त्रार्थ: ( यत्प्रे यत्न शास्त्रस्य तात्पर्यं स शास्त्रार्थ: ), whatever sense is apprehended as a consequence of the hearing of any words (i. e., तात्पर्य or import) is the primary meaning of those words. Thus अभिधानृत्ति is quite competent to express what is known as व्यञ्जार्थ (suggested sense).

Those who argue in this way do not realise what तात्पर्य is. The तात्पर्य of a sentence lies in what is intended to be conveyed (निप्रेय) and thus consists in the meaning directly meant by the words actually used and not in anything and everything that may be implied. If anything that may be implied be included in तात्पर्य, then पतियोगी याति (the latter man is running) might be a part of the तात्पर्य of पुंी याति (the former man is running)—पतियोगिन् being implied by पुंे (they being relative terms)

• The commentary named चन्द्रिका refutes the पाठन्तर in this way :—'न तः' आपकलसिमितस पाठ—चापकृतं विना1। न हि नियतसनिहताया मान एवं आपकतामदधते1। सवैः य हि स मानिनां fimm * आपते हति कयं आपकलस। Smoke etc, rhich are तः cf Fire etc, can = = only when they are known to have a d==te relica with the = = = In the present case, the words are not b==n to have such a' ( नियतसनिहम्म or सना1 ) with धूमः.

K-P—7

In the sentence 'रक्तं वयतु नापितः' (weave a red cloth)—the 'विवक्षित' (what is to be conveyed) i.e., the information sought to be conveyed) may involve one, two or three things according to circumstances. "(a) If the sentence is addressed to the weaver for the first time, it involves the 'विधेयता' (injunction) of three things, (1) the weaving—of (2) the cloth—which should be red ; (b) If the man had been previously told to weave, the injunction ('विधि') applies to, (1) the cloth and (2) its red colour ; (c) if the weaving of the cloth had been enjoined before, the sentence enjoins the red colour only." In 'घृतेन यजेता' (one should perform the 'होमा' with curds) the injunction about the performance of 'होमा' having been obtained from another source i.e., from the injunction 'स्वाहा यजेता' what is enjoined ('विवक्षित') here is that the 'होमा' is to be with curds. Similarly in the sentence 'लोहितोष्टिष्णोष्णीषा' 'लोहितोष्ट्रैः' (red-turbaned priests move along) the moving of the priests having been enjoined elsewhere, ( 'स्रक्ष्यत्प्रतीक्षामनाः स्वन्नः: प्रचरन्ति' ) the injunction of the sentence lies in that their turbans should be red. The 'तात्पर्य' of the above sentences lies in their respective 'विधेय's i. e., (1) (a) weaving (b) of cloth (c) of red colour (all the three), (2) weaving (a) cloth (b) of red colour (two), and (3) weaving cloth of red colour (one) ; performance of 'होमा' with curds and wearing of the red turbans by the priests. All these 'विधेय's are 'अभिधापन्न' (directly apprehended from the words actually used). 'व्यतिरेक' (suggested sense), on the other hand, is neither 'अभिधापन्न', nor always 'विधेय'.

—'वाक्यान्तर्वर्त्तिसंप्रदान्त्यैषोपस्थितेऽपि शक्तिरपां प्राप्ततया विधानमन्यंकमिति मत्वा तद्रूपकमेव विधेयत्वं यद्वा विधेयत्वं तदेव तात्पर्यं, यमिन्च तात्पर्यं म एव वाक्यार्थः' । 'नहि प्रतिपत्तिमात्रं तात्पर्यं तथा पूर्वोऽप्यधावति प्रयत्नादिमत्संवेदनात् प्रतीतेः परार्थत्वेऽपि कटा चिन्तात्पर्यं स्तात्' ।

'व्यक्तं वाक्यार्थोपात्तवाक्यावाच्च न तव प्रागुक्तनियामकं तात्पर्यं नामि शक्यरिपित भवः' ।

The 'तात्पर्य' (the real sense) of the sentence 'विषं भक्षय, मा चास्य गृहे भुङ्क्ष्या:' (lit. Eat poison and do not eat in this man's house) is that 'You should in no circumstances eat in this man's house'. This sense is not directly expressed by the sentence, but implied by it. Then how can it be said that 'तात्पर्य' is 'शब्दोपात्त' or apprehended directly from the words themselves ? The answer is that the conjunctive particle 'अ' in 'मा चास्य गृहे भुङ्क्ष्या:' indicates that the two sentences are to be construed together as one sentence and though there cannot generally be any 'अन्योन्यभाव' (the relation of the principal and the subordinate) between two complete sentences, yet (being the

advice of a friend) the sentence 'eat poison' cunnot be taken in its literal sense and as such should be regarded as subordinate to the second sentence The meaning of the first sentence thus comes to be 'Eating in this man's house is more harmful than eating poison' and this meaning is obtained by व्यञ्जना So the whole meaning is 'You should never eat in this man's house, because eating in this man's house is worse than eating poison' In other words, the sentence 'eat poison' only furnishes a reason for 'not eating in this man's house' Thus the sense aimed at does not go beyond that expressed by the words therein

Another thing If we accept the view that whatever comes into the mind after one hears certain words is the result of अभिधाप्रकृति [on the analogy of the arrow referred to above] then in the case of the sentences 'O Brāhmaṇa, a son has been born to you', 'Your unmarried daughter is pregnant' the feelings of joy and sadness that come into the consciousness of the Brāhmaṇı might also be regarded as the direct meaning of words. There would, further, be no necessity of admitting व्यञ्जना, for the gradually extending power of अभिधा [like that of an arrow] might account for the meaning obtained by it Moreover there would be no reason to suppose that of गौणी, etc.* , each preceding one is of greater authority than each succeeding one (as is taught by Jaimini) on the ground of their relative potency to express meanings earlier. For if अभिधा be the only power which expresses all meanings, then all the meanings whether they are presented by शक्ति or लिङ्ग or वाक्य etc, would come through this power at one and the same time and

• गौणसादृश्यादिप्रकर्षाणां समभिहारो वारिधौर्न्यायेन वाविकल्पनाद्विकल्पनाप्रकारः । (मी०द० शा०४) । पञ्चत्वञ्च गवादौ परं परं कृत्स्नं कत चन्द्रिक्रयां । कमिदिवा विनियोजिका न स्वातातोद्य । See भाषाप्रदीपप्रकाश and काव्यप्रकाश । परकीय पार मायो- प्रमादिवादव्यसनित । सुस्थितिर्योगी समराधी एकच कमर्शाथी (एकचोपनिपाते) परदेशतत्प्रवृत्तितः परतो दौर्बल्यं हि दृश्यते । शाब्दिक्योऽपि मज्ञे वदत्पेचया यत्न पर रादपेचया मत्स दर्शनभि याथात् । पुंस्त्वेन युगादिविषयंदिन्ति । यत्न वाच्य विगोचरे वृत्तान्तिर्नाद्रियते, विकल्पान्तराद्वाक्यकारितारादिति याथन् (Jhllık ırı's K ıyaprak ıś ın Ch v.).

thus no distinction in point of authority would be attached to any of them on the ground of expressing the meaning earlier.

If व्यञ्जना is discarded, there would be nothing to remind us of anything indecorous in expressions like रचिराङ्ग, because the portion रचि which is objectionable, meaning a private part of the female body, is not an independent word here, and, as such, cannot be correlated to any other word and denote anything by अभिधा.

Then again if the function of व्यञ्जना be not admitted as distinct from अभिधा there would be no classification of दोषs into नित्यदोष and अनित्यदोष (permanent and non-permanent defects). च्युतसंस्कृति (grammatical mistake) is a नित्यदोष being always a defect and श्रुतिकटुत्व is an अनित्यदोष being a defect when occurring in words suggesting the sentiment of love but an excellence when the sentiment suggested is रौद्र (furious). The underlying idea is that harsh sounds help the suggestion of the sentiment of resentment but retard that of the sentiment of love. For, there is no difference, in the meaning of a word (expressed by the power of अभिधा) whether used in connection with शृङ्गार or रौद्र, and as such, if अभिधा be the only function which expresses the meanings, then श्रुतिकटुत्व always would either be a दोष or a गुण and there would be no such classification as नित्यदोष and अनित्यदोष. If, however, the power of व्यञ्जना be admitted, it can explain the harsh sounds as helping the suggestion of the sentiment of resentment and retarding that of the sentiment of love and thus justify the classification of दोषs into नित्य and अनित्य.

Sometimes the synonyms of a word cannot bring out all that is intended to be conveyed by the word itself. The reason is—of synonyms some are capable of suggesting the appropriate things, while others are not. In the sentence ‘दयां गतं सम्प्रति शोचनीयतां समागमप्रार्थनया कपालिनः’—the pitiableness of the situation implied by the word कपालिनः cannot be conveyed by its synonym पिनाकिनः, though there is absolutely no difference between the denotation (वाच्यार्थे) of the two words, both being names of Śiva.

This also proves the existence of the power of suggestion (व्यञ्जना) as distinct fiom अभिधा The denotation (वाच्यार्थ) of a word is the same to all peisons but the suggested sense differs recording to the speher and the peison spoken to 'परोडस्तमन ' (the sun has set) may suggest various things It may suggest (1) the idea of taking rest for the night, when addressed by one libouret to another, (2) the idea of taking the opportunity of attacking the enemy, when addressed by the general to the king, (3) the idea of dispersing for twilight prayers, when addressed by a religious student to another, and so on

The difference between any two things is known from then having different properties and different causes The वाच्यार्थ and व्यंग्यार्थ have different properties and then causes are different So वाच्यार्थ is different fiom व्यंग्यार्थ The following seven points explain then different nature and causes—

1

स्वरूप or character—

[In some cases the expressed meaning is negative while the suggested meaning is affirmative , in others the expressed meaning is a doubt the suggested meaning is a certainty sometimes the expressed meaning is reproach, the suggested meaning is praise]

2

काल or time—The expressed meaning is comprehended first and then the suggested meaning

3

आश्रय or conveying agent—The expressed meaning is conveyed by a word, while the suggested meaning may be conveyed by a word, by a part of the word, by a letter, by style or by the meaning of a word or words

4

निमित्त or means of knowledge—The expressed meaning is understood with the help of grammar, lexicon etc, while the suggested meaning is understood from context and other things as well as by grammar etc.

5

प्राय or effect—One who understands the expressed meaning is called प्राज्ञ (intelligent), while one who understands the suggested meaning is entitled to be called काव्य (cultured), further, the expressed meaning brings about a simple comprehension (प्रतिपत्ति), while the suggested meaning causes an exquisite churm ,

6. संख्या or number--The expressed meaning is only one while the suggested meaning may be manifold.

7. व्यक्ति or the object--The expressed meaning may be intended for one person, while the suggested meaning for a different person.

Not only अभिधा (expressed meaning) and व्यङ्ग्य (suggested meaning) differ from each other but there is difference between वाचक (what is expressive) and व्यञ्जक (what is suggestive) also. A वाचक is a word expressive of the meaning which is संकेतित (i. e., the meaning on which the संकेत of the word has been placed) ; a व्यञ्जक on the other hand is not necessarily a word, because meanings are also suggestive [a meaning cannot have a संकेत on another meaning].

In गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य काव्य (a kāvya in which the suggested meaning is not more charming than the expressed meaning) also the suggested sense (which is subordinate to the expressed sense) is not denoted by the words of the sentence, nor does it fall within its import (तात्पर्य ) ; yet it is cognized and this cognition occurs through the व्यञ्जनावृत्ति. This is another reason for admitting the व्यञ्जनावृत्ति.

[ Now begins the refutation of the theory that व्यञ्जना is identical with लक्षणा ].

'रामोऽस्मि सर्वं सहिषे' (p. 213)—'I am Rāma and shall bear everything', 'रामोऽसौ भुवनेषु विक्रमगुणैः प्राप्तः प्रसिद्धिं पराम्' (p. 201)—'He is Rāma, who has attained high fame for the excellence of his valour', 'रामेण प्रियजीवितेन तु कृतं प्रेम्णः प्रिये नोचितम्' (p. 260, notes)—'O love, I who am Rāma and too fond of my life have not done what befits love,

-in these sentences the word Rāma respectively means 'one who is known to have suffered all kinds of grief' 'one who pleases everybody' and 'a cruel being'—and these meanings are लक्ष्यार्थ (obtained by लक्षणा). These meanings are also the causes of peculiar appellations like अन्यन्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यलक्षणा, अत्यन्तत्यतिरस्कृतवाच्यलक्षणा etc. The comprehension of लक्ष्यार्थ is dependent upon both शब्द and अर्थ [ लक्ष्यार्थ is brought about by शब्द, hence it is dependent on शब्द ; मुख्यार्थबाध or the incompatibility of primary meaning is a necessary condition in लक्षणा and so a knowledge of the primary meaning precedes लक्षणाज्ञान ;

and hence it is dependent on अर्थ ]. लक्षण in the above cases is obviously dependent upon प्रकरण (context) and other conditions such as the peculiarity of the speaker, the person spoken to, etc. Now it will be recalled that in व्यञ्जना also we find all these conditions fulfilled. We have seen that व्यङ्ग्यार्थs are diverse [as in the example ‘मतोदरस्तर्कः’ ] according to circumstances अधीनतदर्थसन्निधानवाच्यत्व etc., pertain also to व्यङ्ग्यार्थ. व्यङ्ग्यार्थ, for its comprehension, is also dependent upon वाच्य, अर्थ, प्रकरण etc. Then what is the necessity of admitting व्यञ्जना as distinct from लक्षणा ?

The answer to this question is as follows :-

Though there may be several लक्षणार्थs of a word, yet in the same sentence one लक्षणार्थ only is applicable, just like one वाच्यार्थ (expressed meaning) of a word which has several expressed meanings (cf. अमिधामूलत्वाच्च), but there may be many व्यङ्ग्यार्थs, of one and the same sentence Secondly the लक्षणार्थ must have a direct constant connection (नियतसंबन्ध) such as सामीप्य, सादृश्य etc, with the वाच्यार्थ, but the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ under the influence of context etc, may have an accidental connection (अनियतसंबन्ध—the connection other than सादृश्य, सामीप्य etc ), or an indirect or remote connection (संयदृसम्बन्ध—connection with something else which has a connection with the expressed meaning)* Thirdly in लक्षणा primary meaning must be barred but in व्यञ्जना this is not necessary. Fourthly it has already been pointed out that

By नियतसंबन्ध is meant such well known relations as साहत्य, सामीप्य, विरोध etc. In the verse चरा चर etc, (p 261) the expressed sense consists in prohibtion from entering the bed, whilst the suggested sense is just its opposite. Here the सम्बन्ध is विरोध and as such नियत In the verse ‘कमठा या च दोहदोऽपि’ (p. 257) the expressed sense is in wyrwardness on the part of the नायिका and the suggested sense is ‘her lips have been bitten by a bee and not by her paramour’. The connection between these two senses is not well known and as such अनियत In the verse विरतोत्तररत (p 264) the word रत suggests that his right eye is the sun, closing of this eye implies sunset, the sunset implies the closing of the lotuspetals, the closing of the lotuspetals implies in its turn the confinement of Brahmā and so on. Here the expressed sense gives rise to one suggested sense from which follows a series of other suggested senses. Hence the relation between the expressed sense and the last suggested sense is only indirect or remote (संयदृसम्बन्ध).

in प्रयोजनलक्षणा, the function of व्यञ्जना is an essential factor in bringing about the cognition of प्रयोजन. Fifthly अभिधा and लक्षणा are closely connected, as both of them are dependent on समय—the समय (convention) in the case of लक्षणा being मुख्यार्थबाध, तद्योग and either रूढि or प्रयोजन. So लक्षणा is, as it were, the tail of अभिधा. [ But व्यञ्जना has been shown to be different from अभिधा, so it is also different from लक्षणा ]. Sixthly व्यञ्जना sometimes follows लक्षणा, [so one is different from the other]. Not that व्यञ्जना always follows लक्षणा, for व्यञ्जना may be based upon अभिधा as well. Not that व्यञ्जना is dependent either on लक्षणा or on अभिधा, for it is found to be cognized even from letters and syllables which do not denote anything at all. Not that व्यञ्जना is based upon sound alone, for it may proceed from sidelong glances and other gestures. From all these considerations it follows that suggestion as a process ( व्यापार ) is far different from the processes of अभिधा, लक्षणा, and तात्पर्य and cannot be rejected.

The Vedāntins (also the grammarian Bhartrhari) hold that the meaning of the sentence, ‘comprehended, as it is, through a single indivisible cognition’ ( अखण्डैकबुद्धिनिरूप्य ), [and not through the separate comprehensions of the meanings of the words] is what is expressed ( वाच्य ) and therefore what is expressive ( वाचक ) is the whole sentence [and not the words]. According to them the suggested sense is not beyond the range of what the sentence denotes and as such the admission of a separate वृत्ति like व्यञ्जना is not necessary. In answer to this it will suffice to say that in practical life ( व्यवहादशा ) even Vedantists cannot do away with the consideration of words and their meanings. [The words and their meanings being recognised, व्यञ्जनावृत्ति may be established by various arguments cited above].

The Naiyāyikas and rhetoricians like Mahimabhaṭṭa deny the necessity of admitting व्यञ्जनावृत्ति and derive the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ from inference in the following way :-

There is certainly some relation between the suggested meaning and the expressed meaning, otherwise anything and

everything could be suggested from any word So what is involved in a case of suggestion is this—

(a) There is a constant relationship or invariable concomitance ( व्याप्ति ) between every वाक्यार्थ and the वाच्यार्थ which suggests it, the वाक्यार्थ being वाच्यपक ( साध्य ) and the वाच्यार्थ being व्याप्त ( हेतु ), or in other words, the हेतु ( वाच्यार्थ ) is in what is already known to be साध्याप्रकर्ष, that is to say, the हेतु is सपक्षसत्त्व.

(b) हेतु ( वाच्यार्थ ) does not occur in any thing which is not a receptacle of साध्य ( वाक्यार्थ ) or in other words, हेतु is नियत or विपक्षव्यावृत्त.

(c) वाच्यार्थ is found in that which is to have the वाक्यार्थ and therefore the हेतु is पक्षसत्त्व or पक्षधर्मत्व*.

So all the conditions of अनुमान viz, सपक्षसत्त्व, विपक्षव्यावृत्ति and पक्षसत्त्व ( पक्षधर्मत्व ) of हेतु are fulfilled whenever a thing is said to be suggested

As an illustration the following verse may be cited .—

भ्रम पारिक ! विश्रब्ध. स शुनकोटद् मारितस्तेन । गोदावरीकच्छविलासिना तेन ॥

[Sanskrit version of the Prakrit Sloka]

‘O virtuous man, you roam about here (at home) with a confident heart ; that dog has been to-day killed by that mighty lion, living in the bower on the bank of the Godāvarī.’

• Thus is in accordance with the explanation of the expression व्याप्तत्व नियतत्वपक्षधर्मत्वेन च अस व्याप्तत्वं, नियतत्वं and धर्मित्वं हि तत्र. Another explanation is that व्याप्तत्व implies both पक्षसत्त्व and विपक्षव्यावृत्ति and नियतधर्मित्वं हि पक्षसत्त्वं implies सपक्षसत्त्वं and पक्षधर्मत्व. व्याप्तत्वनिरुक्तनेन सपक्षसत्त्वं, नियतत्वं विपक्षव्यावृत्तत्वं, धर्मित्वं हि पक्षधर्मत्वं. तेन पक्षधर्मत्वम्.

The following instance of the inference of the व्यंग्यार्थ will make the argument clear. ‘तेन गोदावनदीतटे तेन भ्रमौकोभयताप्रपीडितम्, न तु व्रतस्थानं’ or ‘ गोदावरीकच्छव तदर्थी दीपोऽयं मे’. Here गोदावरतीतटे is हेतु, विरक्तत्व is उरु, मोहाभावप्रतिपादनं is साध्य, विरक्तत्वाद्यप्रतीतिदर्शनेन where विरक्तत्व and मोहाभावप्रतिपादनं are both found is रूप ( निधर्मसाधारण्य ).

K—P—8

[Here the inadvisability of the man's going to the bower on the bank of the Godāvarī is suggested by the speaker, who is a woman of loose character, so that she might enjoy there the company of her lover without any hindrance.]

The advice to roam about in the house (on account of safety due to the death of the dog) leads to the inference of the danger of roaming on the bank of the Godāvarī by reason of the lion's presence there. The roaming of a coward is always preceded by a certainty as to the absence of all causes of fear. And hence the advice to roam about in the house. The knowledge of the lion's presence on the Godāvarī serves as a cause of fear. [From this is inferred the advice not to go to the bower on the bank of the Godāvarī and this is suggested meaning].

So what is called the suggested meaning can be arrived at by the process of अनुमान.

This view may be refuted thus:—Even a coward (श्व-भीर i. e., one afraid of a dog) often goes to a place where there is a cause of fear for reasons such as orders of the preceptor or master, love for his beloved and so forth. Therefore the proposition 'the roaming of a coward is always preceded by a certainty as to the absence of all causes of fear' (यद् यद् भीरुभ्रमणं तत् तद् भयकारणनिवृत्त्युपलब्धिपूर्वकम्) is not invariably true. Thus the हेतु is अनेकान्तिक. And again, a brave virtuous man might fear the dog for its impure touch but, being brave, would not fear the lion. So 'the knowledge of the lion's presence on the Godāvarī' can co-exist with the opposite of what we want to establish, namely, with 'the roaming there of a coward (श्व-भीर )'. Thus the हेतु is विरुद्ध (भीरुभ्रमणेन साध्याभावेन व्याप्तत्वाद् विरुद्धस्).

And further the presence of the lion is not known from direct knowledge or inference but from the words (of a person of questionable character) and as such no reliance can be placed upon it. So the हेतु (which is the lion's presence) is असिद्ध. Thus the हेतु being अनेकान्तिक, विरुद्ध and असिद्ध cannot establish anything.

Similarly in the verse नि:श्वासव्युतचन्दनं etc., the final meaning is that the messenger friend (दूती) of the speaker went to the latter's lover for enjoyment, and this meaning is brought about

by the fact of the removal of the sandal paint from her breasts and similar circumstances. Now if the fact of the going to the man be an अनुमान, the हेतु must be 'removal of the sandal paint etc, caused by the dalliance with that man'. This हेतु is अनैकान्तिक (not invariably concomitant with dalliance), for the reason that it may be caused by other circumstances also, such as bathing and as a matter of fact, it is so stated in the verse itself. The upholder of the suggestion theory can explain it as a case of suggestion (व्यजना) due to association with the word रघम (wretch) applied to the lover (which suggests infidelity). It cannot be argued that the epithet 'wretch' may also lead to अनुमान, for the simple reason that the fact of his being a wretch is not something already known from other means of proof. [If धर्म is not known from before, it cannot be the basis of the अनुमान of वध]. As to how a word etc., can, in the absence of व्याप्ति, yield, by suggestion, the intended meaning (व्यंग्यार्थ), it may be replied that व्यजना does not need actual व्याप्ति and पक्षपनेता (conditions of valid inference) but mere possibility (सम्भावना) of these, which is never absent in a case of व्यजना.*

VI

Lowest kind of poetry (अवरवाच्य or चित्र)

CHAPTER VI Lowest kind of poetry (अवरवाच्य or चित्र) The lowest kind of poetry is of two kinds—शब्दचित्र and अर्थचित्र (called वान्चित्र also). In शब्दचित्र, चमत्कारs (i. e., वाग्देवतास—figures of speech depending for their charm on sounds, such as अनुप्रास and यमक) and in अर्थचित्र, अर्थs (i. e., अर्थालङ्कारs—figures of speech depending for their charm on meanings, such as उपमा, रूपक, वतीक etc.) are intended to produce charm. वाच्य and अर्थ do व्यजना न व्याप्तौ माति पक्षपतताया निदर्शनाय च धीयते । किन्तु सम्भावितादिप्य एव निधार्ष्यते (प्रदोष॰).

[Here the inadvisability of the man's going to the bower on the bank of the Godāvarī is suggested by the speaker, who is a woman of loose character, so that she might enjoy there the company of her lover without any hindrance.]

The advice to roam about in the house (on account of safety due to the death of the dog) leads to the inference of the danger of roaming on the bank of the Godāvarī by reason of the lion's presence there. The roaming of a coward is always preceded by a certainty as to the absence of all causes of fear. And hence the advice to roam about in the house. The knowledge of the lion's presence on the Godāvarī serves as a cause of fear. [From this is inferred the advice not to go to the bower on the bank of the Godāvarī and this is suggested meaning.]

So what is called the suggested meaning can be arrived at by the process of अनुमान.

This view may be refuted thus:-Even a coward (स्व-भीर i. e., one afraid of a dog) often goes to a place where there is a cause of fear for reasons such as orders of the preceptor or master, love for his beloved and so forth. Therefore the proposition 'the roaming of a coward is always preceded by a certainty as to the absence of all causes of fear' (यद् यद् भीरभ्रमणं तत् तद् भयकारणनिवृत्त्युपलब्धिपूर्वकम्) is not invariably true. Thus the हेतु is अनैकान्तिक. And again, a brave virtuous man might fear the dog for its impure touch but, being brave, would not fear the lion. So 'the knowledge of the lion's presence on the Godāvarī' can co-exist with the opposite of what we want to establish, namely, with 'the roaming there of a coward (स्व-भीर)'. Thus the हेतु is विरुद्ध (भीरभ्रमणेन साध्याभावेन व्याप्तत्वाद् विरुद्धम्). And further the presence of the lion is not known from direct knowledge or inference but from the words (of a person of questionable character) and as such no reliance can be placed upon it. So the हेतु (which is the lion's presence) is असिद्ध. Thus the हेतु being अनैकान्तिक, विरुद्ध and असिद्ध cannot establish anything.

Similarly in the verse निःशेषच्युतचन्दनं etc., the final meaning is that the messenger friend (दूती) of the speaker went to the latter's lover for enjoyment, and this meaning is brought about

by the fact of the removal of the sandal paint from her breasts and similar circumstances. Now if the fact of the going to the man be an अनुमान, the हेतु must be 'removal of the sandal paint etc., caused by the dalliance with that man'. This हेतु is अनैकान्तिक (not invariably concomitant with dalliance), for the reason that it may be caused by other circumstances also, such as bathing and as a matter of fact, it is so stated in the verse itself. The upholder of the suggestion theory can explain it as a case of suggestion ( व्यजना ) due to association with the word अपम (wretch) applied to the lover (which suggests infidelity). It cannot be argued that the epithet 'wretch' may also lead to अनुमान, for the simple reason that the fact of his being a wretch is not something already known from other means of proof. [If धर्म is not known from before, it cannot be the basis of the अनुमान of वधू ].

As to how a word etc., can, in the absence of व्याप्ति, yield, by suggestion, the intended meaning ( व्यङ्ग्यार्थ ), it may be replied that व्यजना does not need actual व्याप्ति and पक्षधर्मता (conditions of valid inference) but mere possibility ( सम्भावना ) of these, which is never absent in a case of व्यजना.*

VI

Lowest kind of poetry (अवदकाव्य or चित्र)

The lowest kind of poetry is of two kinds—शब्दचित्र and अर्थचित्र (called वाच्यचित्र also). In शब्दचित्र, charm (i. e., दमादिकूटक—figures of speech depending for their charm on sounds, such as अनुप्रास and यमक ) and in अर्थचित्र, अर्थ's (i. e., अर्थालङ्कार—figures of speech depending for their charm on meanings, such as उपमा, रूपक, श्लेष etc. ) are intended to produce charm. वाच्य and अर्थ do

• व्यञ्जनायां न व्याप्तिर्नापि पक्षधर्मताया निष्धार्त्यम् कचिद् । किन्तु सम्भावितादिव्यतिरेकाद्यनिबन्धनं वस्तु ( मदीप० ).

not operate quite independently of each other but the prominence of one or the other determines the name of the kārya. Thus when अर्थ is more prominent than शब्द, the kāvya is अर्थचित्र and when शब्द is more prominent than अर्थ, the kārya is शब्दचित्र. In both these kinds of poetry there is no clear suggestion of रस, though there are वीररस, अद्भुतरस and शृङ्गाररस. Hence they are अत्यन्तरसेद्दोष (almost devoid of suggestiveness) and this is what constitutes their inferiority.

VII

दोष (Poetic defects)

मुख्यार्थहतिदोषो रसह्र मुख्यस्तदाश्रयाद् वाच्यः ।। उमयोपयोगिनः स्युः शब्दार्थास्तेन तेऽपि सः ।।

[ मुख्यार्थ is the thing intended to be conveyed and anything that injures it must be regarded as a दोष or defect. In a kāvya with रस what is intended is that रस should be realized and realized without delay and that its beauty should not be impaired. In a kāvya without रस i. e., having अर्थ or meaning only, what is intended is that the meaning should be understood and under-

• रस includes भाव, रसाभास, भावाभास etc. (रसन्त इति व्याप्य रसवद्भिेन भावादिरप्यस- संगृहीयते—संकेत० ).

† तथ्य रसस्वाग्रयभूतवाच्योऽर्थोऽप्यर्थदोषैर्दूष्यते जेयः (सम्प्रदायप्रकाशिन्यौ) ; वाच्यः शब्दवाच्योऽर्थों मुख्य इत्यन्यथा; । (विवरण०). शब्दवाच्योऽपीति—एतद् वाच्यत्वव्यवस्थाः संगृहीयते (Jhalkikar).

‡ न केवलं रसवाच्यो; 'शब्दादिषु स दोषी वाच्यः । (संकेत० ).

stood without delay and that it should be charming. So anything that causes the रस to remain unrealized or the meaning to remain un-understood anything that causes the रस to be realized or the meaning to be understood at a delay and anything that takes from the charmingness of the रस or of the meaning, will be termed दोष. Thus it is evident that दोष appertains to रस and अर्थ, but as words are the substratum of रस and अर्थ, दोष is possible to be found in शब्द as well. On this consideration is based the division of दोष into three classes—रसमदोष, अर्थदोष and शब्ददोष.

'उद्रीयमतीनितिव्यतनवचनीयोऽपां सतिशयार्थः। उत्तीर्णोऽर्थश्च प्रतीतः रसवल्यपि विनिवृत्तौ धनपतृ-रसततियापि च, नीरदौ हि रसनिवृता शमत्कारकारिणी चेष्टविपया। तथा च ताहरूपतिनितिव्यतिकारकलः-स्वप्नपातासविविष्टम्। यतो हुदीय कचिद्रससादाप्तीतितरेव, कचित् प्रतोतमानसोत्पादकः', कचिदपु विग्रहः। एवं चोत्तरोऽपि काविदर्शयन् सुल्याभूतामप्यमोतितरेव, कचिद् विमर्शन प्रतीतौः, कचिदचमत्कारितेतितरेवगुणच्छिदम्'। (मम्मट०).

'दूतेपु हि काविद रसवत्यर्थौ वा धामतोतितरेव, कचिद् विमर्शने प्रतीतौः, कचिद रसव मोत्कुच्यः, काविदप्रमोदोत्रगात्रास्तपि म धमंत्कारिणीश्च; रानुकारणयच तत्रमुख्यने स च दोष एव'। (विस्वरल०).

'न केविन रसवाच्योऽपि, शद्दादिपु स दोषो वाच्यः। शद्दादौनां रसव वाच्ये चोपयोगमद्वाद्वियाः-सारितियं; । (सक्तं०).

'तदुमयाग्रयलालान् पदपदार्थेमदर्शयपि हुता मोदव्यः' । (समुदायपक्षिणो ).

The दोष which directly affects the realization of रस is a रसदोष. This is caused when in a काव्य any वयमिचारिमाव or any पद्यार्थमाव or any रस is mentioned, by its own name, when विभाव, पनुभाव or व्यभिचारिमाव which are adj erse to the रस under delineation, are described, and so on. The दोष which does not remain a दोष when the word the use of which has caused the दोष in question is substituted by its synonym is called अर्थदोष. अर्थदोष may be defined al-o as a दोष which makes itself felt immediately after the words are heard (i. e. even before the logical connection between the words is known). The अर्थ which remains a दोष even when the word the use of which has caused the अर्थ is substituted by its synonym is शब्दतोत्र. शब्दतोत्र may be also defined as a दोष which is known after the sense of the words has been comprehended and/or immediately after the words have been heard.

रसदोषानाहातोद्दोस्रामे 'स्यभिचारिकृतो-नन्वय-व्यतिरो-रसतदुपघातकरः । रसदोषः प्रत्यक्षादिनिर्देशादि-वृत्त्या त्रिधा' ।

'नत् दितियोपपय विनिदि-निदर्शनं' रसदोप्रतोयमानः। मद्वया,, ततः परं फलोत्पादन-निदर्शनं रसमा रसद्यः' । (उद्योत०).

'एवच पदपदार्थयोरपि रसादीनामुपघातकत्वं परिलक्षितम्। य मदोषो रसादि-रत रसादीनामुपघातक इति वाच्यम्' । (हैमवदृं०).

रसदोष is a direct दोष (i. c., directly affects रस), अर्थदोष is somewhere a direct and somewhere an indirect दोष and शब्ददोष is always an indirect दोष. In a काव्या having रस, रसदोष is a direct and अर्थदोष an indirect दोष. In a काव्या having meaning only (and not रस) अर्थदोष is a direct दोष. शब्ददोष impairs the charmingness of रस and अर्थ indirectly and as such it is an indirect दोष. शब्ददोष is of three varieties—पदगत, पदांशगत and वाक्यगत (appertaining to a word, part of a word and a sentence). रचना must be included in पददोष or वाक्यदोष.

तत्र रसदोषाणां साचात् विषातकत्वम्, अर्थदोषाणां कचित् साचात्, कचित् परम्परया, शब्ददोषाणन्तु परम्परयैव। ( विवरण० ) । 'ग्रस्तस्त विधा, पदं तदेकदेशे वाक्यं च, एवञ्च तदाश्रितः शब्ददोषोऽपि विविधः' । ( प्रदीप० ) .]

I. शब्ददोष*

A word is defective when it is—

1. श्रुतिकटु (unpleasant to the ear)—श्रोलिक्कतः: तन्न्वदन्ति कोविदाः ( ऋतार्थतां ) लभते कदा। Here the word कार्तार्थ्य is harsh and unpleasant to the ear. [ स्वायत्ते शब्दप्रयोगे करणोपपतापकशब्दप्रयोगेण श्रोत्रुद्वेगो रसापकर्षीय ].

2. च्युतसंस्कृति (lacking in grammatical correctness)—दीनं त्वामनुनाथते कुचयुगं पत्राद्यतं मा कृतथा:। Here the आत्मनेपद in अजुनाथते is grammatically wrong. आत्मनेपद of the root नाथ is possible only in the sense of benediction ( आशिषि नाथ:—Pāṇini, 2. 3. 55 ). ' Here the sense is begging.

3. अप्रयुक्त (unusual i. e., though formally correct, yet not sanctioned by usage). The word देवत if used in masculine form (though it is mentioned as masculine and neuter in lexicons) would be अप्रयुक्त †.

4. असमर्थ (lacking the शक्ति to signify the intended meaning in the particular usage, though it has that शक्ति in other combinations). सुरसोत्सवनीमेप हन्ति ( गच्छति ) सम्प्रति सादरम्—Here the verb हन्ति has been used in the sense of 'going', a sense which the verb, when used independently i. e., without any उपसर्ग or उपपद, cannot denote ‡.

• तत्र रसो वाक्यार्थप्रतीतिपुरैषिकः, वाक्यार्थप्रतीतिवाच्यो वाक्यस्य पददारस्यम्, पदैकदेशे गादयोऽपि पदपदार्थका इति प्रयमतः पददोषलचयममरभते—दुष्टं पदमित्यादि । ( सम्मदायप्रकाशिनो ) ।

† नापि असमर्थ हन्यादौ श्राक्त्यादिति, नैवास्युक्तिफलदतींलादौ प्रयोक्तुमत्या सामान्यसो निषिध्याभावात् ।

‡ 'घन हिंसागतो:'—इति गमनार्थं परिपठितोऽपि हनिसलतप्रायोणि स्वरूपायोभ्यः । प्रभतोद्यतलदृशादिप्रसन्नानेन गते: प्रत्यायकलेन न तत्पाठवैय्यर्थ्यम् । एवञ्च 'डुङ् हनयने'—इत्यध्ययने परिपठितस्वापीड—

5

5. निद्धतयं (used in a sense which is not generally known). The usual meaning of the word शोणितं is blood. If it is used in the sense of 'made ruddy' it will be निद्धतयं.*

6

6. अनुवृतार्थे (indicative of an improper sense)—ऋणाद्रवमेपे पशुता- सुपगता: i. e., they have attained the position of sacrificial beasts in the battle—अद्रवमेप. The intended meaning is that those who are killed in battle attain Heaven like the beasts killed in the अद्रवमेप sacrifice. Here the word पशु indicates cowardliness which is quite reverse of bravery [which is intended to be conveyed] and as such improper in its use.

7

7. निरर्थक (useless or redundant)—उदपुहकमालोकेतरपरागमौषधुते ! मम दि गौः. Here the word दि has no meaning and therefore redundant.

8

8. अतद्राचक (not expressive of the meaning in which it is used). ग्रामेऽस्मिन्नेव जनस्य जंतुनां, न जातहार्देन न विद्विदार्द्रः. The word जन्तु means 'animal' but here it is used in the sense of 'not generous' a sense which the word never expresses त.

9

9. अश्लील (indecorous). Indecorous words may imply (a) indecency, (b) disgust or (c) inauspiciousness and therefore they are of three kinds.

पातोःपि विना लख प्रयोर्गे'प्यगम्यमितेति शोभनं (Jhalikikar). समयानुरोधाश्चर्य दिवाहमिति धन्य—म । यशांसि तनोति शोकाविकलित सलज्जसु—रत्ना हृद्यो पत्तनः प्रतिपत्तिपरायणानां प्रतिष्ठां च कुरुते । समयादिने च गतो सारल्यं, न परावबोधनेदृशं (मदो०)। उचावचासु स्थितास्वापि पहिलिनिमासु । धनधातो किं न प्रयोजन् । वाक् हि तनु गच्छतोति जगन्मये कुटिलं गच्छतोति कथा (Jhalkikar). वच हनः पङ्कदंशेऽपि प्रकृतिगतान् पदमोदयां मोद्या । (उच्योत).

• गुरुद्रव्यं काचिद् प्रयोर्गेऽप्यमुख्यकुढेरः (मदी०प०). काचिदति—अर्थमकादित्यनतिकृत्यम्‌ पि काचिद्देशः । चमत्कृतु श् तु देयमकादिनोंधाय एव मयति ततो भेदः (Jhalkikar).

† वच पुरोऽद्वार्तिदपपतिषातकतया दावते न विश्चित्रमिति द्वितीयाश् तद्विपरीतद्रव्यंक जनु- पदमद्रातं प्रपुमन् (मदो०प०). An अवचनद् word though generally incapable of expressing the intended meaning does so in certain cases (e.g., the root द्रु can express the meaning 'to go' when used with an उपसर्ग or अवसदः), while an अवाचक word can never express the meaning intended to be expressed by it. पथाद्यच् विश्चित- तपरिद्विः कापि न वाचकं याति श्लाघ्यते । वचा पशुमर्याद्रितः ताम कवितां श्लाघ्यताम । (मदी०प०).

(a) साधनं सुमहद यस्स—He whose साधन or 'army is vast. The word साधन means also, the male organ and as such is of indecent implication.

(b) मुरधा कुड्मलिताननेन ददती वायूं स्थिता तत्र सा. Here the word वायु reminds one of अपान वायु and as such arouses disgust [ अत्र वायुशब्दोऽपान- वायूं स्मारयति, न तु तदर्थतया वाच्यसुपपद्यते ].

(c) मृत्पवन्नविमिश्रो मत्तप्रियाया विनाशात्. Here the word विनाश means अदर्शन (disappearance) but has an inauspicious implication, namely, death.

10

सन्दिग्ध (ambiguous)

—आशीः परम्परां वन्ध्या कण्णं कृतच्हा रुपां कुरु. Here the exact meaning of the word वन्ध्या is doubtful. It may be taken as a qualifying adjective to आशीःपरम्परां and may mean 'you extend your mercy to us after hearing our reverent and continuous benediction. It may also be taken as the locative form of the word वन्दी (a forcibly captured woman) and may mean 'after hearing the continuous benedictions, may you extend your mercy to the captured woman'. Thus the word वन्ध्या is ambiguous.

11

अप्रतीत (not easily intelligible being used in a sense known only in a technical literature)

The word आशय in the sense of वासना is a technical expression known only to the Yogasāstra, and as such, if used in a kāvya would be अप्रतीत.*

12

ग्राम्य (vulgar)

—(तव) कटि: शृ हरते मनः (your buttocks also captivate my heart). The word कटि is vulgar ; words used by cultured people to signify buttocks are श्रोणी, नितम्ब etc.

13

नेयार्थ (used in a secondary or figurative sense which is not admissible)

—तव मुखं चन्द्रं चपेटापातनातितिथिं (recipient of a slap) करोति. Here चपेटापातनातितिथिं by लक्षणा means निर्जितम् (surpassed). Here लक्षणा is not based upon रूढि or upon any special purpose to be served ( प्रयोजन ).

14

ऋष्ट (obscure)

—अत्रिलोचनसम्भूतज्योतिरिदमभासि: सदृशं तव चेष्टितम् (your conduct or fame is like those that bloom with the rise of the

• नलोऽर्थकतया श्रुतानुशासनगतिरिक्काशास्त्रमात्रप्रसिद्धमित्यर्थः । श्रतएव श्रप्रयुक्तादि भेदः, तत्त्वन्यापि प्रसिद्धः । (प्रदीप०).

65

luminary born of the eyes of Ati ( तव चक्षितं चरित यत इष्यर्थ; अतिलोचनाल-

सम्भृत यद् ज्योतिषचन्द्रशकृतयौषधीम उदयेन भासिमिरभांशनीलैः । कुसुमैरितस्य., सदृशाम् )

[ Here by 'the luminary born of the eyes of Ati' is meant the moon and by 'those that bloom with the rise of the moon' we meant the white lilies. Thus the meaning of the whole thing is 'your fame is as white as the white lilies'. Here the comprehension of this meaning of the compound 'पतितलीकनकभूषणोज्ज्वलि' , is hampered by the fact that 'पतितलीकनकभूषणोज्ज्वलि' may mean also the brightness coming out of the eyes of Ati and further that with the rise of the moon bloom not only the lilies but other flowers as well.—

ध्वनिमागण्य —पतिलीकनकभूषतेल्ज्ज्वलिति सामग्र्योदनयौषधाविपि श्लाघनीयोचैनसहृतेत्ल्यनेन विनिश्चेतुमिप्रदेशे

चन्द्रस्य न दृगुपर्याप्ति, चजूष्मृतिपयोधिपि तथा लात चन्द्रस्याभिलाषिनः कुसुमस्यापि न दृगुपर्याप्ति। चन्द्र

विलासकानां मानसरोधारामेषु—Jhalakṣar].*

15

अविवक्षितविप्रतिषेध (of unemphasised predicate).

[Every sentence is made up of two parts उद्देश्य or प्रतिपाद्य and विधेय. उद्देश्य or प्रतिपाद्य is the subordinate and विधेय the principal factor in the sentence. चहेतु is a thing already known and विषय is a thing with which we want to establish a previously unknown connection of the उद्देश्य by means of the sentence. उद्देश्य is the subject and विधेय is what is said of the subject i e., predicate. In the sentence मद्रारामं पेयाम् the उद्देश्य is महाराज and the विधेय is its पेयता (drinkableness). When the विधेय is so put that it is not known as the predominant element of the sentence, i, e., when due emphasis is not put on the विधेय, the fault that arises is known as अविवक्षितविधेय.—

प्रतिपाद्येन प्रणिदेशेऽतो विधेयांशो यद् यत । प्रतीयतेऽप्रतिपत्तव्यो विप्रतिषेधतियोग्यता ( प्रदीप० ).

इदमेतिहोत्प्रतिप्रियाभावविवक्षाविगलनन्यासम्—यच्चाप्रतीपमिति सिहतेन प्रतीमानमनुवाद्याहियम्, तदादि-

मद्राराजपुत्रीयमुखकमलविधेयं शशपुष्पशोभिविप्रियाभूतू, तद्रियं, यथा 'य कियाजानु न प्रवित्स' इत्यादि

क्रियाज्ञानादिगोचरीभिमत प्रतिपत्ते: सदुपपत्तिमुपेत्य तत्र विधेयते, तद्यापि यथेच्छतद्धि स च्चप न म्रुच्यते

तथापि गम्यते सार्तिनि (Jhalkṣar)].

In the verso ममांशुकुसुमचादर्-etc, the intended meaning is that the greatness of my (Rāvaṇa's) heads has turned out to be false as I have to make an effort to guard my city and not that my heads have already false greatness. 'विध्यामधिशिराम' is an adjective to ममांशुक, and has been used with a view to emphasise the

• नित्यान्तदीपोपनय (नित्यसम् शावनततिशयेन विधिरहिमतिकृत्यच) पदात्परमाह्लयनैष सम्भवति ।

मदा च यदि तस्मे, पदयोः समासतश्च समाहार्निरूपणायाम् पददोषता। यशमादृशमाश्रयि ममाश्रया न पदार्थस्तर, रतोपपदनिरूपितेयेपैच श्लाघ्यादिति ( प्रदीप० ).

एते च नित्यादपि समाश्रयता एव पददोषा ( माहिम्यदर्शन ).

K-P—9

मिथ्यात्व of महिमा, but मिथ्या being an adjective to महिमन् is a कर्मधारयसमास, it is in a relation of subordination ( उपसर्जन ) to महिमन् and hence it could not express the required emphasis and thus we have अविमृष्ट-विधेयांश here. If we express the same idea by an adjective i. e., keeping the word मिथ्या by itself (not part of a compound) and assigning it a proper position in the sentence, then this fault would disappear.*

विरुद्धमतिकृत्

विरुद्धमतिकृत् (of repugnant signification)—अकार्यमित्रमेकोऽसौ (He alone is a friend without any selfish motive). Here the word अकार्यमित्र is विरुद्धमतिकृत inasmuch as it may give rise to another idea also, viz., a friend in अकार्य or evil deeds. The words भवान्ीपतिअन्विकारमण etc., are equally विरुद्धमतिकृत. The former means the husband of भवानी (the wife of भव i. e., of शिव) and thereby gives rise to the signification that the goddess has a husband other than भव ; the latter also gives rise to a signification which is repugnant, its literal meaning being 'one who delights in the company of अम्बिका (mother).'

Excepting च्युतसंक्रतित्त्व, असमर्थत्व and निरर्थकत्व, all other aforesaid दोषs occur in वाक्य (sentence) also ; and some of them occur in parts of words ( पदांश ) as well.

[ When a दोष occurs in more than one word mutually related with cach other by शाब्दार्थ, the दोष becomes a वाक्यदोष ; when it occurs in a single word in a sentence it is पददोष. Now च्युतसंक्रतित्तल, असमर्थत्व and निरर्थकत्व are दोषs which make the words affected by them devoid of meaning and thus incapable of having any logical connection (अन्वय) with other words in the sentence and as such, such words cannot have any शाब्दार्थ with other words. These दोषs cannot, therefore, be वाक्यदोषs.—

• मिथ्यामहिमत्वं 'महिमा मिथ्या' इति रैल्या महिन्नो मिथ्यात्वम्, अनुवाद्यम् उद्देश्यम्, प्राप्तस्य धर्मान्तरप्राप्तये कथनमुत्तेष्; ; विधेयं साध्यम्, अप्राप्तस्य प्राप्तये कथनं विधानम्। उद्देष्यविधेयोः पृथक्-निर्देश एवोद्देश्यविधेयभावप्रतीतिः: (विवरणख० )।

ऋतैवंविधानाम् एतत्कथमसुचितमियतो महिमा मिथ्येति मिथ्यात्वस्य विधेयत्वं विरुचितम्, तच्च न प्रतौयते, उद्देष्यविधेयोः पृथक्-निर्देश एवोद्देश्यविधेयभावप्रतीतेः; समासे चैककार्यीभावाद्वैकार्येषतरपदार्थान्वित-तयैव शाब्दोऽपक्षित्या गुष्पीभावेन*विधेयस्यैव निरोऽहादविमृष्टविधेयांशत्वं दोष: (Jhalkikar)

† Ibid. p. 45 (notes).

'सकारादनुपादसिद्दयेऽपि वाक्यदोषः । श्रुत्यनुप्कारदूषितया सभा्वादेवानन्वयबीजेऽथवदोषयोग्या-

नामन्वयोद्भवने पदान्यविरुद्वप्रयुक्तविरुडेरण साकाङ्क्षालम्बनावृतं काव्यदोषत्वमिति तेषा वृत्तम्' (सर्वस्वोधिनी)।

'चमू ग्रहृ पदातिरमादियुक्त पदात्य डष्टल स वाक्यदोषः । विविधतथ्यमिंप्रत्यायकगद्यहस्तिले सति

नामापदस्खलितमेवात्र वाक्यदिलषितमितेतम्' ( महीव० )].

Examples of श्रुतिदुष्ट etc., occuring in काव्यड.

Examples of श्रुतिदुष्ट etc., occuring in पदादुष्ट.

[ Now follow the दोषs ( पददोषs ) that occur in वाक्यs only.* ]

That वाक्य (sentence) is defective which is :-

1. प्रतिकूलवर्ण (full of discordant letters).

[It will be seen in Ch. VIII that certain letters help the suggestion of certain रसs and retard that of others. The letters which are in consonance with the suggestion of a रस are said to be चतुष्टल (helpful) in respect of that particular रस and the letters which are not so, that is, whch instead of helping retard the suggestion of that रस are said to be प्रतिकूल (hostile) in respect of the same. I'or instance, टवर्ग and other harsh letters of the kind of ट, ठ, etc., would be प्रतिकूल (hostile) to श्रृङ्गार and soft letters like ल, न, etc, to रौद्र.-तथा प्रतिललष्यो विवक्षितरस्सादि। प्रतिकूला कान्तगुणा वर्णा यथ तनु, टवर्गो मदनप्रतिकूलः ।

'कटुता'—ह्यादिना प्रतिकूला। रौद्रे मृदवो वर्णाः प्रतिकूला, घोरस्वनिन रसेऽपि विकटवचन्तस्य

दोषेऽप्यमलस्य कान्तगुणदलात् ( प्रदीप० ) ].

2 & 3. उपहासतिसर्ग and च्युतविसर्ग (i. e., when by euphony the विसर्ग is transformed into ओ or too frequently, as also when it is too frequently deleted).

सीतो विनीतेऽपि निघृणो वराकारो नृपोऽन सः ।

यस्य भ्रूत्या भलवात्तिका भक्ता भुवि भ्रामिता ॥

[In the first half of the द्विपदं has been changed into ओ five times and in the second half it has been deleted thrice].

4. विमिध ( b ud as regards euphonic combin ition) This defect ( विमिधता ) may manifest itself in three ways—(1) in the euphonic combination not being done, (2) in the euphonic combination engeeting something indecorous and (3) in the euphonic combin ition

मतिर्हदयादनादिकं साक्षो एव म नु पदादिव्यसति भवत् । यदापि एकाकिन्देश पत्ते न च - मते

दितिक-चन्दन प्रफुल्लिते, राधापि शरारतरवनेन ,

giving rise to harshness. As regards (1), when the euphonic combination is not done even when rules permit it, a single such instance will make the sentence defective; if, however, the euphonic combination is barred by grammatical rules, then the want of euphony will give rise to the defect विसन्धिता, if it occurs more than once in the sentence.*

हतवृत्त (of bad metre)

हतवृत्त (of bad metre). This defect also may manifest itself in three ways :-(1) When the metre inspite of conforming to all formal conditions becomes unpleasant to the ears i. e., unmelodious, (2) when the last syllable of the foot is not elongated and (3) when the metre is not in conformity with the रस depicted.

न्यूनपद (deficient in words)

न्यूनपद (deficient in words). This defect arises when a वाचक word (i. e., a categorematic word having a वाच्यार्थ as opposed to योतक words, उपसर्ग etc., which have no वाच्यार्थ; vide no. 13—अनभिहितवाच्यत्व ) which is necessary to convey the intended sense is wanting.

अधिकपद (of redundant words)

अधिकपद (of redundant words). This defect arises when words without which even the intended meaning can be arrived at are used.

कथितपद (of needlessly repeated words)

कथितपद (of needlessly repeated words). This defect arises when the same word in a sentence is unnecessarily repeated.

पतत्प्रकार्ष (of diminishing excellence, i. e., when the excellence with which a sentence was started is not maintained to the end)

पतत्प्रकार्ष (of diminishing excellence, i. e., when the excellence with which a sentence was started is not maintained to the end. अलङ्कारकुतस्य वन्धकृतस्य वा प्रकार्षस्य यल्लोत्तरोरोत्तरं पातो निकर्षः—प्रदीप० ).

समाप्तपुनरारम्भ (resumed though concluded, i.e., when a sentence, though logically complete, is enlarged by the addition of an adjective to the subject or the predicate)

समाप्तपुनरारम्भ (resumed though concluded, i.e., when a sentence, though logically complete, is enlarged by the addition of an adjective to the subject or the predicate. निराकाङ्क्षवमन्त्र दूषकतावीजम् ).

अर्धान्तरैकवाचक (i. e., when a word required in the first half of a sentence is placed in the second half with which it has no syntactical connection)

अर्धान्तरैकवाचक (i. e., when a word required in the first half of a sentence is placed in the second half with which it has no syntactical connection).

• विरूप: सन्धि: सन्धिकृतो यतः । वैरूप्यं च त्रिधा—विशेषपदोच्छलं कष्टलक्ष्य । विशेषेप्सु प्राप्तस्य काव्यस्य संहिताकाङ्क्ष्यभाव:। स च रौतिक: श्राम्नुशासनिक्य । श्राम्नुशासनिकयोरपि वाक्यमानो दोषाय, दृश्य-निवस्मान्तलेंगशक्तिमूलकतया प्रयत्नत एवं सहृदयैर्ज्ञेयकत्वात् । श्राम्नुशासनिकलनारत्नप्रकरणानुसारेणोभयकराया वाक्यपार-धेैषैन हि दोषत्वम्, तच्च ऋषकृतप्रयोग एव ( प्रदीप० ).

12

12. अशब्दगतयोग (devoid of connection i.e., in which the connection which two words in a sentence are intended to have is not clearly brought out).*

This may be due to the use of different विभक्तिस् where the same विभक्ति should be used, to the non-use of requisite words, to the lack of आख्यात etc.

13

13. अनन्वितवाच्य (i.e., in which occurs the omission of चोतक words†, the use of which is absolutely necessary in the sentence).

14

14. अस्यानसंपद (of misplaced words).

[When words are misplaced in a sentence, they may convey an idea quite different from the intended one. कचिद् गतः means 'some one did go'. In order to express this meaning we should not say न कचिद् गतः did go'.]

15

15. अस्यानसथसमास (of misplaced समास i. e., in which a long compound occurs where it should not be, but does not occur where the suggestion of the रस requires it).

16

16. संकीर्ण (of confused words, i. e., where the words of one sentence are mixed up with those of another).

17

17. गर्भित (of a parenthetical expres-sion, i. e., in the middle of which occurs a sentence which is parenthetical in character).

18

18. प्रसिद्धानतिक्रान्त (opposed to usage).

[If the word रस (sound) which is generally used to signify the noise made by frogs and such other animals is used to signify the roar of the lion, it will be opposed to usage].

• There is no difficulty in understanding the वाक्यार्थ (logical connection) in a sentence having विशिष्टार्थविपर्ययोत्पत्त but in a sentence in which शब्दार्थविपर्यय occurs, शब्दय is not understood at all.—शब्दः शब्दकलो मत हतो यौगो हरः * वाक्यार्थविपर्ययात्प्रभृतिस्थामांश् उपजीव्यतेन मत्नः—रुचि कैश्चि। वितयोगस्योद्भवः, परं सन्निमित्तेन तेनाप्यनुकार्य एव कः, न तु वाक्यं नवा रसस्य महान् हि: ( हतः ).

† पाक्षपातादिनिमित्तानां व्यस्तानाम् ( अनन्वितवाच्यम् ). देहाद् उचःत इव स्त्रीषु—ननु पर्यनुयोगो—ऽयम् अनन्वितवाच्यत्वे हेतुः किम् अनन्वितत्वं वाच्यत्वस्य हेतुः, उत वाच्यत्वम् अनन्वितत्वस्य? नाद्यः; तदा हि सति do not possess any meaning as their own cum =eve to existing—lying hidden in connected words.

19

भन्नप्रक्रम (of broken uniformity, i. e., in which occurs the breach of the uniformity of expression)

19. भन्नप्रक्रम (of broken uniformity, i. e., in which occurs the breach of the uniformity of expression). [The mention of a word for the first time is known as the निर्देश of the same. Its repetition with a purpose in view is प्रतिनिर्देश ( उदाहरणस्योक्तस्यैव पुनः कथनं प्रतिनिर्देशः ). When such a repetition becomes necessary, it should be done in the same form in which it was originally used. The use of its synonym will not do, because in that case the comprehension will be delayed owing to the delay in its recognition. The दोष that would arise from the use of its synonym when the word itself is to be repeated, is a kind of भन्नप्रक्रमता. उद्रेति रविचा तामसीम् एवं तामसी च—here the use of the expression रस एव तामसी च would give rise to this defect. There is a rule propounded by Vāmana to the effect that generally a word should not be repeated twice in the same sentence ( नैको पदं हि: प्रयोज्यं प्रायेण ). This rule should be taken to apply to cases other than निर्देश and प्रतिनिर्देश*]. प्रक्रम (uniformity) is to be maintained not only in regard to प्रकृति (noun and verbal root) but in regard to सर्वनाम (pronoun), पर्याय (synonym), वचन (number), क्रम (order), कारक (case) etc.

20

अक्रम (out of proper order i. e., in which words like च, इत्थम् etc., are not placed where they should have been)

20. अक्रम* (out of proper order i. e., in which words like च, इत्थम् etc., are not placed where they should have been).

21

अमतपरार्थ (of undesirable second meaning or suggestion i.e., in which a रस repugnant to one under delineation is suggested by the words used)

21. अमतपरार्थ (of undesirable second meaning or suggestion i.e., in which a रस repugnant to one under delineation is suggested by the words used).—अमतपरार्थम् अमतः परार्थो द्वितीयार्थो यस्मि तत्र । अमतत्वं च—भीर्या श्रृङ्गारवीभत्सौ तथा वीरभयारकौ । रौद्राद्भुतौ तथा हास्यकरुणै वैरिणौ मिथः ॥ इत्यादियुक्तदिशा प्रकटतरस विरुद्धरसव्यअकत्वम् ( प्रदीप० ).

B. अर्थदोष

B. अर्थदोष. A meaning ( अर्थ ) is defective when it is :—

1 अपुष्ट (not assissting or feeding the sen ce, i e, irrelevant)

अतिवितततगगनसरसरणनिप्रसरणपरिस्फुटविविधविमानानन्द —Here the adjective अतिवितत (very wide-spread) used in respect of गगन (sky) is superfluous as the word गगन itself implies the idea of vastness which is desired to be conveyed

[ In both ऋतिपदल and पुनरुक्त there is a redundant word, but the differ ence between the two is that in the former the meaning of the redundant word is not intended to be conveyed, while in the latter it is intended to be conveyed, but being obtuned from another source, viz, from the implication of some 'other word used in the sentence, its expression by a separate word is unbecoming —तथा च यत्रद्विरुक्तिपदस्य काचिद्विवक्षाविनिवृत्त्याडSमिधीयते, तत्राधिपदं, तत्रापुनरुक्तम्,

न तु पदेन बिनापि सन्निरूच्यते। यत् तु शेषत्वं विवक्षितं चेत् परं लम्प्रयोजकलायनलस्यध्वार्यो गगनं दीपायचमत्कारयुपपम्। 'अतिवितत'—इत्यादौ वतिविततत्वलक्ष्यैका वकुर्वे वचचिमैव, पर लर्थेनाध्यवासितया दीपादानामिलचुपम् (प्रदीप°).

In पुनरुक्तता the principal meaning ( मुख्य ) of a word is repeated by its sy nony m but in अपुष्टता what is repeated is the meaning obtained from its implication —अर्थान्तर न विलतले यत् मुख्यम्। पदस्यलयर्थे च न पुनरुक्तता। यदृक् भोजराजेन 'काव्येSतिशायादि फलेहृण्या साधारदभयानपीनककत्वात्' इति। पुनरुक्त शब्देन प्रतिपाद्ये स्वति पुनरुक्तैन प्रतिपादित 1 शयेन प्रतिकपदस्य पतिपादनेपुष्टलस्सुकुम्। (प्रदीप° ) ]

2 कष्ट (obscure or very difficult to be understood)

3 व्याहत (Inconsistent)

[ The inconsistency may arise in this way a thing is described as excellent or insignificant in the first half of a śloka, but the description in the second half leads to the implication of just its reverse In the verse शशिनं etc , —moon light is described as insignificant in the first half In the second half, however, it is regarded as imparting excellence Hence the inconsistency †]

4 पुनरुक्त (repeated).

[ When the meaning is repeated through the same word, it is ऋतिपदल but when there is such a repetition through its sy nony m it is पुनरुक्तता‡]

• य था मदगजरपि केनापि मदयोत्पाद इवासीद इत्य एकवार एव इक्ष । हितवार्द्धिक तु मद्दोष । 'घनान्नारे पारदृश्वे मतो । यथाकपोतिततिरश्वर दृषद्वातचोभयम् । यतो हि दोषौ कवयो दूषयत'

† व्यासक्तौ वाक्यकौ वा मात्रम् यत्रैव दूषयते । तत्रैव मदर्थयेद् व्याख्यात्तोयदर्‌वा मणु ।। मदनुमानाच्चिदृश्यते (प्रदोप)

‡ पुनरुक्त शब्देन प्रतिपाद्ये घति पुनरुत्रैन 'ऋतिप्रक्ता । 'अदहम्—तेनैव न तु तत्पयायपयार्शब्देन । तद् य पदसन्नादरम् न कदिन्द्रियगुम्। परिहिनोत्यवदातदेहनिदेशे (Jhalkhikar)

5. क्रम (of bad order, i.e., when the due order of narration is broken). उदाहरण (देहि) तुरगं मे मातङ्गं वा मदालसम् (Give me a horse or an elephant). Here the correct order would have been to mention मातङ्ग first as the gift of the मातङ्ग (elephant) is the larger of the two gifts (of मातङ्ग and तुरङ्ग). [ It is a universal rule that a man makes the smaller gift when he is unable to make the larger one.—गुरुदानात्यक्तौ न्युद्रदानाचिल्यात् ].

6. ग्राम्य (vulgar, i.e., when it implies a vulgar idea).

7. सन्दिग्ध (ambiguous i.e., which cannot be definitely understood without a knowledge of the context etc.).

[ Here there is no ambiguity as regards the meaning of any word and hence its difference from पदसन्दिग्धता (p. 64)—वाक्यामित्यादौ द्वितीयारूपसद्यन्वलाभ्यां पदैर् एवं सन्देहोऽत्र पददानमसन्दिग्धत्वं सत्यंव स इति पदसन्दिग्धत्वाद् भेदः—प्रदीप० ].

8. निर्हेतु (inconsequential i.e., when the reason of an action, though not well-known, is not stated).

9. प्रतिषिद्धविरुद्ध (contrary to current notions—prevailing among ordinary people and poets).—The description of the Love-god (काम) as holding a disc (चक्र), of the touch of a woman's feet causing the appearance of sprouts (अङ्कुरोद्गम) on the Aśoka tree etc., would constitute this defect. [ But when the description is in keeping with poetic convention, the meaning will not be defective. Thus fame, which is not a material object and has no illuminating power may be described as illuminating like moon-light. ]

10. विद्याविरुद्ध (contrary to विद्या ). विद्या means here the several śāstras such as धर्मशास्त्र, अर्थशास्त्र, कामशास्त्र, योगशास्त्र etc. बुधो निशीथिन्यां स्नात्वा शास्त्राणि न्याचष्टे (The learned man expounds the śāstras after bathing at midnight). The idea is contrary to धर्मशास्त्र according to which bathing at night is prohibited except on the occasion of an eclipse.

11. अनवीकृत (monotonous i.e., wearisome on account of the lack of diversity in narration caused by the frequent repetition of an expression).

[ In कचितपदत्व the defect of repetition can be mended by the substitution of an expression having the same sense but in अनवीकृतत्व the substitution of

such an expression will not mend the defect by changing the way of narration. Further, the repetition occurring in one and the same sentence constitutes कवितापदत्व, while वाक्यैकत्व anises when the repetition occurs in different sentences.—ध्वन्यालोककारैयोऽपि भवर्देकृषद्भपरतायां कषाङ्क-योर् ( प्रदीप० ). भामटरेखा निदर्शयति नवीकृतालं तमात्' इत्यादिप्रदेशेषु मकरन्दकान्तैरपि उत्कृत्यार्थान्तरभावात् कथनवीकृतत्वं इति कवितापदत्वाद् वेदः ( विशरण० ). ध्वन वाक्यमेदात्र कवितापदेनलम्भावाद्वाक्यैकत्वान्निर्मलत्वम् ( कुमार० ).

अर्थानियमपरिदृष्ट

[ In वसन्तपञ्चमी and पुनर्मिलिततयापि the word, the meaning of which is intended to be conveyed, is omitted, while in सार्थानियमपरिदृष्ट the meaning of the word omitted is not intended to be conveyed by the poet and the omission of the word does not cause any difficulty in understanding the अर्थ.—न च मूत्रपदले इदमभिहितत्वाच्छते वादनुप्रयम्। तात्पर्याद् दिविधाने तयोः प्रयोगात्। विधिव्यवहिते लिङ्गुपपदादुपपादयुपपादान् एव न्यायेनोपसंहरति भाषः ( 'पदार्थहकितार्घवशेः' इति श्लोके ) 'त्रिनायनद्योत्पलस्य तस्या वय्यनुप्रेक्षणादानभिहितत्वाच्चलमपोति भावः ( उद्दयोत० ) ].

अर्थानियमपरिदृष्ट

[ The additional word causing restriction does not give rise to अधिकपदत्व, because in अधिकपदत्व the meaning of the redundant word is not desired to be conveyed, while, if such a meaning is desired to be conveyed by the poet, it will constitute अर्थानियमपरिदृष्ट.—यथाऽऽनर्थकतयोपेयापिर्वा पदिकार्थी न विरुध्यते-मतोऽधिकपदत्वम्। प्रकृतेऽपि एवंकारः: कचिद् विस विचित पृथक् तु म स दोष इति भावः ( 'वाक्यामियों' इति मं.कं) 'शुद्धे दोषः' इति द्विविधाने च्युतानुपदतेति मोघयं ( उद्दयोत० ) ].

विशेषपरिदृष्ट

विशेषपरिदृष्ट (devoid of necessary particularization). In the example द्यामां इद्यामनिमानमानयत etc., the word द्यामा conveys the meaning of 'nights' in general. Here the meaning bright or moonlit night is intended. Hence the meaning should have been particularized by the use of the word ज्योत्स्ना (a moon-lit night).*

अविशेषपरिदृष्ट

अविशेषपरिदृष्ट (endowed with an unnecessary particularization). मकरालय, अमुने रसाति मातृमंस्रः: fi मेघयोमेन मवतो न काम् (O, abode of

• यानि कौतुबनिदाघिकां रत्नोष्मपिशारिकाः—पथि मन्याविरहिते ( आश्रमद० ).

K-P—10

alligators, do not ill-treat these gems, what has not the Kaustubha done for you ?). Here what is intended to be said is that one gem even has done much for you and therefore you should cherish kind feelings to all of them. The statement of reason therefore should appear in a generalised form like ‘एकेन अवन्तः हि नो कथम्’*.

16

साकाङ्क्ष

16. साकाङ्क्ष (of unsatisfied expectancy i. e., incomplete, a word necessary to make the sense being absent). ‘उत्कर्षेण परस्य मानयशसोर्विंशंसनं चात्मनः । स्त्रीरत्नं जगत्पतिदर्शमुखो देवः कथं मृष्यते ॥’ (How can you, the ten-faced lord of the world, bear the superiority of the enemy, derogation of your own honour and fame, as well as the jewel among women). Here the meaning would be comprehended if we only add the word उपेक्षितं after स्त्रीरत्न [otherwise the meaning remains uncomprehended). Hence it is साकाङ्क्ष.

[ The conjunctive particle च occurring thrice indicates that the poet intends to connect the verb मृष्यते with स्तोरत्न as with उत्कर्ष and विंशंसनं. The sentence कथं स्तोरत्न मृष्यते is, however, unmeaning because स्तोरत्न is not a thing not to be put up with. It cannot be said that स्तोरत्न should be construed with परस्य and then the sense would be ‘How can you bear the idea that the स्तोरत्न should belong to another’, because परस्य has already been construed with उत्कर्षे. It cannot be construed with परस्य for another reason also, viz., the intervention of the word चात्मनः. To avoid this difficulty some such word as उपेक्षितं, परस्य etc., should be supplied. If the word उपेक्षितं is supplied the meaning of the sentence would be ‘How can you bear the idea of being indifferent to the jewel among women’. Such a meaning, it should be understood, is not intended by the poet, because his idea is to connect स्तोरत्न with मृष्यते as has been stated above. Hence the difference of साकाङ्क्ष from न्यूनपदत्व, the essential feature of न्यूनपदत्व being that a word the meaning of which is intended to be conveyed is wanting.

—चकारवशेष तयाभ्यामेकक्रियान्वयिनि द्वयेऽपि वाक्यवि चित्रभिति स्त्रीरलस्वामित्वेनैव वाक्यार्थवचितः । तस्मिन्व्यापाततो जाते पर्योलो वनायां रत्नस्यासंरक्षयांगत्वेन प्रतीतानुपपत्तिपरिहारायोगेपेक्षितुमित्यपेक्ष्यते । साकाङ्क्षत्वमिह इति भावः । यद्यपि ह्रेपः । यत् एव न सुप्रपद्यतेति विवक्षितार्थानौधनानुपपादान एव तदर्थीमार्त्तः (·उद्योत० ). नतु परस्य स्त्रीरत्नं हेययोग्यमेव तथा च सदपेक्ष्यां कथमकाचेल्याह—— न हि योग्यः न ह्युचितः स्वात्मान इत्यनेन स्वधनानादिति भावः ( महेश्वर० ).]†

• हैदकायां निर्द्धरेस्य सिद्धोः किं वर्षीयासमहेः—स्व रत्नानां निर्धार्यविशेष एव वाच्यः; ( साहिल्यदर्पण० ).

† The example of साकाङ्क्ष given in the Sāhityadarpana is :— ऐश्वर्ये धनुषो भ्रष्टे चलस्य च सुनिश्चितम् । स्त्रीरत्नं कथ’ नाम मृष्यते भार्गवोऽपि धुनुना ॥ यत्र स्वोरत्न- उपेक्षितुमित्याकाङ्क्षिति.

17. अर्थदूषक (inserted in a wrong place). This defect is caused when the insertion of a sentence gives rise to a sense quite different from one intended to be conveyed.—आपदे जरस्थाने युक्तः । यद् तदोऽर्थप्रतिपत्तौ तद्योगे प्रकृतविरुद्धप्रतीतिः—प्रदीप ० । तद्रभिधानमपद्युक्ता—विवरण ० ।

[ The insertion of the words giving rise to the contrary sense does not constitute अर्थदूषण, because in a sentence with अर्थदूषण there may be अर्थः of the meaning of the अर्थदूषण (redundant word) though it is not desired to be conveyed, while the meaning conveyed by the words which cause the defect आपद्युक्तः cannot have any अर्थः, for such अर्थः would mar the purpose of the sentence.—नार्थदूषणं, तदर्थस्याविलातः (सिद्धत्वात् ० ) । In विरुद्धमतिर्लक्ष a knowledge of the context is not necessary, It is necessary in आपद्युक्तः 1 ].

18. सहचरभ्रष्ट (mismatched i. e., of different nature from the meanings with which it is associated.—सहचरभ्रष्टः समभिग्याहृततविभातीयः । पैजलार्यं चौडूखलतापहृततवाम्याग ।

19. प्रकादितविरुद्ध (of repugnant implication i. e., when the implied meaning produced by the insertion of a sentence is contrary to the meaning intended to be expressed.—प्रकादितो निवक्षितार्थेन विरुद्धोऽर्थो येन वाक्यार्थेन सः )।

[ आपद्युक्तः is caused when in a sentence there is insertion of another sentence which produces an idea different from that intended to be conveyed, the insertion being in some particular position in the sentence ; thus the insertion of the sentence क न पुनः etc., after स्वादेदेव न राक्षन् in the verse श्वा च मेधाविन...etc. is faulty. प्रकादितविरुद्ध is also caused by an insertion but the insertion in this case may be anywhere in the sentence.—न च आपद्युक्तः प्रकारितविरुद्धार्थाभावः, स्वानुभावेगमनदर्शनेन तस्य अर्थःः—प्रदीप ० । In विरुद्धमतिर्लक्ष the contrary sense arises through the force of a word, while in प्रकादितविरुद्ध (and in आपद्युक्तः ) it arises through the force of a meaning—विरुद्धमतिर्लक्षे शब्द-गत्या विरुद्धार्थप्रतीतिः, भातो नु चरितार्थानां निविभावनेति इन्दे:—सरस्वतीकण्ठा० ।

20. विधेयदूषक (of improper predication i. e., when the predicate is improperly stated). This defect may manifest itself in two ways : (1) when what is not the predicate ( विधेय ) is stated as such and (2) when several predicates are stated in an improper order.—विपर्ययुक्कः अनुक्तवक्त्र्य विपरीतविपर्ययद्वय विधेयानुक्तया वा—प्रदीप ० । विपर्युक्तत्वं वाक्यवेदरेणानुक्तरतत्वा चेति द्विरूपं (Jhalkikar).

76

[ In अविसंष्टविधेयोक्तम्, the विधेय is not wrongly stated; though due emphasis is not put on it.—अविसंष्टविधयोरपि तु युक्तस्यैव विधिः, परं तु अविसंष्टेनावसः. In दुष्टप्रक्रम there is merely a bad order of stating things ; in विषययुक्तत्व such a bad order vitiates the विधेय.—दुष्टक्रमत्व दूष्यत्वम्, यत्र तु क्रमस्थ दूष्येन विधेयरुक्तत्वमिति भावः (Jhallīkar) ].

21

अयुक्तोदनुवाद

अयुक्तोदनुवाद (of improper अनुवाद ). This defect is caused when something stated as an adjunct of the अनुवाद्य (subject) becomes incongruous to विधेय (predicate).—अयुक्ततोडनुवादः | अयुक्ततद्वचनाद्विधेयाननुगुणत्वम् (प्रदीप०).

[ हे विरहिप्राणदमन सखे नीवीयूतपयः, मम मोहं शयथ, कथम् केनुबदनात्—‘O my friend, Blue lotus, you who destroy the life of a separated lover remove my bewilderment and tell me where the moon-faced beloved of mine is.’ It is a universal truth that one who kills a person, does not show any favour to him in his difficulties and as such the mention of the adjunct विरहिप्राणदमन केनुबदना is highly incongruous to the विधेय (which in this case is मोहं शयथ as well as कथं केनुबदना ).—अत्र विरहिप्राणदमनतेनान्वादः कथम् केनुबदनेति विधिविशेषः ( प्रदीप० ) ].

22

व्यक्तपुनःस्वीकार

व्यक्तपुनःस्वीकार (taken up again though abandoned as complete). When a sentence is complete and the relation subsisting between a noun and a verb is clearly brought out, the introduction of another word or clause to be connected in the same or some other relation with the verb constitutes this defect.—अयं न किंचिद् गणयति विदितं तेषु भृत्येभ्यस्तेनाहं दत्तासि (He does not consider anything, let it be known to you ; I have been handed over to the servants). Here the relation between the verb वित्त and its कर्मे (the clause अयं न किंचिद् गणयति ) being fully brought out, the sentence is complete with the clause विदितं तेषु. But the introduction of another clause तेनाहं दत्तासिम् sought to be connected with the same verb as its कर्मे causes the defect व्यक्तपुनःस्वीकृतत्व.—क्रियाकारकान्वयेन निराकाङ्क्षतया समाप्तेऽपि वाक्ये पुनः कारकान्तराभिधाने व्यक्तपुनःस्वीकृतत्वम्, यथोदाहरणे न किंचिद् गगयतीत्यनन्तेन कर्मककारकेण विदिक्रियाया अन्वये समाप्तेऽपि पुनः ‘भृत्येभ्यः’ इत्यादिना कर्मकारकाभिधानम् ( विवरण० ).

[ In समाप्तप्रनरालता also a clause is introduced after the sentence is complete but it is merely a qualifying adjective to the already stated कारक.—समाप्तप्रनरालते तु पूर्वोक्तस्यैव कारकस्य विशेषप्रपादनमिति मेदः ( विवरण० ) ].

23

अश्लील

अश्लील (indecorous i. e., when the implied meaning brings in some indecorous idea.—अत्र पदपरिदृत्तिसहत्वेनार्थदोषता ).

अर्थदोष ( पुनरुक्तता and अपुष्टार्थता ) will cease to be a दोष in expressions like the following when used with a special purpose :—

(a). कर्णावतंस (ear-ornament of the ear).

(b). श्रवणकुण्डल (ear-ring of the ear).

(c). शिरःशेखर (head ornament of the head).

The words अवतंस (ear-ornament), कुण्डल (ear-ring) and शेखर (head-ornament) are enough and the words कर्ण, श्रवण and शिरः, respectively pre-fixed to them, are superfluous. They are, however, used to denote the fact of the ornaments being actually worn on their respective places.

(d). धनुज्या (bow-string of the bow). Here the word ज्या itself means bow-string and the word धनुः is used to indicate that the string has been properly attached to the bow.

(e). मुक्तावलि (necklace made of pearls). The term मुक्ता itself signifies that it is made of pearls (मुक्ता). The use of the term मुक्ता indicates that other gems are not mixed with the pearls in the necklace.

(f). सुपुष्पमाला (garland of flowers). The word माला denotes a garland made of flowers and the word सुप् has been prefixed to it to indicate that the flowers are of excellent quality.

It is to be noted that modern writers should not invent expressions on the analogy of the instances cited. The use of the expressions like कर्णावतंस, श्रवणकुण्डल etc., has been justified on the ground that they are found in the works of standard authors. The expression जघनकाञ्ची (waist-girdle of the waist) is not found in any standard work and as such it is a faulty expression.

[Vāmana's view as to when सुप्रयोग may further be ignored—criticism of this view].

सम्यक् प्रयुरो वाचि स्फुटार्थप्रकाशनं गुणः (He uttered a speech sweet and full of clear words).—Here the use of the word वाचि (speech) is superfluous because सम्यक् (uttered) denotes the uttering of speech. Thus there is the defect अर्थान्तर in this sentence. Vāmana has sought to justify such uses by saying that though a word is superfluous or irrelevant (अर्थान्तर), being implied by another word in the sentence,

its distinct mention may be allowed when it is intended to be qualified (अपृथक्वादि तत्रोपादानमुचितं वचने तद्विशिष्यते—प्रदीप०). In the absence of any discussion though the sense of the noun (वाच्य) may be obtained from the verb जगाद्, yet the noun (वाच्यं) has been mentioned in order that the epithets मधुरां and विशदाक्षरथ्वालिनीम् may qualify it and therefore there is no अपृथक्यर्थता here. This contention is wrong because the purpose of adding these epithets may better be served by the use of adverbs. The sentence may easily take the form—‘जगाद मधुरं विद्वान् मधुराक्षरचालित च’ without sacrificing any part of the intended meaning. Vāmana's view holds good, however when the purpose served by the epithet qualifying the noun cannot be served by any adverbial expression. मन्देऽपि न द्विषते (He does not feel any difficulty though he walks with feet without the protection of shoes).—Here the word पादाभ्यां is undoubtedly superfluous but its use is necessary on the ground that no adverbial expression could express the sense conveyed by the qualifying epithet (चरणचत्परित्राणरहिताभ्याम्).

[Pradīpakāra is of opinion that this example cannot illustrate Vāmana's view, viz., that a noun, though implied by the verb is to be mentioned when there is a necessity of expressing some of its qualifications. The main thing to see is how a sentence can convey the intended sense. In the present case the intended sense (not feeling any difficulty by walking without shoes on) can be conveyed if we use an adjective like निर्वातपदोदरस्वेदराभ्यां त्रिलोचनाभ्याम् ऋषलोकयन्निव (seeing with eyes etc.). Here the use of such an adjective निर्वातपदोदरस्वोदराभ्यां may, of course, do. But it is to be noted that, though implied by the verb ऋषलोकयन्निव, the word ऋषि or any of its synonym can in no way be dispensed with, if the meaning of the adjective is to be expressed.

Pradīpakāra's criticism of Mammata's example is not well-founded. Does the adjective चरणचत्परित्राणरहित really convey the intended meaning? No. Because this adjective may imply that the man has no shoes in his possession. So the sense would be—the man does not feel any difficulty by walking though he has not any shoes in his possession. The intended sense ‘though he walks with feet without shoes on’ would thus be lost.]

निहेतु or inconsequentiality (which is an अर्थदोष) ceases to be a defect when what is stated does not require any explanation, it being a well-known fact.

[ Not are given the instances where some दोष: also come to be गुण ].

When a writer reproduces the speech of another he should reproduce it as it is and as such his writing will not be defective by any defects occurring in the reproduced speech. Hence the general rule अन्यत्रे ऽपि तद्वत् (all the defects cease to be defects in reproduction).

By virtue of the peculiarities belonging to the speaker, the person spoken to, the meaning (तथ्य)* suggested, the object of description (वाच्य), the context etc., a defect sometimes becomes an excellence and sometimes it is neither a defect nor an excellence.

Thus when the speaker or the person spoken to is a grammarian, or when the तथ्य suggested is रौद्र (furious)†, when awe-inspiring things are described (i. e., when objects like रथ etc. are वाच्य ), when a person speaks on being enraged—the defect of harshness (कटुता) of words becomes an excellence. कठुता is neither a गुण nor a दोष in a काव्य where there is no passion (रस) depicted [ and where there is no charmingness of meaning ].

अप्रयुक्तत्व and नित्यातिशयत्व are not दोष occurring in the figures श्लेष and यमक.

मौदार्शीलत्व (indecorousness implying indecency) is a गुण in conversations leading to sexual dalliance.

जुगुप्सागीलत्व (indecorousness implying disgust) is a गुण in discourses about quietistic sentiment (शान्त). L'अर्थो हि काव्यस्य जीवितम् शान्ति पोषयत्यदिन भाव:—The sentiment of disgust causes non-attachment which in its turn causes non-excitement ].

अमङ्गलाशीलत्व (indecorousness implying inauspiciousness) is a गुण when it prognosticates a future event in favour of the hero.

सङ्केतपत्व is a गुण when, inspite of apparent ambiguity, it tends to a definite meaning through the greatness of the thing under description and leads up to the figure व्याजस्तुति.‡

• तथ्यमिति रसादि वाच्यार्थम् ।

† ध्वनिननि रौद्रादिरूपे ऽपि च तथ्ये यथावद्रसवृत्त्यनुरोधि काव्यम्, कविनिबन्धन एव हि रसादि: ( वही० ).

‡ यत्र सङ्केत: कविविवक्षितविशेष: ( ‘यथासङ्केतमर्थपत्तिम्’ इत्यादि काव्यप्रकाश ) स सङ्केतपत्वम् ।

अप्रतीतत्व is a दोष when both the speaker and the person spoken to are conversant with the technicalities used. The verse आत्मारामा विधितरतयो… … …etc., is addressed by Bhimasena to Sahadeva. Both of them are highly educated princes and know the Yogaśāstra; hence the use of the technical terms peculiar to the Yogaśāstra does not give rise to अप्रतीतत्व.—इयं भीमसेनस्य सहदेवं प्रत्युक्तिः । अत्र निर्विकल्पादिशब्दा आत्ममात्रावलम्बनत्वादवर्थे योगशास्त्रमात्रप्रविष्टा: (प्रदीप०). तं च योगशास्त्राश्रिति प्रतीतिविलम्ब-भावात्र दोषत्वं (Jhalkikar).

अप्रतीतत्व is a गुण also in soliloquy.

न्यूनपदत्व is a गुण in the speeches of lower class people.

न्यूनपदत्व is a गुण when it serves to intensify the feelings depicted, such as of joy, confusion, sorrow etc. In some cases it is neither a गुण nor a दोष.—न्यूनपदतापि कचिद् गुणो यत्र न्यूनेतयैवाभिमतविशेषसिद्धिः । न दोषः प्रतीते: रकुटत्स्वात्, प्रत्युत गुणः, रसातिरेकद्यशकत्कत् ( प्रदीप० ) ; रसातिरेकेति—हर्षसंमोहादिहेतुत्वप्रसाद-करत्वेनैति भावः । एवं शोकोदावपि गुणवत्वं बोध्यम् ( उद्योत० ).

अधिकपदत्व is a गुण when it serves the purpose of singling out, or particularizing something or when the speaker is overpowered with joy, sorrow etc.—अधिकपदं कचिद् गुणो यत्र विशेषप्रतिपत्तिः । यदुक्तम्— विस्मये च विपादे च दैन्ये कोपेऽथ सारणैः । प्रसादे च तथा हर्षे वाक्यैरेकं द्विरुच्यते ॥ इति । एवं हर्ष-शोकादिहेतुत्वाद् हेत्वर्थश्रयत्वाद् ( प्रदीप० ).

कथितपदत्व (repetition of the same word or words) serves to produce वाटानुप्रास, is a cause of suggestion in अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्यलक्षणा (the लक्षणा in which the principal meaning is transformed into another meaning) and is necessary when what has been spoken of requires to be referred to in the same form. In these three instances, therefore, कथितपदत्व is a गुण.—लाटानुप्रासे तत्रिवाहकतया अर्थान्तर-संक्रमितवाच्यलक्षणा विधेषणयज्ञाद् विहितस्व यत्रानुवाद्यं तत्र च तादृशाभिमतनिरवधिकतया गुणवत्वम् ( प्रदीप० ).

पत्तत्प्रकर्षत्व is in some cases a गुण.

समासपुनरुक्तत्व is neither a गुण nor a दोष in certain instances.

अपदस्समासत्व is a गुण in certain cases.

ऐकक्वितकरत्वं राजवर्णनस्स दैन्यनग्रंथलोभेच्चिति तन्वहिन्द्रा ) नियतो नियमितोऽर्थो राजानुरूपोत्कर्षं च प्रकर्ष-मतिति'.नियंयं क्लैवं स्याज्ज्ञप्तिपर्यवसान्चिलाद् गृहीतां प्राप्ता हृति. श्रेयम् (Jhalkikar).

वाकितत्व is a गुण when the sentence inserted is for the purpose of emphasis etc.—कान्ति गुणः, इदमप्यादिहेतुत्वात् ( प्रदीप० ).

C.

रसदोष.

Delineation of रस becomes defective by :-

स्वरूपवाच्यता i. e., when any रस, or any व्यभिचारिभाव or any स्थायिभाव is mentioned by its own name whether generic or specific.

Thus the description of a रस by the generic word रस or any of its specific names (such as शृङ्गार, वीर्य etc.), of a व्यभिचारिभाव by the word व्यभिचारिभाव itself or any of the emotions (such as हर्ष, शोक, द्वेष etc.) which go by the generic name of व्यभिचारिभाव, of a स्थायिभाव by the word स्थायिभाव itself or by the name of a particular स्थायिभाव (such as रति, शोक etc.)—would cause रसदोष.

कष्टकल्पनास्वकृति i. e., when a विभाव or an अनुभाव is comprehended with difficulty.—रटत्कल्पनया पुष्टिकुशलतावन्वेष्टव्यप्रकटीकरणादिपयँजालोचनया ( अनुभाव-विभावोः ) विलम्बेन व्यक्तिः ( प्रदीप० ).

प्रतिकूलविमावादिमद i. e., when a विभाव, an अनुभाव or a व्यभिचारिभाव is adverse to the रस under delineation.

[ A notion of the impermanence of worldly objects( क्षणिकता ), emotion of self-disparagement ( निर्वेद्), giving up interest in all things and going to forest ( सक्कपास्यतिरस्कारगमनादि ) would respectively be adverse विभाव, व्यभिचारिभाव and स्थायिभाव for the erotic sentiment—शृङ्गारम् ].

गुणः गुणद्विति (repeated heightening i. e., when repeated attempts are made to further develop a रस, though it is already developed and realized).—अथ तस्यापि हेतुत्वेन द्वितीया...( समप्रायप्रतिद्विनी ).

[ It can occur only in composition ( प्रभञ्ज ) and not in stray verses. It should be noted, however, that this defect will arise when a subordinate रस is further and further developed. रतिविभाव in the Kumārasambhava (canto iv.) has this defect. The अतद्रत is manifested in iv. 1. It is developed more and more in iv. 4 and iv. 26. शृङ्गार is the main रस in the Kumārasambhava and as such further and further development of शृङ्गार which is only a subordinate रस here constitutes the defect

K-P—11

पमः परन्तरिणि. The case is quite different with the Mahābhārata. Here the main रम is the मुख्यमम and though it is developed times without number and in diverse ways, there is no defect in that.—पुनः पुनर्दीप्तिरितररसादिविपया दीपः। यथिनदः मा महाभारतादौ यत्नादरिव न वैरस्यमावस्ति । उद्धारदृशः कुमारसम्भवे—‘अथ सौहपरायणः’—(iv. 1) अन्यादृशा द्वेषिमनोलौडपि ककमा; ‘अथ सा पुनर्दृष्टा’—(iv. 4) दृश्यादृशा पुनः पुनर्दीप्ति’ नीतिः । उपभोगो हि पुनः पुनमभूजभानः परिस्खानमवकवद्र वैरस्याव कल्पने ( प्रदीप० ). पुनः पुनर्दीप्तिरिति वेयान्तरेगा विच्छिन्ना विच्छिदया युक्तमित्यंः । तत् प्रवन्ध एवेत्याह—कुमारादौति ( उद्धोत० ). परिपाकं गतवापि पौनःपुन्येन दीपनं परम् [ रसस्थ ] स्वाद्र विरोधाय (वैरसाय)— यनिकार० ].

अकाण्डप्रथन (untimely delineation).

अकाण्डप्रथन (untimely delineation).—In the second act of the Venisamihāra, while several heroes are dying in the battle field the dalliance of Duryodhana with Bhānmati is described. Thus the introduction of शृङ्गार, while वीर or करुण is at its height, constitutes the defect अकाण्डप्रथन.—तत्र करुणस्य वीरस्य वाडवसरो न शृङ्गारादेः । न हि शोकोत्साहवासनानिलुङ्घे प्रतिपतृचेतसि शृङ्गारादिः पदमपि लभते सुतरामस्वाद इति भावः ( उद्धोत० ).

अकाण्डच्छेद (untimely interruption).

6. अकाण्डच्छेद (untimely interruption).—The second act of the Mahāvirīacarita contains this defect. When the heroic sentiment has reached its climax, Rāma, all on a sudden, says ‘I am now going to unfasten my nuptial bracelet’.

[ These words of Rāma give rise to the idea that he is leaving on a pretext and thus of the lack of heroism in him.—शृकामडे हि तथा वचनं व्याजेन निर्गमे प्रतिपादयद्द वीरत्वभावं पथवस्त्वति ( प्रदीप० ). तथाडचरणमशोभिन्दर्शयितुं कवेरितिकर्तव्यतां सूचयितुं वीरत्वस्योत भावः ( उद्धोत० )].

अन्यतिविस्तृति (excessive dilatation of a subordinate factor).

7. अन्यतिविस्तृति (excessive dilatation of a subordinate factor). In the Hayagrīvavadha Viṣṇu is the hero. He is described not so much as Hayagrīva, the प्रतिनायक (an adversary of the hero). This may lead to the idea that Hayagrīva and not Viṣṇu is the real hero.—तत्र हि हयग्रीवस्य जलवनविधारादिना नायकापेक्षया विस्तारेण वर्णनं तस्यैव नायकत्वं प्रतिपादयति ( उद्धोत० ).

अन्यतनुसन्धान (ignoring the principal factor--the hero or the heroine).

8. अन्यतनुसन्धान (ignoring the principal factor--the hero or the heroine).—In the fourth act of the Ratnāvalī, on the approach of Bābhravya, Sāgarikā the heroine, is entirely forgotten.

प्रकृतिविपर्यय (प्रकृतीनां विपर्ययः = wrong delineation of characters).

9. प्रकृतिविपर्यय (प्रकृतीनां विपर्ययः = wrong delineation of characters). प्रकृति means the heroes of a kāvya. Heroes are of three kinds

—दिव्य = divine (such as Indra, Varuna etc), अदिव्य = non-divine i. e, human (such as Vatsarāja etc) and दिव्यादिव्य = semi-divine i. e, both divine and non-divine (such as Rāma, Kiṣṇa etc). They are वीरोदात्त, धीरोदात्त, धीरललित and धीरशान्तः respectively according as they are under the influence of वीर, रौद्र, श्रृङ्गार and शान्त, respectively [ Rāmachandra, Paraśurāma, Śrīkrṣṇa and Jīmūtavāhana are respectively the examples of धीरोदात्त etc.] Each of these kinds of heroes again is उत्तम (high), मध्यम (medium) and अधम (low) रति, हास, शोक and अद्भुत may be depicted in a दिव्यप्रकृति (divine hero) just as in an अदिव्यप्रकृति (human hero). In the case of an उत्तमदेवता (high divine hero), however, संभोगश्रृङ्गार -should not be described As regards कौतुक (the उत्साहभाव of रौद्ररस) it may be described in respect of a दिव्यप्रकृति (divine hero) as immediately effective and unaccompanied by any physical sign such as the curvature of the brows etc As to उत्तसाद (the स्थायिभाव of वीररस), it may be described in a दिव्यमहत्ता (divine hero) if it involves such acts as undertaking a journey to Heaven or the nether region, going over the sky, jumping over the ocean and so forth About an अदिव्यप्रकृति (human hero) such activities only are to be described as are found by experience to be possible in men. If something impossible be attributed to a human hero, the whole thing would appear like fiction and no value could be attached to the advice 'one should behave like the hero and not like his opponent.' In the case of दिव्यादिव्यप्रकृति (semi-divine hero) the activities which are found both in divine and non-divine beings may be attributed to him. These are the principles to be followed in delineating the character of a hero Any infringement of these rules will involve विरुद्धदोष (wrong delineation of character). This defect may arise in other ways also The forms of address like तनुभ्रुत and भगवान् are

'महामहोत्सितोदार स्वामिन् विश्वविलोकन । मित्रे निघृणदारकारो फोटेदानो हतक्रतु u' 'ददमानस्यभूमिघ्नो मायावत्‌तपरायण । पीरोरलत्स्त्रैणकारो चपमलनो विक्रमन्‌ व' 'निःशङ्को वीरोत्ककत कदानकं मुषित गुरौ' 'वाराङ्गननगुचछु पोतनादो विगादिक ई' (Dāśarathik, II)

to be used by higher characters with reference to sages and not to kings. The form of address समास is to be used by a character of lower order in reference to kings. Similarly the dress and conduct of the characters are to conform to time, place, age, caste and similar other things. If these rules are violated, then also will arise the defect गुणातिपयवक.

अनौचित्येन (praising or attaching value to something not helpful to the suggestion of the रस under delineation). In the Karpūramañjarī the king ignores the description of the spring made by himself as well as by the heroine but praises such a description made by the bard.—यथा कर्पूरमञ्जर्या नायिकया स्वातमना च यद् वसन्तवर्णनं तत्रनादरस सान्द्रवर्णनरम्य रसप्रशंसनम् ( प्रदीप० ).

The description of a lover getting angry at being struck by the feet of his beloved and so forth will also constitute a रसदोष. In short, as the Dhvanikāra has said, propriety is the only thing to be looked after and anything improper will mar the suggestion of रस.—यदेवंविधा अन्येऽप्यनौचित्यहेतवो भवन्ति । यथा नायिकापादप्रहारादिना नायकस्योपादिवर्णन- मित्यादि । अनौचित्यं तु रसविच्छेद्रहेतु: ( प्रदीप० ).

In certain cases the mention by name of a व्यभिचारिभाव does not constitute a defect.

Admission of an adverse विभाव or व्यभिचारिभाव is rather conducive to excellence when being represented as counteracted (by the appropriate विभाव, अनुभाव or व्यभिचारिभाव) it serves to heighten the principal रस.—प्रकृतिविरुद्धं व्यभिचार्यादि यदि वाध्यतेनोच्यते तदा द्वे दोपत्वम्, प्रत्युत प्रकटतरसपरिपोषकतया गुणत्वम् ( प्रदीप० ).

When two रसs (i. e., स्थायिभावs) become repugnant to each other if described in the same substratum, they should be described to exist in different substrata. वीर and भयानक are repugnant to each other when found in the same person. So when the रस in the hero is वीर, भयानक may be depicted as subsisting in his opponent. When two रसs become repugnant to each other on account of the one closely following the other, a third रस [ not incompatible with any of them ] should be introduced between the two. Thus in the Nāgānanda when Jīmūtavāhana who is under the influence of शान्तरस is described as falling in love

with Malayavatu ie, when he is brought under the influence of व्यभ्भार, a third रस (अद्भुत) is made to intervene between the two (ie, शान्त and शृङ्गार).—रसाना विरोधयोर्देश—नमानाधिकरणतया नैकरसव्यं चेति । तन्न वीरभावनाकमोरेवाधि- करयेद् विरोध इति प्रतिपक्षशृङ्गतरेन भावानामको वर्णनीयः; तथासति दूरें तस्य दोषत्व प्रकृत वीरपरिपोष ।। रस व रोदन रसेऽनैलन्त्येन विरोध । सोडविरोधिना रसान्तरेणान्तरितो निवर्तद्यः: ( प्रदीप० )

Two incompatible रसs do not man each other also when (1) one is merely remembered (to develop the other)—एकस्मिन् रसेऽनुभूयमाने तद्रिङ्गद्रष्टदुपवृण्णाय चेतनुस्याने तत्र न दोष ( समप्रायप्रकाशिनी ), (2) when both of them we intended to be equal in importance—उभय विरोधि साध्येन विवक्षिते तदाऽपि न दोष । ( समप्रायप्रकाशिनी ) and (3) when both of them become subseı vient to a third रस—अथ च विरुद्धावपि सन्तौ अकिञ्चि- रसगतेऽपि मूने तावपि ‘गुणभाव प्रतिपद्येते’ इति नयोक्ताविरोधो ( समप्रायप्रकाशिनी ).

It should be noted that one रस cannot be incompatible with another, neither can the relation of principal and subordinate subsist between any two रसs [because when a रस is manifested it completely occupies the soul and nothing else is known and thus the possibility of another रस being known as principal or subordinate is precluded ], so in the present context ie, whenerer the incompatibility of two रसs has been spoken of, रस has been used to signify a स्थायिभाव.—न तु प्राधान्योपनतिद्वयस्यैवेदान्तरमध्यङ्कवयवसरस न रसान्तरेण विरोधो नाप्यङ्काकिञ्चिभाव इत्यसकद्र्भावेनैवेतत् सर्वमिति चेत्? न, रसशब्देनात्र प्रकृत्ये स्थायिभावस्यापि ग्रहणाद्, रसयत इति श्युपपेचे । ( प्रदीप० ).

न तु विराधिनोश्र्चान्तरतरेरैन प्रतोयमाने रसेऽविरोधीतरनवकारा इति वो विरोध । यो वाड्नाटकिगाव इलत आह ( समप्रायप्रकाशिनी ).

VIII

गुण and दोष—Di-tinction between the two

Definition of गुण.—गुण, are the properties of रस (i e, they directly re-ide in रस—रस्य षण: मुख्य सत्कृतयितुं रलप्), the principal futor or soul of राम्य, they invariably co-eist with it and cause its excellence [ by can-ing a melting of the he art &c.—सोद-

काव्यसुधाहृदयपितरसदुत्यादिरूपकार्यविरोधप्रभयोजकत्वरूपो योष्य:—उदद्योत o], they are just like bravery and such other qualities in reference to the soul. It should be noted that as bravery and other qualities belong to the soul and not to the body, so गुणs like sweetness ( माधुर्य ) etc., belong to रस and not to वर्णs [ which constitute the body of the kāvya ]. Vāmana and some other rhetoricians think that गुणs are the properties not of रस but of वर्णs. Their contention may be summarised thus:- a kāvya, though devoid of रस, is said to have the गुणs माधुर्य, if the letters used are delicate, while a kāvya with रस is said to have no such गुणs as माधुर्य, if it has no delicate letters. This goes to show that माधुर्य etc., really belong to वर्णs. [ ननु रसधर्मत्वमपामसिद्धम् । कथमध्यथा नीरसेऽपि कुकुमारादिवर्णाश्रालनि मधुरादिव्यवहार:, रसवति अपि रङ्गसर्णाभाववति अमपुरादिव्यवहार इति]. Against this view may be said the following : we generally see that bravery co-exists with the largeness of the body and on that account whenever a large-sized body is seen, that body is called brave, whether the soul in it is brave or not. On the contrary when a soul is really brave but its body is small, the soul is believed to be not brave. The fact that the body can never be brave [for bravery is not seen in a dead body] but is only suggestive of bravery is lost sight of. In the same way वर्णs are never sweet ; they only suggest sweetness ( माधुर्य ) and on that account sweetness is attributed to them. गुणs like माधुर्य etc., are really the properties of रस, and not of वर्ण.

[ It should be noted that only on the analogy of the body not possessing any guṇa like शौर्य (bravery), वर्णs (which constitute the body of काव्य ) are said to be incapable of possessing any गुण ( माधुर्य etc.). No decisive reason is adduced for the assertion that गुणs are the properties of रस and not of वर्णs. Pradīpakāra, however, says, if गुणs can be proved to belong to वर्णs alone and to nothing else, then the statement that there is no decisive reason to hold that गुणs are the properties of रस would be valid. The upholders of the theory that गुणs belong to वर्णs connot say so, because गुणs belong not exclusively to वर्णs, they are said to belong to रचना (composition) as well ( 'मधुरा रचना' इति व्यवहारा्त् ). Thus there would be strict adherence to the law of parsimony ( लाघव ) if गुणs are admitted to be the properties of one thing ( रस alone ) and violation of this law and consequent superfluity ( गौरव ) if they are admitted to belong to two things ( वर्ण and

रचना ).—नतु गौओंनराधिराजहृदयविचित्रवभूतरागादौमा रसत्वस्फुरितवैशिष्ट्यं यत् । मैत्र सखित्व, विनिगम-कामावादिति चेत् न वयम् । भरतवच्ये विनिग्रहकथावचो यदि तया वाक्यमात्रावया गुणा श्रीकां शङ्कालते । न लेभम्, शृङ्गार रसत्वायामपि तदश्रुपसामात् । तथा च रसमहाकवित्तिवें साधवम्, वर्णरचनाभेदादिवैचित्र्ये तु गौरवम् । रसादीनां साधुयोदयो रसधर्मा। रसयुतिवैशिष्ट्यादिसंयुज्यते इत्येव सतर्कः ( प्रदीप० )।

Definition of अलङ्कार—alankāra are properties which cause excellence to रस, when it exists, [there are cases, however, where an अलङ्कार does not cause any excellence to an existing रस] by causing excellence to its component factor ( धर्म and अर्थ—=रस्यालङ्कारs such as अनुप्रास, यमक etc, causing excellence to धर्म and अभेलङ्कारs, like उपमा, उत्प्रेक्षा etc, causing excellence to अर्थ ); they are just like necklace and the like causing excellence to the soul through the body.

[ The points of difference between गुण and अलङ्कार as brought out by the author of the Pradīp —

गुणा: are the properties of रस and as such directly reside in it, they invariably cause excellence to रस and invariably co exist with it. अलङ्कारs cause excellence to रस, but not being its properties do not directly reside in it, they do not invariably cause its excellence and do not invariably co exist with it.—‘एष रसस्योत्कर्षकृत्स्वहेति रसधर्मा:’ [ वाच्याद् तदधीनत्वं ], तथा च [ रसाद्-‘एष रसस्य’ etc. ] सति रसव्यमिश्रितस्थितिलम्, न्यायोग्यवशाद्योचितैर् रसोपकारकत्वं प्रति वच्यत्वतयैव गुणानां दृश्यत्वम् । तथा च ( चन्द्रद्वार ) सन्तनोति रसः कौवेर्मुपचयेनोचिता ये । तथा च रसोपकारकत्वं प्रति तदधीनत्वं, तथा च [ रसोपकारकत्वे ] सति रसव्यमिश्रितिलं धनियैव रसोपकारकत्वं चेष्टि सामान्यादन्याय्योपपाद्यमानलोकाराधयितुम्’ ( प्रदीप० )।

Bhatta Udbhata in his Bhāmahavṛtti has said that there is, of course, difference between गुण and अलङ्कार so far as they relate to the human body, the former subsisting by inherence ( समवाय ) and the latter being present only by conjunction (संयोग ). But in the case of रस both गुण and अलङ्कार subsist by inherence ( समवाय ) and thus they are not different from each other. Hence any distinction drawn between गुण and अलङ्कार is that they relate to रस is, based only on old tradition. This view is not correct The real distinction between गुण and अलङ्कार is that गुण is रसधर्मा and अलङ्कार does not co-exist with रस.

Vāmana's idea of the distinction between गुण and अलङ्कार is that the former produces beauty—the beauty that entitles a particular composition to be called काव्य—and the latter only heightens

• See Kāvyālaṅkārasūtravṛtti, III. 1. ‘काव्याशोभाया, कनात्की धत्तः.’ इत्यादि

गाढारतामरोरपि रसात् पदं ( मधुर० )।

the beauty produced. Now may be asked 'Do all the गुणs combined produce the requisite beauty or only any or some of them'? If it be said that all the गुणs combined do it, then how can the गौडिया and पाञ्चाली styles*: in which माधुर्य and some other गुणs are absent be regarded as the soul of poetry†? If it be admitted that it is some or any of the गुणs, then it would be permissible to say that in such sentences as अद्रावत्त्र प्रज्वलत्यनिरुचि: etc., the presence of गुणs like ओज: and प्रसाद has produced a certain beauty which entitles the same sentence to be regarded as kāvya‡. [As a matter of fact there is absolutely no beauty in the sentence.—अत्र वाक्ये उक्तिमात्रमेव न वैचित्र्यम् ( सङ्केत० )].

The contention that अलङ्कारs merely serve to enhance the beauty caused by गुणs is not also sound. In the verse स्वर्गप्राप्तिरनेनैव etc., there are two अलङ्कारs—विरोधोक्ति and व्यतिरेक, and these are the causes of beauty which entitles the verse to be called kāvya. It should be noted that no गुण has produced any beauty here and consequently there is no question of the अलङ्कारs enhancing it. The अलङ्कारs have produced beauty here quite independently.

[ A kāvya must have one or more गुणs. The verse just referred to has also गुणs and they are ओज: and प्रसाद, but they do not produce any beauty here, as the रस suggested is प्रज्नार in which the गुण that is conducive to beauty is माधुर्य.—गुणाजन्यानां शोभासंप्राप्तये हि अलङ्काराराभ्यां शोभासम्पत्तिरिति तात्पर्यम् ( प्रदीप० ). एवं चाव माधुर्य-व्यञ्जकवर्णौभावेनौजसञ्च प्रकृतिविरुद्धत्वेन गुणाधितशोभाया अभावे गुणाधितशोभातिशयकारिलदृपालङ्कारलक्षणस्य निरुक्तालङ्कारदर्शयेद्यैरामिर्तिति भावः । वस्तुतोऽपि शृङ्गारे माधुर्यंमेव शोभाधायकं न विव्यमानमप्योजः; श्रोजोऽनुविद्यतेवात् प्रसादोऽपि न तच्छोभाहेतुः ( उद्द्योत० )].

• According to Vāmana रीति is the soul of poetry. रीतिस are styles or dictions and they are three in number—वैदर्भी, गौडिया and पाञ्चाली ( सा च पदसंघटना-नामिका विविधा—उद्योत० ). In वैदर्भी style all the गुणs, such as sweetness ( माधुर्य ), clearness ( प्रसाद ) etc., are present. In गौडिया and पाञ्चाली styles all the गुणs are not present. See Kavyalamkara-sutra-vṛtti, I. 2.

† काव्यशोभा काव्यव्यवहारनिमित्त' काव्यद्रतविषयः । तद्वेतदवी गुणासददतिशयहेतुत्वस्तलङ्कारा इति तदोभेद इतिः । तदपयुक्तं, यतः शोभाहेतवः गुणा इत्युक्तम् । तर्हि किं समग्रेयं यैः काव्ये शोभो-त्त्पाद्यते केनापि ? स्वाधये, पाञ्चाली गौडिया च रीतिः काव्य काव्यात्मा, माधुर्याद्यभावेन समस्तगुणाभाव-च्छोभाहीनतयैव न काव्यलम्वति भावः ( उद्द्योत० ).

‡ काव्यव्यवहारापचिः—शोभाधारोति श्रेष्ठः । गुणेपु सत्सु शोभाद्दारा काव्यव्यवहारापचिरित्यर्थः; यथासूते गुणानां शोभाकर्तलं वामनसूत्रकोऽन संगृहीतो' ख्यात् ।

89

गुएड are three in number :-

माधुर्य ( sweetness ).

माधुर्य ( sweetness ).—It delights the heart and softens it [ द्रुतिवारणमाह्लादकरत्वं माधुर्यम् ]. The softening power of माधुर्य succes­sively increases in संयोगस्थायिन्, करुण, विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार and शान्त.

[ द्रुतिस्नेहौ रसनितलमितौ द्रवयत्यनङ्काटिनिर्भयः । तथा च यद्गील श्रोषुमिर्भराकृतिषु सम्यगतिव तदादृत-कलहासु नायप्यसिलयः ( मदीय० ).

Bhāṣākara ( Bhāmaha ? ) holds that मोज्वल ( melodiousness ) is the character­istic of माधुर्य. ( मधुरं नातिकमसाद्यमधुरस्वभावि—मय्वलं श्रवणसुखैकललम् ). This view is not correct, as मोज्वल is found in शृङ्गार and प्रसाद also ].

ओजः (floridity).

ओजः (floridity).—It brings about the expansion of the heart ; by it the heart is fired up, as it were. The expanding power of ओजः succesively increases in वीर, वीभत्स and रौद्र.

[ दौषिशयदया या मनसि वीभत्सोज्ज्वलिततमविम् । तथा च यदमात्स्वन्जितमिव मनो जायते तदीयम् इत्यर्थः ( मदीय० ).

प्रसाद ( lucidity or clearness ).

प्रसाद ( lucidity or clearness ).—It quickly pervades the mind just as fire pervades dry fuel. The pervading power of प्रसाद is found in all the रसs.

Though गुएडs are the properties of रस, they are often said to be­long to शब्द and अर्थ and this is done only figuratively just as bravery and such other qualities which really belong to the soul are attributed to the body.

According to Vāmana there are ten शब्दगुएडs and ten अर्थगुएडs.

ओजः (splendour).

ओजः (splendour). It consists in the compactness of style.—मारकतशवमोजः । ननपषय गाढत्वं वस्तरोजः.

प्रसाद ( lucidity ).

प्रसाद ( lucidity ). It consists in the slackness of composition. It is a गुएड being mixed with ओजः.—ननपषय दोषिहीनत्वं स्फुटत्वं प्रसादः, भोजस्ता मद संवादः ( मिथिलतवाड ) गुएडः ; ( सद्दैदोषिहीनस्य दोप्त्वादिति भावः ).

शयप ( smoothness ).

शयप ( smoothness ). It consists in the several words looking like one on account of the peculiarity of sandhi and use of letters having the same organ of utterance ( उच्चारणसामान ).—सकुणतवं शयपः, यतिमिनू मति हृदयति परानि पुटवत् भासनो.

K-P-12

4

4. समता (uniformity). It consists in the sameness of style throughout a composition.—मार्गेमेदः समता । येन मार्गेणोपक्रममतस्य सल्लाग इत्यर्थः.

5

5. समाधि (harmoniousness). It consists in the adjustment of ascent (highflown or close language) with descent (simple or slack language).—शरोहावरोहकमः समाधिः.

6

6. माधुर्य (sweetness). It consists in the words in a composition being distinct from one another.—पृथक्पदतवं माधुर्यम् । पृथक् पदानी वस्य स पृथकूपदः; तत्व भावः पृथकूपदत्वम् । समासदैर्घ्यविनिर्ह्रितपरं चैतत्.

7

7. सौकुमार्य (tenderness). It consists in the absence of harshness.—अजडरत्वं सौकुमार्यम् । वन्धस्य अजडरत्वन् अपार्थ्यं यत्तव सौकुमार्यम्.

8

8. उदारता (magnificence). It consists in fanciful grouping of words which being read with stoppages seem to dance.—वन्धस्यैव विकटत्व यत् असौ उदारता । यत्रिमन् सति नृत्यन्तीव पदानीति जनस्त्व वर्णना भवति । विकटत्वं विच्छेदात् पदानां नृत्यप्रायत्वम्.

9

9. अर्थव्यक्ति (expressiveness). It consists in making the meaning readily grasped.—यत्र झटिति अर्थप्रतिपत्तिहेतुत्वं स इषोडधेव्यक्तिः.

10

10. कान्ति (brightness). It consists in the beauty caused by freedom from vulgar expressions.—औज्ज्वल्यं कान्तिः । हालिकादिसाधारणपद-विन्यासवैपरीत्येन अलौकिकशोभाशालित्वम्.

Of these ten गुणs, it should be noted, some are included in the three गुणs (माधुर्य, ओजः and प्रसाद as defined by Mammata), some are only non-defects (want of defects) and others become defects in certain circumstances. Thus श्लेष, समाधि, उदारता and प्रसाद (as defined by Vāmana) may come under ओजः* (as defined by Mammata) and अर्थव्यक्ति may be included in प्रसाद (as defined by Mammata); सौकुमार्य and कान्ति are simply want of defects called श्रुतिकटत्व and ज्ञास्यत्व ; समता is sometimes a defect, e.g., when in a composition the objects of description are both mild and awe-inspiring.

See Vāmanālaṃkārasūtravṛtti, iii. 1 & 2. * वमनायुक्तस्य ओजस इव एषाम् ( श्लेषादीनाम् ) श्रपि गाढत्वेन ओजोगुणाच्च झकवत्प्रांसादरेण श्रोओजोगुणैडत्तरभावः ( विवृत्पा० ). ओजः of Vāmana comes under ओजः of Mammata.

91

Thus धर्मगुणs are really three and not ten in number.

अर्थगुणs (according to Vāmana) are :-

ओज: (splendidness of meaning). Vāmana's definition is अर्थस्य श्रौद्यरोचः. श्रौदि means प्रतिपादनवैचाहु्यं. Thus ओज: is nothing but a clever way of expressing meanings.

प्रौदि consists in :-

(a)

पदादौ वाक्यार्थता i. e., the use of a phrase for expressing the meaning of a single word. [चन्द्रे छ्रकगिरे अभिलोचनसम्पूतं ज्योतिः—विवरण०].

(b)

वाक्यार्थे पदाभिधान i. e., the use of a single word for explaining the meaning of a phrase. [ कान्तावधना सक्कुत्पनं पश्येमतां वाक्यश्रयामर्थसारिका—विवरण०].

(c)

व्यास i. e., expansion i. e., when a single sentence is elaborated into many sentences. [ परस्यां नापहर्‌च्‌स्यग्यम्, परस्यापहरदार्घसुचितः, पराभर्तृगर्हणं इहासुतानितकर्मिलयादिना नानावाक्येन प्रतिपादनं व्यासः—विवरण० ].

(d)

समास i. e., brevity i. e., when many sentences are abbreviated into a single sentence. [ ये हिमालयमात्रस्थ पुनः श्रेष्ठ च व श्रेष्ठिनम् । सिँधु नामि निवेधार्य तदिस्थास्ता वसुधा यथा—— अन्य ते हिमालयमात्रस्थलादिति पकेनैव वाक्येन नानावाक्यार्थाभूतस्यार्थस्यमन्यनादेरुक्तिः । पृथक्वाक्यं च वदवानार्थेनिवनभात् समास इति भावः——Jhalkikar].

(e)

सामप्रासत् i. e., significance of epithets. [ कुत्रयं हरस्यापि विनायकाने-पीङ्गिते व मम यानमोदीयते ॥ अत्रेति नायक,पदाङ्गिते विशेषणस्थ सामप्रासत्—विवेक०. इति पिनाकी चेत्यतिदारण इति भावः—मल्लिनाथ० ].

The first four kinds of श्रौदि serve only to beautify a composition. There is no गुणस्त् in them because a composition may be called काव्य even in their absence.

The fifth kind of श्रौदि is only a negation of the defect अप्रयुक्तता.

प्रसाद (clearness of meaning). It consists in the use of absolutely necessary words.—माधुर्यादिसं प्रसादः, अप्रयद वेमलं प्रयोजकमात्रपीयः प्रसादः । प्रयोजकतिं अपेक्ष्यनेतस्यपे: ( उद्द्योत० ).

Thus प्रसाद is a negation of the defect अप्रयुक्तता.

माधुर्यं (sweetness of meaning). It consists in expressing the

4

4. समता (uniformity). It consists in the sameness of style throuhout a composition.—मार्गमेद्र: समता । येन मार्गणोपक्रमतस्य आसाम रसति:.

5

5. समाधि (harmoniousness). It consists in the adjustment of ascent (highflown or close language) with descent (simple or slack language).—आरोग्योद्देकम: समाधि:.

6

6. माधुर्य (sweetness). It consists in the words in a composition being distinct from one another.—पृथकूपदतवं माधुर्यम् । पृथक् पदानी परस्पर त प्रभकूपद:, तस्य भाव: पृथकूपदत्वम् । समासदैर्घ्यनिवृत्तिपरं चैतत्.

7

7. सौकुमार्य (tenderness). It consists in the absence of harshness.—अजरठत्वं सौकुमार्यम् । वन्धस्य अजरठत्वम् अपारुष्यं यततत् सौकुमार्यम्.

8

8. उदारता (magnificence). It consists in fanciful grouping of words which being read with stoppages seem to dance.—वन्धस्य विकटत्वं यत् असौ उदारता । यरिमन् सति नृत्यतीव पदनानिति जनस्य वर्णना भवति । विकटत्वं विच्छेदात् पद्दानां नृत्यप्रायत्वम्.

9

9. अर्थव्यक्ति (expressiveness). It consists in making the meaning readily grasped.—यत्न झटिति अर्थप्रतिपत्तिहेतुत्वं स गुणोडर्थव्यक्ति:.

10

10. कान्ति (brightness). It consists in the beauty caused by freedom from vulgar expressions.—औज्ज्वल्यं कान्ति: । हालिकादिसाधारणपदविन्यासैविपरीत्येन अलौकिकार्थोपनिशिलत्वम्.

Of these ten गुणs, it should be noted, some are included in the three गुणs ( माधुर्य, ओज: and प्रसाद as defined by Mammata ), some are only non-defects (want of defects) and others become defects in certain circumstances. Thus श्लेष, समाधि, उदारता and प्रसाद (as defined by Vāmana) may come under ओज:* (as defined by Mammata) and अर्थव्यक्ति may be included in प्रसाद (as defined by Mammata); सौकुमार्य and कान्ति are simply want of defects called श्रतिकडतव and ग्राम्यत्व ; समता is sometimes a defect, e.g., when in a composition the objects of description are both mild and awe-inspiring.

See Vāmanālankārasūtravritti, iii. 1 & 2.

• वामनाद्युक्तस्य शोजस्व इव एषाम् ( श्रेषादीनाम् ) अपि ग्राह्यस्सलेन शोजोगुणप्रयोजकवर्णसादृशेन श्रोजोगुणपोडनभौव: ( विवरए० ). शोज; of Vāmana comes under शोज; of Mammata.

91

Thus रसवद्गुणs are really three and not ten in number.

अर्थगुणs (according to Vāmana) are :-

1. ओजः (splendidnes of meaning). Vāmana's definition is अर्थस्य प्रौढिरोजः. प्रौढि means प्रतिपादनचातुर्य. Thus ओजः is nothing but a clever way of expressing meanings. प्रौढि consists in :-

(a) पदैः वाक्यरचना i. e., the use of a phrase for expressing the meaning of a single word. [चन्द्रे वसन्ते ऽतिशोभनसम्भृत् ज्योति:—विवरण०].

(b) वाक्यार्थे पदाभिधान i. e., the use of a single word for explaining the meaning of a phrase. [ कुलस्त्रीणां सङ्कटरत्नं गृहच्छिद्रतिति वक्तव्ये धमिसारिका—विवरण०].

(c) व्यास i. e., expansion i. e., when a single sentence is claborated into many sentences. [ परस्व नापहारकृत्यमिति एकरसिन् वाक्यार्थे वक्तव्ये परतः नापहारस्तव्यम्, परवश्वापहारोऽनुचितः, परामरणाहेतुम् ईहशुवानिष्टकरमेलादिना नानावाक्यैः प्रतिपादनं व्यासः—विवरण० ].

(d) समास i. e., brevity i. e., when many sentences are abbreviated into a single sentence. [ ये हिमालयमामनन्त्र पुनः प्रकृत् च शूनिलम्। सिठु. वार्तासु निनेयार्थ तद्विस्तृतः: समासतुः: 11—अत्र ते हिमालयमामनेप्सलादिजा एकैकं वाक्येन नानावाक्यार्थाभिहितरसामानमनेदृशक्ति: एकैकस्यैव बद्धवाक्यार्थनिबन्धनं भवत्. समास इति भावः—Jhalkikar].

(e) सम्प्रयोगात् i. e., significance of epithets. [ कुत्स हरस्यापि विनाकपाणे-रीक्षार्थे च केन वानरीडित्यम् 11 अत्र निसर्गकान्तिप्राप्तिर्विग्रहस्य सारिकल्पनं—विवरण०. इह: विनाकृत्य चेष्टितदारणं हति भावः—महिनाथ० j].

The first four kinds of प्रौढि serve only to beautify a composition. There is no गुणत्व in them because a composition may be called kāvya even in their absence.

The fifth kind of प्रौढि is only a negation of the defect अप्रयुक्तता.

2. प्रसाद (clearness of meaning). It consists in the use of absolutely neccssary words.—अर्थमात्रं प्रसादः, अपरेद वैमल्यं प्रयोजकमात्रपरिहः प्रसाद: 1 मधोज्ञकेति श्रवेष्टितेस्यधे: ( उद्धृत० ).

Thus प्रसाद is a negation of the defect अप्रकटत्व.

3. माधुर्य (sweetnes of meaning). It consists in expre-sing the

meaning in diverse ways and not monotonously.—उक्तिर्वैचित्र्यं माधुर्यम् । उक्तिवैचित्र्यं नवीकृतत्वरूपम् ( प्रदीप० ).

Thus माधुर्य is a negation of the defect नीवीकृतत्व.

सौकुमार्य (tenderness of meaning)

सौकुमार्य (tenderness of meaning). It consists in the use of words which are not inauspicious.—अर्थस्य सौकुमार्यम् । परुषोऽमर्षणः: (उद्घोत० ).

Thus सौकुमार्य is a negation of the defect अमर्षशीलत्व.

उदारता (greatness of meaning)

उदारता (greatness of meaning). It consists in the absence of vulgarity.—अग्राम्यत्वमुदारता. . .

Thus उदारता is a negation of the defect ग्राम्यत्व.

अर्थव्यक्ति (expressiveness of meaning)

अर्थव्यक्ति (expressiveness of meaning). It consists in clearly delineating the character of things.—वस्तुस्वभावस्फुटत्वमरथव्यक्ति: । वस्तुनो वर्णनीयस्य डिम्भादे: स्वभावस्य प्रक्रियादे: स्फुटत्वेन वर्णनमिल्यर्थ: (उद्घोत० ).

Thus अर्थव्यक्ति is not different from the figure named स्वभावोक्ति.

कान्ति (brightness of meaning)

कान्ति (brightness of meaning). It consists in making the रस clearly realized.—दीप्तरसतयं कान्तिः । दीप्तरसतवं स्फुटप्रतीतिमानरसतवम् (उद्घोत०).

Thus कान्ति comes under रससन्ध्वनि or गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यच.

[ रसस्य प्राधान्ये ध्वनिलम् । गुणालवे तु रसवदड्गाररूपगुणीभूतव्यङ्गच्यात्मलिङ्गय:—उद्घोत० ].

श्लेष (cohesion of meaning)

श्लेष (cohesion of meaning). It consists in the combination of factors like sequence of actions, shrewdness, notability and reasons.

[ A kāvya in which are noticeable the sequence of actions, shrewdness of the hero, well-known and current practices and reasons for the actions of the hero may be said to have श्लेष.—घटना श्लेष: । क्रमकौटिल्यामूल्यलोपपत्ति-युक्तिविन्यास: तेऽपां योग: सम्भेलनम् ( चक्रवर्त्ती० ).]

Thus श्लेष is only a sort of beauty. It is not a गुण, because it does not help the realization of रस. As a matter of fact the realization of रस is hampered by too much attention to the factors which constitute श्लेष.—एप श्लेष उक्तिवैचित्र्यमात्रं न गुण:, अन्यसाधारणरसोपकारित्वातिशय-विरहात् (प्रदीप०). तथा प्रतिसन्धानेऽन प्रत्युतास्तादृशं प्रतीतेर्विलम्बाच्चेति भाव: (Jhalkikar).

समता (uniformity of meaning)

समता (uniformity of meaning). It consists in maintaining

the uniformity of expressions —अभेदप्रक समता। स च कमावेदराद् इति कमावेदे रुपो दोषभाव एव (मदीप०) वैस्म्येन अपेक्ष्य कमावेदयः । यथा उदेति सविता तामः इलादौ (उद्भोत०)

Thus समता is a negation of the defect भिन्नप्रकमता

10

समाधि (observation of meaning) The meaning is either original or borrowed from some other source [The comparison between the chin of a Hun and an orange is original because it is not current among poets; whereas the comparison between the eye and the blue lotus is not so, because poets are quite familiar with it] —अर्थेदृष्टि समाधि । अर्थेर् दर्शन दृष्टि । अम्यो द्विविध, अयोनिस्वच्छायायोनिरूपा । अयोनि केलावनुहरितपूर्व । यथा—‘सचोश्णीष्टतमलोहचुम्बकप्रसङ्गिनीनारकस’—इति । अत्र हूण पाश्र्वशोभितगीरोः सवनविधोप, तस्य रवभावतोदितगौर मदररक सङ - इमृकूटपाटनभयङ्करोदकुप चिहुक तनुयष्टिरेव नारकस्य वर्णन नायेन क्रतुमिलयोत्पत्तिं बोधयम् । अन्यच्छायायोनि अनौद- चिह्निन्मूलकोद्भिन्नोदरेषु । इति यावत् । यथा—‘निजनप्रतिबिम्बैर्मुनिनि बहुधा’ प्रतिभासिता कार्षि । नीलोत्पलेषु वियद्विति करमप्वितुं कुशमलावी’ ॥—इति । अत्र नयननोलोत्पलयोः प्रसिद्ध- मेपोपमामलकस्य उद्भावित इलनयच्छायायोनिरिति बोधयम् (Jhūlikai) अर्थेदर्शनमिति । अश्वमेधैरुड्मस्मै, पूर्व्ववणितलछायो वेति काव्यालोचनमिलष्ये (उद्भोत०)

The proficiency resulting from the observation of the world, of kāvya The proficiency resulting from the observation of the world, of kāvya and śāstras is essential for the production of kāvya. Thus समाधि is an essential condition of the production of kāvya and therefore cannot be a गुण —लोकशास्त्रकाव्यविदर्शनजन्यनिपुणतया माधुर्यादिगुणानामेव काव्यध्वरीरसेपु निपत्तिर् इति काव्यध्वरीरनिवाहकत्वेन न गुणत्वमिति (विवृ०)। समाधि पुनरर्थदर्शनम् । न चासौ गुणः, काव्यध्वरीरत्वात् (वाम्प्यदरीकाराल्लट)। यथा द्रष्टव्यः अन्यच्छायावसितरस्यमपि यद् न दर्शन कवि तर्हि माधुर्यादिरनिष्पत्ति । अगाधारण्योद्भासितमक हि गुणः भवति , न च काव्यध्वरीरनिवर्तकत्वमिति (मदीप०)

Thus भद्गुणाः are not really गुण and should not be given a separate treatment

The गुण in reality put in to रम, they pertain to रस only indirectly They are suggested by letters, ध्वनि etc and diction The रम letters (letters beginning from क to म) except the letters

ḱ, țh, ṭ, ḍ, combined with the last letter of their respective group (saṃyogānta) (ḱ, ḵh, g, gg, ŋd, ŋḍ etc.), the consonants ḍ and ḍh with short vowels, simple words, compounds of medium length and harmonious diction (the diction in which the words are so arranged as to make it soft) —these are the suggesters of mādhurya (sweetness).

The first and third letters of a group (varṇa) combined with the second and fourth letters respectively of that group (ḱkh, gg, ṭth, ḍḍ, etc.), conjuncts having ṛ as their first or the second member (ḱṛ, ṛḵ, ḍṛ, ṛḍ, ṛṭ etc.), any reduplicated consonant (ḱḱ, ḵḵh, ḍḍ, ṭṭ, ḍḍh etc.), the entire ṛ-ṣaṇḍa with the exception of ṛṇ, the consonants ṣa and śa, long compounds and bombastic diction—these are the suggesters of ojas (florridity).

Such rasas, samāsas and racanās (dictions), as lead to the meaning being comprehended immediately after words are heard, are the suggesters of prasāda. This is in accordance with Maheśvara's explanation. According to him ras is not only an āśraya (receptacle) of guṇa but its ṛyājak (suggester) as well. (See the commentary, p. 431). According to the Pradīpakāra, the word, the samāsa and the diction by which the meaning is comprehended just after words are heard are the suggesters of prasād. —येन शब्देन (वा ?) समासेन वा या रचनया वा श्रुतिमात्रेण शब्दार्थप्रत्यय: स प्रसादव्यञ्जक इत्यर्थ:. The author of the Uddyota puts the whole thing in a simpler form—‘the words the meanings of which are well-known and of which the mutual connection is easily comprehended on account of close proximity etc., are the suggesters of prasād’. —एवञ्च प्रसिद्धार्थकत्वमासन्नत्वादिकञ्च प्रसादव्यञ्जकत्वमित्युच्यते.*

A departure from the above rules is allowed when the nature of the speaker, or of the subject-matter or of the form of the composition demands it. Thus, when Bhīmasena is the speaker, the diction may be bombastic, though the subject-matter is not suggestive of anger and though the form of composition is a drama in which the bombastic diction is not suitable; when the object under description is huge and awe-inspiring, even though the speaker

• मूलग्रन्थार्थज्ञकः अर्थनीधकः श्रुतिमात्रतः ( हृप्. ).

be a mild person and the form of composition a drama, there may be bombastic diction ; when the form of composition is an ālambanāviśva, sweet letters are not admissible even in the delineation of śṛṅgāra ; when it is a कथा, even in the delineation of रौद्र exceedingly harsh letters are not to be used and in नाटक and similar works long compounds etc., cannot be allowed even when रौद्र is depicted.

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

यमक (equiroque)—When a statement is construed in a sense different from that which is intended to be conveyed by the speaker, it constitutes the figure यमक. It may be based upon श्लेष (punning)—either समश्लेष (involving the breaking up of words) or असमश्लेष (not involving the breaking up of words)—and upon काकु (intonation).

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

अनुप्रास (alliteration)—It consists in the same consonants being repeated, even though the vowels may be different.

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

अनुप्रास is primarily of two kinds—छेकानुप्रास and वृत्तानुप्रास. वृत्तानुप्रास is again of two kinds—श्रुत्यनुप्रास and वृत्यानुप्रास.

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

छेकानुप्रास is the repetition of several con-onants only once. In the verse अनन्दरह० etc., द and न are each repeated only once.

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

[ छेक means चित्र i. e., a clever person or one with an appreciative mind. छेकानुप्रास is so called from its being used by such persons. तैः प्रभृतिभिः तनुजोगत (पतोप०).]

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

वृत्तानुप्रास consists in the repetition of one or several consonants more than once.

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

[ वृत्ति means संभतनालङ्कार i. e., style. वृत्तानुप्रास is so called because by beautifying the style it helps the suggestion of a रस.—अर्थान्तरस्य वाचा यत्नः । वनीय साधुयोत्कर्षसूक्तिमात्रं (पतोप०). गेय सा माधुरीदृष्टकृतसुकुमार (पतोप०).]

मपणनालः कविर् न्यापारविशेषः (विवरणम्)*. वृत्तिः रसविपर्ययो व्यापारः। षड् तु तदितौ वर्णरचना वृत्तिः

terised by consonants suggestive of sweetness (माधुर्य), (2) परुषा (harsh)—

characterised by consonants suggestive of florridity (ओजः) and (3) कोमला (soft)

but of प्रसाद (lucidity). कोमला वृत्तिः is by some called ग्राम्या वृत्तिः on account of its

having no exqusite charm and thus having a resemblance to village women.

—शपररोज्ज्वलमाधुर्यैककतिरिक्तःः प्रसादवदिरिचरतः। एनामेव कचिद्वृतितिशयितकान्तिराहित्येन ग्राम्यसौसादृश्यात्

ग्राम्यांति बदन्ति (प्रदीप०). These three वृत्तिस are respectively called by Vāmana and

his followers वैदर्भी, गौडी and पांचाली].

शाब्दानुप्रास consists in the repetition of शब्दs. The शब्दs repeated

are the same in form and meaning but there is difference only in

their तात्पर्य (अन्वय i. e., the syntactical relation). This अनुप्रास is called

लाटानुप्रास on account of its being popular among the people of

the लाट country. Now शब्दs are either पदs (complete words i. e.,

verbal forms complete with terminations) or नामन्s (simple basic

substantives). In the alliteration of पदs there is repetition either of

several words or of a single word and in the alliteration of नामन्s the

repetition of the नामन्s may occur (1) in the same compound, (2) in

different compounds and (3) once in a compound and once in a

non-compound. In the verse यस्य न सविधे etc., several words

such as दवदहन and तुहिनदीधिति have been repeated. In the first half

तुहिनदीधिति is उद्देष्टव्य (subject) and दवदहन is विधेय (predicate), while in the

second half दवदहन is उद्देष्टव्य and तुहिनदीधिति is विधेय and this constitutes

the difference in their तात्पर्य or अन्वय.—पूर्वार्द्धे तुहिनदीधितौ दवदहनत्वं विधेयम्।

उत्तरार्द्धे तु विपरीतम्। उद्देष्टव्यविधेयभावविपर्ययसेन शब्दबोधरूपान्वयमेदात् तात्पर्यमेदोदोलेति वोध्यम्

;उद्योत०). In the verse बदनं वरवर्णिन्या: etc., there is repetition of the

single word सुधाकर. In the first half it is विधेय, while in the second

half it is उद्देष्टव्य and thus the difference in तात्पर्य.—उद्देष्टव्यविधेयभावमेदाच्

तात्पर्यमेद इति वोध्यम् (उद्योत०). In the verse सितकरकरुचिर विभा etc, we

have the substantive कर repeated in the same compound, the subs-

tantive विभा in two different compounds and the substantive कमला in

a compound and in a non-compound. Thus लाटानुप्रास is of five

varieties.

• वृत्तिर् मधुरादिरसनिग्रहणनियदसमाश्रयादिवृत्त्या गतों रसविपर्ययो व्यापारो व्यज्जनाख्यः (प्रदीप०).

According to Mahesvara वृत्तिः means व्यञ्जना and वृत्तिगत means 'related to व्यञ्जना

being its generator'—वृत्तिर् हि रसनिष्ठगुणव्यञ्जना, (वृत्तिगतः) व्यञ्जनकतया तत्रसत्वाच्चील्यर्थः.

97 यमक—The repetition of a group of letters in the same order with a different meaning—where there is a meaning—constitutes यमक. [ समानार्थैस्त्वभाववत्त्वे समानार्थप्रकाशनेकवृत्तौ यमकमिति लक्षणं दृश्यताम् ( प्रदीप० ) ]. In the verse सन्नारीभृत्यो ...etc., the group of letters constituting the expression सन्नारीमरणोभय् as used originally and as repeated has meanings but they are different. In अत्युक्त वारितवारितविलासे etc., the group of letters त-वा-रि has absolutely no meaning anywhere. In the expression समरमसेधसद् the letters स-म-र as occurring in the beginning have a meaning viz. war, but the same letters occurring in the compound समरस have no meaning. सते रसः etc., will not constitute यमक as the group of consonants is not repeated in the same order.

Varieties of यमक—their examples. श्रव—When words that are different on account of the difference in their meanings become coalesced through the sameness of pronunciation, it constitutes श्रव. "There is the theory that words having different meanings must be regarded as different,—and also that in poetry accents do not count ; and in accordance with the former theory, even though two words may be the same in their verbal form, yet they are regarded as different—and in accordance with the latter, when these two words ( even though differently accented, by reason of the difference in their meanings ) come to be pronounced in exactly the same manner, they are regarded as coalescing, i. e., as having their differences undiscerning ;—and when this happens, it is a case of coalescence ( श्रव ).”—Kārya-pralāśa, Trans. by Dr. Jha.

समहृदेप is of two kinds, समश्र and अभह. In समहृदेप there is coalescence of words having different forms and thus necessitating breaking up for an understanding of their meanings. समहृदेप is of eight kinds as it is based upon :— (a) वर्ण (letters).—निप्यो वने मृगदृश्वनि वद के पुनरमौ । Here the वर्ण lies in the word निपी which is a locative singular form of both निपि and निपु. The द्वार of निपि and उदार of निपु have been transformed into मोदर, though they are different वर्ण and hence it is an instance

K-P—13

of वर्णश्लेष [ अन्र विधावितयत्र विधिविधुशब्दसोरिकारौकारतां प्राप्योभेदाद् वर्णश्लेषः ( प्रदीप० )].

(b) पद (words).—पृथुकान्तस्वरपातं etc. In one case the compound means पृथुकानां वाचानामात्रस्वरस्य पतत्रम्, and in another case it means पृथु यदुलं कान्तस्वरस्य ( स्वरस्य ) पातं यत्र. Here the words being different, it is an instance of पदश्लेष [ पदमेदात् पदश्लेषपोडयम् ( प्रदीप० )].

(c) & (d) लिङ्ग and वचन (gender and number).—In the verse भक्तिप्रहविलोकनप्रणयिनी etc., there is श्लेष of both लिङ्ग and वचन, the neuter dual forms and the feminine singular forms being identical [ अन्र लिङ्गवचनयोः श्लेषः ( प्रदीप० )].

(e) भाषा (dialects).—The verse मद्दे etc., when taken as Sanskrit means one thing and when taken as Prakrit means another thing. Thus it is an instance of भाषाश्लेष.

(f) प्रकृति (crude forms).—In the verse भयं सर्वाणी शाखानि etc., the word वक्ष्यति is the singular future ( लृट् ) form of both वच् and वह्, and the word सामर्थ्यंकृत means both सामर्थ्य करोतिति and सामर्थ्य कुन्ततीति. Hence we have here an instance of प्रकृतिश्लेष i. e., the श्लेष of two crude forms. [ अन्र वक्ष्यतीति वहिवच्योलृटि क्रुदिति कुन्ततिकरतयोः द्वयोरपि तुल्यं रूपमिति प्रकृतिश्लेषौ ( प्रदीप० )].

(g) प्रत्यय (suffix).—In the verse रजनिरमणमौले: etc., the word नन्दिता is a form of the root नन्द्. It may mean नन्दक ( नन्द् + णच् ) or the condition of नन्दिन् ( नन्दिन् + तल् ). It should be noted here that the root in both the cases is नन्द् but the प्रत्ययs are different. Hence it is an instance of प्रत्ययश्लेष.

[ नन्दिता when meaning 'the position of Nandin' is to be taken as नन्द् + णिनि + तल्. Thus in the case of णच् it is directly added to the root and in the case of तल् another प्रत्यय intervenes. नन्दितेऽवन् नन्द्धातुरेकः श्लिष्यवहितात्तमसूचप्रत्ययस्य हात-

प्रत्ययस्य सेदः; रूपवचैङ्कम् ( सह्दृवर० )].

(h) विभक्ति (declensional and conjugational terminations).—सर्वस्वं हर सर्वस्य त्वम् [when addressed by a devotee to Śiva it means—O Hara, you are all in all to everybody ; when addressed by a thief to his son it means—you take away all the property of all men ]. Here the root is हृ and the विभक्तिस only are different. Hence it is an instance of विभक्तिश्लेष.

[ जब when meaning 'O Siva' is formed by adding मत् to ह and then declensional termination (vocative singular) is added to it. But when it means 'take away' it is formed by adding conjugational termination (imperative second person singular) to the root ह. The root in both these cases is ह, only the विभक्तिस are different. It should further be noted that in the case of declensional termination there is intervention of a प्रत्यय ].

There is a ninth variety of शब्दश्लेष named समासश्लेष in which two meanings are apprehended without the expressions being split up in different ways as in सकृच्छ्लेष An example of this variety of श्लेष is furnished by the verse योत्स्यते परमोष्णाभ् etc In this verse both the king (who is a highly learned man) and Indra (the king of the gods) are described The verse means -(a) The king who is the foremost of the learned men looks resplendent being capable of repeatedly destroying the allies of his enemy in a moment and bearing the marks of one who gives away hundreds of lotus and (b) Indra who is the king of the gods looks resplendent being capable of cutting in a moment the wings of great mountains and bearing the character of one who strikes off with the thunderbolt.

In this verse the expressions परमोष्णाम् and पशुच्छेदनेक्षणः in order to yield two meanings are not to be split up differently but in the same way ( पर+मोष्णाम्, and पशु+च्छेद+ने+क्षणः ) [ The case is, however, different with the expression शतकोविदाम् It is to be split up in different ways for the two meanings to be obtained ] There is thus समासश्लेष ( more precisely प्रत्ययश्लेष and प्रकृतिश्लेष ) in this expression.

It should be noted here that some words in this verse have two meanings but there being no determining factor like मत्सर, मदोद्धत etc, to restrict them to a particular meaning, both the meanings of the verse are possible Thus both the king and Indra become the objects of description and it is why there is श्लेष in this verse [ पश्वा सुगप्तनयन प्रतरतायतारे इव, यत् पशोः स तनु नयनेति चोक्तम् ( उद्धृतो ).

[ We have seen in Ch. II that according to Kāvyaprakāśa, when a word has several primary meanings, its range of denotation is restricted to a particular sense by such conditions as गीतम्, विप्रयोग, साक्ष्यादि, प्रकारण, etc. ].

of वर्णश्लेष [ अन्न विधावित्यन्न विविधविधुशब्दश्शोरिकारोकार्योरिकारतां प्रास्योभेदाद् वर्णश्लेषः ( प्रदीप० )].

(b) पद (words).—पृथुकान्तस्वरपातं etc. In one case the compound means पृथुकानां वाच्यनामार्थस्वरसस्य पात्रम, and in another case it means पृथुकान्तस्वरसस्य ( स्वर्णस्य ) पातं यत्न. Here the words being different, it is an instance of पदश्लेष [ पदभेदात् पदश्लेषोऽयम् ( प्रदीप० )].

(c) & (d) लिङ्ग and वचन (gender and number).—In the verse भक्तिप्रहाविलोकनप्रणयिनी etc., there is श्लेष of both लिङ्ग and वचन, the neuter dual forms and the feminine singular forms being identical [ अन्न प्रणयिनी इति स्त्रियाम् प्रथयैकवचनं नपुंसके तदृद्विवचनं चेति लिङ्गवचनस्योः श्लेषः ( प्रदीप० )].

(e) भाषा (dialects).—The verse महदे etc., when taken as Sanskrit means one thing and when taken as Prakrit means another thing. Thus it is an instance of भाषाश्लेष.

(f) प्रकृति (crude forms).—In the verse अयं सर्व्वाणि शाव्वाणि etc., the word वक्ष्यति is the singular future ( लृट् ) form of both वच् and वृद्ध, and the word सामर्थ्यवत् means both सामर्थ्यं करोतीति and सामर्थ्यं कुन्नतीति. Hence we have here an instance of प्रकृतिश्लेष i. e., the श्लेष of two crude forms. [ अन्न वक्ष्यति वहिवच्योलृटि कृदिति कुन्ततिकृत्योः विवमि तुल्यं रूपमिति प्रकृतिश्लेषौ ( प्रदीप० )].

(g) प्रत्यय (suffix).—In the verse रजनिरमणमेलेः etc., the word नन्दिता is a form of the root नन्द्. It may mean नन्दक ( नन्द् + तृच् ) or the condition of नन्दिन् ( नन्दिन् + तल् ). It should be noted here that the root in both the cases is नन्द् but the प्रत्ययs are different. Hence it is an instance of प्रत्ययश्लेष.

[ नन्दिता when meaning 'the position of Nandin' is to be taken as नन्द् + स्विनि + तल्. Thus in the case of तृच् it is directly added to the root and in the case of स्विनि another प्रत्यय intervenes. नन्दितेत्यव नन्दधातुरेकः ऋग्यवहिता नततृच्नवप्रत्ययस्य कर्त-प्रत्ययस्यैहितातत्कृज्जितप्रत्ययस्य भेदः, रूपभेदोऽमम ( महेश्वर० )].

(h) विभक्ति (declensional and conjugational terminations).—सर्वेसवं हर सर्वस्य त्वम् [when addressed by a devotee to Śiva it means—O Hara, you are all in all to everybody ; when addressed by a thief to his son it means—you take away all the property of all men ]. Here the root is ह and the विभक्तिस only are different. Hence it is an instance of विभक्तिश्लेष,

99

[ हर when meaning 'O Siva' is formed by adding पच् to हर and then declensional termination (vocative singular) is added to it. But when it means 'take away' it is formed by adding conjugational termination (imperative second person singular) to the root हर. The root in both these 'cases is हर; only the विभक्तिस् are different. It should further be noted that in the case of declensional termination there is intervention of a प्रकृत्य ].

There is a ninth variety of वृत्त्येकदेश named अभिन्नदय in which two meanings are apprehended without the expressions being split up in different ways as in समाहार्य. An example of this variety of ध्यय is furnished by the verse यो दसकृत् परयोगानाम् etc. In this verse both the king (who is a highly learned man) and Indra (the king of the gods) are described. The verse means :-(a) The king who is the foremost of the learned men looks resplendent being capable of repeatedly destroying the allies of his enemy in a moment and bearing the marks of one who gives away hundreds of kotis and (b) Indra who is the king of the gods looks resplendent being capable of cutting in a moment the wings of great mountains and bearing the character of one who strikes off with the thunderbolt.

In this verse the expressions परयोगानाम् and पक्षच्हेदेसकक्षम्: in order to yield two meanings are not to be split up differently but in the same way (पर+योगानाम् and पक्ष+च्छेद+एक+क्षमः). [ The case is, however, different with the expression दसकृत्विदाम्. It is to be split up in different ways for the two meanings to be obtained ]. There is thus समाहार्य ( more precisely प्रकार्यैक्य and प्रतिपत्त्यैक्य ) in this expression.

It should be noted here that some words in this verse like विदाम् etc., restrict them to a particular meaning both the meanings of the verse are possible. Thus both the king and Indra are come the objects of description and it is why there is वृत्त्येकदेश. [ एवं युगपदनेकवस्तु प्रकाशनायवतारे इत्यर्थः, यत् वृत्तोद् वृत्तोऽपि ].

[ We have seen in Ch. II that according to Viśvanātha a word has several primary meanings, its range of denotation is a particular sense by such conditions as संयोग, विप्रयोग, साहचर्य etc. ]

According to Udbhaṭa both समञ्जश्लेष and शभ्जश्लेष which he calls शबरेश and अभयश्लेष respectively, are regarded as अर्थालङ्कार and not शब्दालङ्कार.

His view regarding the figure श्लेष is that it consists of a coalescence either of words that are pronounciable by different efforts ( प्रयत्न ) on account of their accent or स्वर ( उदात्त, अनुदात्त or स्वरित ) being different, or of words pronounciable by same efforts on account of their accent being the same. In the former case the श्लेष is शब्दश्लेष because different words coalesce like lac and wood. [ तत्रादः शद्दश्लेपः । स्वरितादिगुणभेदाद् भिन्नप्रयोलोचार्यतया भिन्नानां शब्दानां वच्ये जतुकाष्ठन्यायात् शब्दयोरपि स्थितत्वात ( प्र०प० ) ]. It is called also समञ्जश्लेष because in order to obtain two meanings splitting up in different ways becomes necessary.

In the latter case the श्लेष is अर्थश्लेष because two meanings cluster round the same word like two fruits hanging from a stem. [ द्वितीयस्त्वर्थश्लेषः । स्वरितादिगुणसाम्येदात् एकप्रयत्नोच्चार्यतया शब्दमेदाभावात् एकसन्तर्गतफलद्वन्यायेन अर्थयोरपि स्थितत्वात ( प्रदीप० ) ]. It is called also अभञ्जश्लेष because even without splitting up in different ways two meanings are obtained.

[ It should be noted that the essential factor for the figure श्लेष is the apprehension of different meanings. This is the reason why Udbhaṭa calls it an अर्थालङ्कार only. अर्थभेदप्रतीतौवैव शलङ्कारत्वलोपमादर्थोषित्वेन द्वयोरप्यर्थालङ्कारतैति द्विविधशब्दालङ्कारस्यवस्कारादिभिरन्यदारमध्य पठित; तत् कथम् शब्दालङ्कारमध्ये पचते ? ( प्रदीप० and उद्योत० ) ].

Udbhaṭa is further of opinion that though श्लेष is at the root of many figures like उपमा, रूपक, समासोक्ति etc., yet it only generates the idea of these figures and as such these figures are subordinate to it.

As regards the contention that श्लेष is only अर्थालङ्कार, Mammaṭa says that in order to decide whether a particular दोष or a particular गुण or a particular अलङ्कार pertains to शब्द or अर्थ, अन्वय and व्यतिरेक (and not आश्रयाश्रयिभाव ) should be regarded as the only test. On this principle कष्टत्व, गाढत्व and अनन्वयास are regarded as शब्ददोष, शब्दगुण and शब्दालङ्कार respectively and अपुष्टता, प्रौढि and उपमा as अर्थदोष, अर्थगुण and अर्थालङ्कार respectively. To put the whole thing in a nutshell, when a दोष, गुण or अलङ्कार does not bear the change of word, that is, when it dis-

appears with the substitution of a synonym of the word that has caused it, then it is called शब्दालंकार, रूपक or रूपालंकार, but' when it bears a change of word, that is, when a दोष, गुण or अलंकार remains as such even when the word that has caused it is substituted by its synonym, then it is called अर्थालंकार, अर्थगुण or अर्थालंकार.

In the verse स्वं च पहवानाम्न- etc., there are both शब्दालंकार and अर्थालंकार. In the first half of the verse (which contains शब्दालंकार) the word भास्वत् and in the second half (which contains अर्थालंकार ) the word स्वाप are not changeable by their synonyms. Thus both शब्दालंकार and अर्थालंकार pertain to words and hence they are अलंकार.—[ स्वं द्वयोरप्यपदयो: भास्वत्-पदत्रासापपदयो: परिकल्प्यसहत्वात् ह्योरपि शब्दालंकारत्वमेवोचिन्त, न त्वादृश्यार्थालंकारत्वम् । ( प्रतिप० ) ].

The verse स्तोकेनोन्नतिमवाप्ति etc., furnishes an instance of अर्थालंकार. Here the स्तोकेन will be retained even if the words स्तोकेन, उन्नति etc., are substituted by their synonyms. [ नन्वर्थालंकार: हि नास्त्यत्रैव ? न भवति ? करणादि तस्य विषय: ? यत्र पदपरिच्छेदेनैव न हेतुः यथा नोन्नतिम् । (प्रतीप० ) ].

According to Udbhata the predominant figure in the verse स्वं च पहवानाम्न—etc., is रूपक and it generates the idea of उपमा. उपमा cannot be the predominant figure here because the सामान्य (the common property between the उपमान and उपमेय—सादृश्य and हेतु) consists merely of words (same adjective) viz., वस्वापकटाक्षैः दृष्टिदर्शनेन having different meanings when construed with the उपमान and उपमेय ( रूपक and दृष्टिप्रसाद ). Mammata refutes this contention by saying that सामान्य consisting of word—may constitute उपमा just as that consisting of गुण (attribute), क्रिया (action) or both गुण and क्रिया. [ साम्येनात्र हि नोक्तं दृष्टान्तः किं तु रूपकसम्भवात् ( प्रतीप० ) ]. He quotes the authority of Rudrata who says that उपमा and दृष्टान्त are undoubtedly सङ्कर. But they are possible in passages like दृष्टान्तं दृष्ट्वा गतार्थता on the basis of the sameness of word only.

It is not also correct to maintain that when the word उपमा—उपमा and when it is used ( e.g., साम्येन गुण ), we have उपमा and when it is used (e.g., साम्येन गुण ), the have उपमा, etc. [ इत्यादि ].

then there would be no scope for पूणोंपमा (in which the use of the word expressive of common property is essential).

The verse देव त्वमेव पातालम्—etc., is an instance where रूप is independent of उपमा or any other figure. In this verse there ere double-meaning words, and they may apply either to Viṣnu or to the king.

But as neither Viṣṇu nor the king is the object of description here, the expressive power of words is not restricted particularly to any of them by the context etc. So the figures दीपक and तुल्ययोगिता are not possible here. उपमा is also not possible on account of the absence of त्व or any other similar words. So the figure in the verse is रूप, pure and simple.

So it is evident that as उपमा can exist without रूप (e.g. कमलमिव मुखम् ) so can रूप also exist without उपमा or any other figure. रूप and उपमा each having a distinct province, there may not be any वाध्यवाधकभाव (the relation of invalidated and invalidator) between them. Thus these two figures can combine with each other as equals and when this is the case, there will arise the figure संकर.

[ किंच, यत्र ध्वस्तमनोभवेन दृश्यादौ नास्त्येव किश्चित्‌दल्कारान्तरमेत्युपमाद्योःविभक्तोदाहरणसम्भवाद् वाध्यवाधकभावाभ्युपगमे दृश्योयोगे संकर एवति वरम् अश्न्युपगतनियमम् ( प्रदीप० ) ].

It appears on a consideration of all circumstances that the verse स्वयम्च्र पहवातालम्—etc., is an instance of उपमा and not of संकर. For in संकर two figures equally predominant combine. Both the figures ( उपमा and रूप ) are not equally predominant in the verse स्वयम्च्र पहवातालम् —etc., because here without रूप there is no साधारणधर्मे (common property) and without साधारणधर्मे there cannot be उपमा and so रूप serves the purpose of उपमा and as such becomes subordinate to it. According to the maxim प्रधानेन व्यपदेशा भवन्ति (the principal factor determines the name of a thing) the figure in the verse under discussion must be named उपमा on account of its predominance over रूप. If inspite of these considerations संकर is admitted to be the figure in this verse, then the instances like कमलमिव मुखं मनोऽक्ष्म् also will have to be regarded as संकर and thus पूणोंपमा will be without a province of its own.

In अविरुद्धद्वन्द्वी नित्यं—etc, the idea of विरोध is not generated by श्लेष but the idea of श्लेष is generated by विरोध. There is no श्लेष here because it arises when there is a clear comprehension of two meanings. Here the second meaning is only hinted at and not developed, i. e., it has no connection with जन्यप. [In श्लेष a clear double meaning is a necessary condition]. Nor can it be said that just as विरोधाभास (mere semblance of contradiction), constitutes the figure विरोध, so would श्लेषाभास (semblance of pun i. e., though the pun is not developed) constitute श्लेष. [नन्वप्रस्तुतेऽपि श्लेषोऽस्तुल्यो नास्तां विरोधाभासवदिति चेत् (प्रदीप०)]. The reason is this : actual विरोध being a दोष, विरोधाभास is accepted as constituting the figure विरोध, while actual श्लेष being not a दोष, there is no occasion for श्लेषाभास to come in. [विरोधस्य वास्तवस्य ह्रस्वादलं मास्येवालंकृतत्वम्, न तु श्लेषे, पुनरुक्तवद्भासादावतिप्रसक्तादिति भावः (उद्योत०)].

Examples may be cited in which other figures of speech such as उपमा, व्यतिरेक, समासोक्ति etc., are predominant and serve only to indicate श्लेष.

Mammaṭa further criticises Udbhata by saying that to call a particular figure of speech श्लेष and yet to include it in अभिधानकूट is a contradiction in terms.

[An अभिधानकूट rests not on the use of particular words but on meanings. किं च ‘प्रकृतस्यैव’—ह्यादौ शब्दश्लेषस्यालंकारत्वमिति वचने भवता विरुद्धं, शब्दाभिधितले तेन व्यपदेशो न न्याय्यत (प्रदीप०)].

It should further be noted that it is beauty which constitutes अलंकार and beauty exists in that, be it a word (शब्द) or a meaning (अर्थ), to which the poet directs his attention and skill. [प्रतिभा हि धक्तिनिर्जुनततेव वा। संहरंमो यथा: । पश्वि बिन ब परस्यार्थविजदरसलोक-स्याप्तम्। तथा च कविप्रतिभालंगोचरत्वं यत्न तदेव विचित्रता (उद्योत०)]. So the substratum of beauty is either शब्द or अर्थ. When it is शब्द there is शब्दालंकार and when अर्थ, there is अर्थालंकार. It is not an argument to say that without a comprehension of the two meanings श्लेष is not comprehended and as such the words that form श्लेष ultimately depend on their meanings to give rise to the idea of this figure and therefore it should be regarded as an अर्थालंकार. For then,

अथुप्रास and वक्रोक्ति also will have to be regarded as -अर्थालंकारs on the ground that they are also dependent upon meanings that suggest रस. [ रसादिर्यस्यैकस्वरूपं यद् वाच्यं तत्सापेक्षत्वेनैवर्थः । शब्दालंकारकार्थनिवन्धे तदनुगुणवैचर्यालंकारतयसुगुणो भवत्येव । एवं वीरादौ गौणीवृत्तिरिति तदनुगुण इत्यर्थः । वृत्ति दोष from a consideration of अर्थ (meaning) and not merely on account of their dependence on शब्द. [ When the meaning is gorgeous, ओज: is a गुण and when the meaning is delicate श्रुतिकटु is a दोष* ]. On the other hand गुण, दोष and अलंकार that pertain to अर्थ (such as माधुर्य, प्रसादता and उपमा ) have to primarily depend on शब्द because there is no comprehension of meaning without शब्द. [ So it is clear that mere dependence on शब्द or अर्थ does not determine whether a गुण, दोष or अलंकार pertains to शब्द or to अर्थ ].

Lastly, the contention that pronounciableness by similar efforts constitutes अर्थश्लेष is also not correct ; for, then विधौ वक्त्रे मूर्धि etc, where श्र्लेष rests on वर्ण (letters) would be an example of अर्थश्लेष on the ground of the two words विधौ and विध्रौ (the locative forms of विधु and विधि ) being coalesced into one word and as such being pronounciable by the same effort.

पुनरुक्तवदाभास (semblance of repetition)—When one and the same meaning appears to be expressed by words in diverse forms (with or without meaning), the figure is पुनरुक्तवदाभास. [ एकार्थतेति एकार्थत्वाद् वा भाषासयोग्यशब्दतैवर्थः: ( प्रदीप० ) । वस्तुतो नैकार्यत्वं किन्तु तत्प्रतिभानमालमिति भावः ( उद्घोत० ) ]. It subsists only in words (broken or unbroken) and also in words and meanings. The figure is said to subsist in words when the words cannot be replaced by their synonyms and in meanings where such replacement is possible without spoiling the effect.

• श्रुतिकटु is a शब्ददोष. गुणs like ओज: etc., pertain to शब्द according to Vāmana.

X

अथोल्लासः (Figures of Sense)

1. उपमा—सादृश्यं between two objects (उपमान and उपमेय—the object compared to and the object compared), which are distinct from each other, constitutes उपमा. [When the उपमान and the उपमेय are the same i. e., when a thing is compared to itself, the figure is अनन्वय. The सादृश्य existing between कारण and कार्य (material cause and effect) does not constitute this figure]. सादृश्यं means relation with a common property which brings home the idea of resemblance [साधर्म्यप्रयोजकसादृश्यलक्षणं सादृश्यं रूपमा, साधर्म्यं चातिरिक्तः पदार्थः ( उद्घोत० )]. So in उपमा there. must be four elements namely, उपमान (the standard of comparison), उपमेय (the object of comparison), साधारणधर्म (common property) and सम्बन्ध (the relation of उपमान and उपमेय with the common property). [Thus, the constituent factors of a sentence conveying उपमा are the words that signify these four elements. The relation of उपमान and उपमेय with the common property is signified by words like इव, यथा etc. It should be remembered that beauty is the soul of अलङ्कार and so when there is no beauty, there is no अलङ्कार. Thus गौरी गवयः, गढ इव पटो द्रव्यम्, पट इव पटो जातिमान् etc. will not be instances of उपमा inspite of the presence of its requisite factors].

X

अथोल्लासः (Figures of Sense)

उपमा is primarily of two kinds—पूर्णा and लुप्ता. It is पूर्णा when all the four elements are fully expressed and लुप्ता, when one or two or three of them are absent. पूर्णा is again of two varieties, वाच्यी and प्राची. It is वाच्यी when the common property is expressed by particles like यथा, इव, वा, or by the affix वत् which is equivalent to इव in accordance with Pāṇini, V.I. 116. It is प्राची when this relationship is expressed by words like तुल्य, सदृश etc., or by the affix वत् in accordance with Pāṇini, V. I. 115.*

X

अथोल्लासः (Figures of Sense)

• The two rules of Pāṇini referred to are तत्समेत्य and नञ् तद् क्रिया वियोगे. By the former rule वत् is prescribed in the sense of तत् यत् and तत् इय (e. g., मधुरवद् यत्र भाषते meaning मधुर इव यत्र भाषते) and by the latter, in the sense of न यत् यदि the similarity consists in action (e. g., आचारवत् कुर्वीत meaning आचारं न कुर्वीत ).

Though in both शौती and आर्थी the comprehension of the relation of उपमान and उपमेय with a common property which causes resemblance is the same, yet the difference between the two lies in the fact that in the former, the comprehension is direct i. e., obtained directly from the force of words and in the latter, it is indirect i. e., not obtained directly from the force of words but by implication. It may be said that in instances of शौती the words, after which यथा, इव, वा or वति in the sense of तत्र तस्येव are used, are understood to be उपमानs and as such यथा, इव etc., are regarded as the विशेषणs of उपमानs, and, therefore, they denote the connection of their meanings with the उपमानs only and not with the उपमेयs†. Though the contention is correct, yet the peculiar power of the words यथा, इव etc. is such that they, immediately on being heard, are capable of denoting such a relation both with the उपमान and उपमेय just as the genitive case shows the relation of master and servant between राजा and पुरुप in the instance राज्ञ: पुरुप:, though the genitive case is a विशेषण of राजा only. It is on this account that शौती उपमा is so called [ शौती शब्दगम्या ].

The words युज्य, सदृश etc., signify similarity ( साम्यवाचक ). In instances of आर्थी उपमा such as पद्मेन तुल्ये मुखे, पद्मं तुल्यं मुखस्य and पदं मुखवत् तुल्यम्, the word तुल्य signifies similarity primarily existing in मुख ( उपमेय ) in the first, in पद्म ( उपमान ) in the second, and in both पद्म and मुख ( उपमान and उपमेय ) in the third sentence. The ultimate meaning in every case is that there is similarity between the two objects, face ( मुख ) and lotus ( पद्म ). Now there can be no similarity between two objects unless they possess a common property. So साम्यं ( the relation of the common property with the उपमान and उपमेय ) comes to be apprehended not directly but from implication. It is on this account that आर्थी उपमा is so called [ आर्थी अर्थवशालम्ब्या ].

† A विशेषण is that which imparts a particular attribute to another thing. यथा, इव etc., impart उपमानता ( a particular attribute ) to words after which they are used and are, therefore, their विशेषणs. A विशेषण can show the connection of its meaning only with the thing whose विशेष्य it is and not with any other thing.—यद् यदर्थं धर्मविशेषं प्रतिपादयति, तद् विशेषणम् । एकविशेष्यं नापरत्न स्वार्थे प्रत्याययति.

107

Both श्रोती and आर्थी ( the two varieties of पूजो ) appear in वाक्ये (sentence), समास (compound) and तद्धित (nominal affix).

Examples of :-

1. वाच्यगा श्रोती—स्वमेधि समरेपु etc. Here the उपमान (स्वाधीनपतिका ), उपमेय (विजयश्री), साधारणधर्मे ( अपराजिताग implied by न सुचति etc. ) and उपमा-प्रतिपादकपद ( यथा—the word expressing the relation of उपमान and उपमेय with साधारलधर्मे ) are all mentioned but there is no समास between any two of them. Hence the उपमा is वाच्यगा श्रोती.

2. समासगा श्रोती—अव्यायंतनियमकारिबद्धतानां etc. Here युज is उपमान and इतु is उपमाप्रतिपादकपद and they have been compounded together in accordance with Vārttika on Pāṇini, II. 4. 71. [The compound with स्व as sanctioned by this Vārttika is optional and therefore Mammaṭa's reading स्वेन नित्यसमासो etc. appears to be wrong. It is noted by the author of उद्योत. He says—व्याकरणैक्यालोकारादर्शिके तथा अपठाच निपयप्रदर्शनेपोषामाणिनः ].

3. तद्धितगा श्रोती—गाम्भीर्येनारिमा तथ्य etc. Here in the expression गहर्युवत्, साधर्म्य is expressed by the तद्धित affix वति which has been added in the sense of पधीयभक्ति by the rule तम तस्येन to the word गहर्युक which is उपमान.

Examples of :-

1. वाच्यगा आर्थी—चक्रितहारीपोल्लोलचनदृशा: etc. Here the word सम which is उपमाप्रतिपादक being not in a compound with उपमान is to be regarded as occurring in a वाक्य and hence the उपमा is वाच्यगा आर्थी.

2. समासगा आर्थी—अवितथमनोरयपधमनेभ्य etc. Here the word सदृश which is उपमानप्रतिपादक is compounded with उपमान ( यस्तत् ) and hence the उपमा is समासगा आर्थी.

3. तद्धितगा आर्थी—दुरालोकः स समरे etc. Here the तद्धिन affix वत् has been added to the उपमान निद्रापरत्वेन by the rule ‘तेन तुसं क्रा येद वनि:’ and hence the उपमा is तद्धितगा आर्थी.

Now, though an अलंकार is nothing more than beauty and there is no beauty without a suggested sense, yet a kāvya having अलंकार is not to be regarded either as पधितकाव्य or गुणवत्काव्य (on account of its having a suggested sen-e) for the simple reason that beauty in kāvyas having अलंकार is recognized purely from

the understanding of the beauty of the expressed sense and not from the realisation of the suggested sense.

It is true that in an example cited to illustrate a particular अलङ्कार there is invariably the presence of suggestions of रस, भाव etc., or the presence of one or more other अलङ्कारs. But it should be noted that the beauty caused by that particular अलङ्कार puts into shade the beauty caused by other factors. An example of a particular अलङ्कार, if entirely devoid of other factors (such as the suggestions of रस, भाव etc., or an अलङ्कार other than that), would be extremely distasteful.

After having shown the six kinds of पूर्णोपमा the author next describes the nineteen kinds of लुप्तोपमा. In this kind of उपमा, as has already been stated, one, two or three of the requisite factors of उपमा may be absent.

When only the साधारण धर्म is omitted, लुप्ता is of five kinds : three kinds of आर्थी—वाच्यगा, समासगा and तद्धितगा and two kinds of श्रोती—वाच्यगा and समासगा आर्थी. When only the उपमान is omitted, it is of two kinds : वाच्यगा and समासगा आर्थी. When उपमानप्रतिपादकपद is omitted, it is of six kinds : (1) समासगा and (2-3) as caused by the affix क्यच् used in the sense of कर्म and in the sense of अधिकरण, (4) by the affix णयड् used in the sense of कर्तृ and (5-6) by the affix णकुल used in the sense of कर्तृ and in the sense of कर्म. In these varieties there is no necessity of discussing whether they are श्रोती or आर्थी because in them words like यथा or इव and तुल्य or सदृश are absent—नह च यथादितुल्यादिविरहाच्छौत्यादि-विशोपचिन्ता नास्ति ( दर्पणो ).

So लुप्तोपमा is of 13 kinds when one of the factors is omitted.

• With the साधारणधर्म omitted तद्धितगा श्रोती उपमा is impossible. Because this kind of उपमा requires the use of the तद्धित affix वति with उपमान in the sense of तल इव and तस्य इव. But when वति is used in this sense it is essential that the साधारणधर्म must be expressly mentioned. Thus when साधारणधर्म is omitted there cannot be तद्धितगा श्रोती उपमा.—तद्धिते तु श्रोती न, इवार्थविहितवतिरूपे एव हि तद्धिते श्रोती भवेत् । स च वतिप्रवृत्त्या 'तत् तस्येव' इति प्राङ्निनोच्यैव षष्ठीसत्यान्तादेवोपमानपदात् विहितसङ्गा साधारणधर्म एव स्वार्यान्वयार्थं जनयन् नियतसैव साधारणधर्मंसाकाङ्क्ष:——इति साधारणधर्मोपादानं विना तादृश्य तद्धितस्यासम्भवात् न तत्कृतत उपमामेद इति भावः.

When the उपमाप्रतिपादकपद and साधारणधर्मे are both omitted, the दृष्टान्त is twofold, being possible in a समास and in the affix वत्. When the साधारणधर्मे and उपमान are omitted, then also it is of two kinds as occurring in a समास and in a तद्‍वत्. When the उपमाप्रतिपादकपद and उपमेय are omitted, it is of one kind only being possible in the affix वत्.

So दृष्टोपमा is of five kinds when two of the factors are omitted.

When three factors, viz., the उपमाप्रतिपादकपद, साधारणधर्मे and उपमान are omitted, the दृष्टान्त is of one kind only and occurs in समास

Some hold the view that दृष्टोपमा is possible also when only the उपमान remains i e, when other three factors are omitted They cite the term आय दारुणिक as an example It means 'one who behaves like आय दारुण (speal)' Here the उपमेय (the cruel person), साधारणधर्मे ( cruelty ) and the उपमाप्रतिपादकपद ( दव ) are all omitted and only the उपमान ( which is आय दारुण ) is mentioned According to Mammata this is not a collect view. He says that the term means not 'one who behaves like an आय दालु' but 'one who acts with in आय दालु' the term आय दालु meaning कुठ आचार (cruel behaviour) by रूढा.* So कुठ आचार has been spoken of as or completely identified with आय दारुण and thus the figure involved here is अतिशयोक्ति and not उपमा

Ancient rhetoricians like Rudhatı and others have spoken of other varieties such as मालोपमा and रसनोपमा When one उपमेय has

नततमा उपमा is possible only when वतिरस like मति etc, are added to the उपमान So when उपमान is absent नततमा उपमानुनना is not possible. -उपमागुणवाचकादेश उपमाप्रतिपादकस्य वतिप्रकृतिततस्य विधानाात् उपमानानुपादाने नतत्संख्यवेद न तर्हिता सम्प्रति.

उपमानुनना यौगो also is not possible because this kind of तद्धर्म segures the use of words तद्धय, यथा etc They are to be used with उपमान So when उपमान is absent there is no chance for उपमानुनना योगो. -गुणानातिदश्वाद्योगोधकलनियमेन उपमानानुपपादाने नैवमुपमानुनना योगो. -यत् यत्सादृश्यनिमित्तस्य सादृश्योपपादकधीरोपोः । यत् यत्सादृश्यमादत्ते तत् तत् तेनोपमीयते ॥ ( वृतिः ) यत् युष्मत्सादृश्याद् वयं श्लाघ्यास्तत् तत् त्वया तुल्यम् । वचनभङ्गीषु ( तृतनयपिो )

several उपमानs, the figure is मालोपमा. It is of two kinds—when the साधारणधर्मे is one and the same with all the उपमानs and when it is different with each उपमान.

If an उपमेय at one stage is turned into an उपमान at the next stage, having another उपमेय, which again is turned into an उपमान and so on, the figure is रथानोपमा.

Mammata says that they have not been described because in the first place thousands of such varieties may be made out and secondly these varieties may come under the varieties already enumerated.

2. अनन्वय—when one and the same object appears in a single sentence as both उपमान and उपमेय, i. e., when an object is compared to itself in order to convey the idea that it has not its like, the figure is अनन्वय. [Examples—नितभ्रवनी सैव नितभ्रनीव, तद्दिलासा इव तद्दिलासा: ].

3. उपमेयोपमा—when two objects mutually become उपमान and उपमेय to one another in two different sentences in order to convey the idea that there is no third thing to which they could be compared, the figure is उपमेयोपमा (reciprocal comparison). [Example—कमलेन मतिरेव कमला मतिमेतिरिच कमला ].

4. उत्प्रेक्षा—when a thing under description ( प्रकृत or उपमेय ) is imagined to be identical with a thing which is not under description ( अप्रकृत or सम or उपमान ) but similar to it, the figure is उत्प्रेक्षा.

[ प्रकृतस्योपमेयस्य समेनोपमानेन सह एकरूपतया ( तादात्म्येन ) यत् सम्भावनं सा उत्प्रेक्षा उत्प्रेक्षा-नामकोऽलङ्कार इति सूत्रार्थः· The term सम्भावन is explained as ऊहकटतैककोटिकः सन्देहः· Doubt presupposes two alternatives or sides ( कोटिस ) When two sides are equally powerful, the notion is one of सन्देह, pure and simple ( श्रयं स्थाश्यरुर्वा भवेत्, एकस्यो वा—the thing visible is either a post or a man). When one side is finally accepted and the other side rejected the notion is one of निश्चय ( श्रयं स्थाश्यरुर्वा न पुरुषः—the thing visible is certainly a post and not a man ). When one side is more powerful than the other i. e., when the mind leans more to one side than to the other, it is a case of सम्भावन ( श्रयं प्रायेण स्थाश्यरुर्व भवेत्-न पुरुषः—the thing visible is most probably a post). In उत्प्रेक्षा the mind leans more to the उपमान than to the उपमेय. Example—जग्राह मन्ये क्लिततनु ते पादयोः पङ्कज्रों· Here the beauty of the girl's feet is उपमेय. According to the speaker, there is hardly any doubt that the beauty visible before him, is not the

beauty of the feet but the beauty of the lotus or in other words, probability attaches more to the उपमान than to the उपमेय.

5. ससंदेह—when an object under description (प्रकृत or उपमेय) is doubted to be something else (अप्रकृत or उपमान) and the property differentiating them is either stated or not stated, the figure is ससंदेह. [The doubt must be based upon similarity and poetical. हृता गतां या क गता न जाने मोहं गताः मे हृदयं गताः वा—here there is a doubt but it is not based upod similarity. अन्य स्थानेऽपि रूपेण वा—here the doubt is based upon similarity but not set up by poetic genius]. The differentiating properties may either exist in उपमेय or उपमान, and as has been said, may either be expressly stated or not stated. In the verse अन्य मार्जारः किं etc. the quality of being carried by seven horses does not exist in the king (उपमेय) but in the sun (उपमान). In ‘रुचिर सविलास’ etc. the quality of sweet and elegant speech exists in मुख (उपमेय) but not in हंस or सरसिज (उपमान). In the former example, the वाचक or वैशिष्ट्य or व्यावर्तक (differentiating property) is उपमाननिष्ठ and in the latter, उपमेयनिष्ठ. It should be noted that when the वाचक is उपमाननिष्ठ, the doubt is निश्चयंगभ (having निश्चय or certainty in the middle) and when it is उपमेयनिष्ठ, the doubt is निश्चवान्त (having certainty at the end).

[In the verse अन्य मार्जालः किं etc. there is at first a doubt that the bright figure is the sun. Then there is a certainty that he is not the sun on account of his being carried by a single horse. What he is, is not certain, only what is certain is that he is not the sun. Then the doubt arises that he is the fire. This doubt also is removed and the certainty is that he is not the fire. Then arises another doubt. So here in the process of cognitions there is doubt in the beginning, doubt at the end but a sort of negative certainty (caused by the व्यावर्तकधर्म or वाचकधर्म existing in the उपमान) in the middle. Thus the वाचकधर्म is निश्चयानुगंधद. In the verse इत्नुः किं का क etc. at first there is doubt whether the thing seen is the moon or anything else. The doubt is set at rest and a certainty arises by some peculiar property (व्यावर्तकधर्म) of the उपमेय. Hence the वाचकधर्म is निश्चयानुगंधद. Bhaṭṭa Udbhata ignores निश्चयानुगंधद on account of the fact that in this variety of ससंदेह, निश्चय is not suggested as in निश्चयीभत but directly expressed by some such word as निश्चिन, निश्चित etc. and thus there is no charm.—वाचाम संधय यत्रोपमेय निश्चये निश्चयादन्यद्विचितामिनि निश्चयानुगंध तु निश्चयत्र वाचकलक्म, तत्र वाच्यत्वे च न तादृशमप्यकारणं—दकारिकापि ०.]

In both these verses the differentiating properties (भेद or वैषम्य, whether उपमाननिष्ठ or उपमेयनिष्ठ ) are expressly stated. In the verse अस्या: सर्गविधौ etc. they have not been so stated.

6

रूपक

रूपक—when in order to indicate extreme likeness between उपमान and उपमेय they are represented as non-different, or, in other words, when there is superimposition (आरोप) of the विषयिन् (उपमान) on the विषय (उपमेय), the विषय not being denied (as in अपह्नुति) the figure is रूपक. [ अमेदप्राधान्ये आरोपे आरोपविषयानपह्नवे रूपकम् ]. रूपक has eight varieties and they are shown in the following table :-

(1) साङ्ग—when the विषयिन् or the principal उपमान and its accessories are superimposed on the विषय or the principal उपमेय and its accessories respectively, the रूपक is साङ्ग. It is समस्तवस्तुविषय when all the आरोप्यमाणs i. e., the विषयिन् and its accessories (the objects which are super-imposed) are all directly expressed by words and none of them is left to be implied and एकदेशविवर्ति when some of them are expressed and some left to be implied [ एकदेशो विशेषेण वर्ण्यते इत्येकदेशविवर्ति:, विशेषेण वर्ण्यते शब्दोप्रात्तत्वेन वर्ण्यते इत्यर्थ: ]. In the verse ज्योत्स्ना-कन्या—etc. कान्तिमती (which is the विषयिन् or the principal उपमान) and her accessories भ्रम, ज्योति: etc., have been superimposed on रात्रि and its accessories ज्योत्स्ना, तारका etc. respectively. Further, the आरोप्यमाणs are all expressed directly by words. Hence the verse is an illustration of समस्तवस्तुविषयसाङ्गरूपक.

[ Though the compound expressions रात्रिकान्तिमती भ्रमाच्चयोत्का etc. may be construed as expressive of उपमा, yet the property अन्वर्थान्वयसनरसिकत्व (delight-

113

ing in vanishing from view) being peculiar to उपमान (which is आरोपित (super-imposed) the figure is दृश्य. Similarly in instances like तुदतदृश्य ननु महाति the property ननु being peculiar to दृश्य, there is आरोप. In instances like तुदृश्यं दृश्यते, however, दृश्य being possible to be found both in हृद and दृश्य, there is संकर of उपमा and दृश्य ].

In the verse जस्स रक्नेउर etc., the super-imposition of अनंगदृश्य on रक्नेउर is directly expressed, while the fact of नायिका and प्रतिनायिका respectively being नायिका and प्रतिनायिका is implied i. e., comprehended only through the force of the meanings of the words used. Thus the दृश्य being explicit only in one part is एकदेशविवर्ति.

(2) निरदृश्य—when there is super-imposition only of the principal उपमान, the accessories or subordinate elements being not referred to at all, the figure is निरदृश्यपक. [ निरदृश्यं सदृशीतयाम, तच्च दृश्यमवैलस: ( प्रतिप० ). श्रहतीयेप अन्यादृशिमानहीनमित्यर्थ:; केवलस्यैव रूपणादित्यर्थ: ( उद्योत० ) ]. It is either दृश्य or मालारूप. In the verse कुरककावालि etc., नायिका is superimposed on गम and there is no superimposition of any of the accessories ( दृश्य ) of the former on those of the latter. Hence there is दृश्य निरदृश्यपक. When several उपमानs are super-imposed upon a single उपमेय the figure is मालारूप निरदृश्यपक. In the verse चौंदकस वज्जइँ etc., several उपमानs, such as तरहिहँ etc., are super-imposed upon a single उपमेय i. e., वय्या. It should further be noted that there is no superimposition of any of the accessories ( दृश्य ) of any of the several उपमानs on those of the उपमेय.

(3) परस्परित—when one superimposition becomes the cause of another superimposition desired to be described, the figure is परस्परितपक. परस्परितपक is thus made up of two दृश्यs, one being the cause of the other. In the verse मनस मज्जइँ etc., which is the cause, the उपमान and the उपमेय may either be coalesced into a single word ( संकर ), or both may be distinctly mentioned ( नैक ). In the example मनसो मज्जइँ etc., the superimposition of मानत (the lake) on मनस (the mind), is the cause of superimposition of हंस on मनस; for, there is no similarity between हंस and मनस except the fact that they both live in मानत (the king living in the mind of the lady and the हंस living in the मानत lake). Here the words हंस (the bird) and हंस (the mind) have been coalesced into one.

K-P—15

is fææपरंपरिता. In the example आलनं जयडा़रस्य the superimpositi

of जय on जयर is the cause of the superimposition of आलन on जय. The words जय and जयर being distinct from each other, the रूपक

परंपरिता. Each of these again has two varieties viz., केवल and मालाल्य. Thus परंपरिता is of four kinds.

Though it is true that in दृष्टपरंपरित the words on which the rests (such as मानल in the above example) cannot be replaced by

its synonym and other words (such as डंस) can be so replaced, and thus this अतिशय being both a शब्दालङ्कार and an अर्थालङ्कार should have been

mentioned along with शब्दालङ्कारs such as पुनरुक्तवदाभास in chap. IX, yet it has been mentioned here along with अर्थालङ्कारs in accordance with

usage established by earlier writers on poetics.

7. अपह्नुति—when the उपमेय is denied i. e., represented as unreal and in its stead the उपमान is affirmed i. e., represented as

real, the figure is अपह्नुति. अपह्नुति is either शाब्दी or आर्थी. In शाब्दी अपह्नुति the denial of the उपमेय is distinctly expressed by words, while in

आर्थी the denial is implied, the implication being caused by the use of words synonymous with कपट or परिणाम. In the verse अवाप्तः प्रागल्भ्यं—

etc., फलकृ which is उपमेय is denied distinctly by the words नैवायं कलकः. Thus the figure here is शाब्दी अपह्नुति. In the verses वत सखि

etc. and असुभिर्मेधावण्यामृतसरसि etc., रत्न and रोमावलि which are उपमेयs are denied, the denial being implied by the word छलेन in the

former case and परिणमति in the latter. Thus the figure in these verses is आर्थी अपह्नुति.

8. श्लेष—when in a single sentence there are several meanings the figure is श्लेष. [The distinction between शब्दश्लेष and अर्थश्लेष is that

in the former the श्लिष्ट word is not capable of being replaced by a synonym and in the latter it can be so replaced].

9. समासोक्ति—when owing to some properties common to both प्रकृत (the object meant to be described) and अप्रकृत (the object

not meant to be described), अप्रकृत is suggested from प्रकृत, the figure is समासोक्ति. In the verse लहिऊण etc., the word जयलक्ष्मी itself cannot

mean कान्ता (lady-love), but this meaning is suggested from the properties such as नाइरपचीलांब etc., which are common to both.

10. निदर्शना—when the non-existence of any relation between two things (whether two वाच्यार्थ's or two तात्पर्यार्थ's) implies similarity, the figure is निदर्शना. In the verse क इन्दुदर्शनं etc. there is no relation between two वाच्यार्थ's viz. the describing of the solar dynasty and the crossing of an ocean by a raft. This non-relation leads on to the meaning 'the describing of the solar dynasty by my limited intelligence is as difficult as crossing etc. is meant by a man by a raft. Thus the figure in this verse is निदर्शना. In the sentence नीरेकरूपदेशी वृत्ति (this mountain bears the beauty of an airy mountain) occurring in the verse एकरूपदेशी वृत्ति etc. there is no relation here between तयोः (the beauty of a mountain and the beauty of an airy mountain); the sentence means, therefore just like the beauty of an airy mountain—शोभां रघुमानं ररसतत्. This is निदर्शना. दोषाद् दृष्टान्त etc. is an instance of it.

There is another kind of निदर्शना viz. when an action and its cause is उक्त (stated). In the verse शरद् पतन्त etc., the cause of thing's happening is between itself and its cause viz. this is done by a worthless man. { अन निदर्शनालक्ष्यते जयदेवः }. This kind of निदर्शना is called अर्थान्तरन्यास by rhetoricians.

11. अर्थापत्ति—when from an object not intended to be described) is implied, the figure is अर्थापत्ति. { वस्तुनो वा मुख्यार्थस्य व्यग्रस्यापि प्रसज्यते }. This figure is thus the 'व्यतिरेक' of 'अर्थान्तरन्यास'. There must be some relation between the वस्तु which implies it, otherwise it would imply anything. The relation between the thing and its effect, of general and particular and of cause and effect, etc. is worthy of being known.

may be implied from the effect or the effect from the cause. There are two varieties also when the relation is that of general and particular—either the general may be implied from the particular or the particular from the general. There are no varieties, however, when the relation is that of similarity. Thus अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा is of five kinds.

(a) In the verse याता: किं न मिलन्ति सुन्दरी etc., what is प्रस्तुत is the question ‘do you postpone your journey ?’ The answer to this question is implied from the narration of the cause of postpone­ment. (b) In the verse राजन् राजसुता etc., what is प्रस्तुत is the fact of the king’s enemies having fled away from their houses on hearing of his projected march against them and this is implied from the effects of their fleeing away.

(c) In the verse एतत्तस्य सुखात कियत etc., what is प्रस्तुत is the general fact that foolish people mistake an insignificant thing for a valuable thing and feel aggrieved at its loss and this is implied from a particular instance cited. (d) In the verse सुहृदयन् वारय etc., what is प्रस्तुत is the importunity to kill a particular enemy and this is implied from the statement of a general fact.

(e) The im­plication of प्रस्तुत from अप्रस्तुत on the ground of similarity may be founded on श्लेष, सामासोक्ति and सादृश्यमात्र (mere resemblance). It is found­ed on श्लेष when the words signifying both the विशेष्य and विशेषणs are all श्लिष्ट i. e., possess two meanings and on सामासोक्ति when the words signifying the विशेषणs alone are श्लिष्ट.—तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिधाने त्रय: प्रकार:- विशेषणविशेष्यवाचिनां सदेश्यामेव श्लिष्टत्वस्य, विशेषणमात्रवाचिनो वा श्लिष्टत्वस्य, श्लेषाभिवेदि­सादृश्यमात्रस्यैव वा प्रकृताक्षेपहेतुत्वात् ( प्रदीप ० ).

(i) In the verse पुस्तवादपि प्रविचलिते etc., the विशेष्य (पुरुषोत्तम) and the विशेषणs ( पुस्तवादपि etc. ) are all श्लिष्ट. Here from the विशेष्य पुरुषोत्तम is first understood Viṣṇu, because this is the usual meaning of the word. But Viṣṇu being अप्रस्तुत what is प्रस्तुत, namely, the noblest of men is implied through श्लेष. [ अत्र पुस्त्वादित्यादिविशेषणानां पुरुषोत्तमेति विशेष्यस्य च श्लिष्टत्वं सत्पुरुषप्रतिपत्ति: (प्रदीप ० ). ] The figure in this verse is not श्लेष, pure and simple, on account of the two meanings not being understood simultaneously—Viṣṇu, the conventional meaning of the word पुरुषोत्तम being understood first and then being understood the etymological meaning ‘the noblest of men,’ through the force of —-न च श्लेष एवायम्, ‘अवयवशक्त्या समुदायशक्तिवलीयसी’ इति न्यायाद प्रामुख्येनोपस्थितो म

पुलपरसादृशेःपैशित्योपसिक्तेः, इतरेपसक्तचेष्टैषि अप्रस्तुतस्य प्रभाप्रतीपसदृशैवाप्रस्तुतप्रदर्शसादृश्यात् (प्रदीप॰)।

(ii) In the verse येनास्यम्भःयुदिवेन चन्द्र—etc. what is meant to be described is the conduct of an impoverished person and this is implied from the description of चन्द्र. Here the implication is founded on साम्योक्ति because only the विशेषण are ह्रष्ट and not the विशेष्य (चन्द्र). (iii) In the verse आधाय वारी परितः etc., what is अप्रस्तुत is the nature of a spendthrift and this is implied from the description of a thing bearing close resemblance to a spendthrift, viz., the ocean (represented as a spendthrift). This variety of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, namely, where the implication of प्रस्तुत from अप्रस्तुत rests on the ground of similarity, is, again, three-fold according as the expressed meaning is possible, impossible and partly possible and partly im-possible. Where the expressed meaning is possible, there is no need of super-imposition of the thing which is implied on the thing which is directly expressed ; where the expressed meaning is im-possible such a super imposition becomes necessary ; where the expressed meaning is partly impossible and partly possible such a super-imposition becomes partly necessary and partly unnecessary.

(i) In the verse अश्वश्रुः स्थगित—etc., what is प्रस्तुत is that the king, who happens to be of wicked disposition, should remain prosperous and this is implied from the description of an imaginary condition of ocean. The expressed sense is possible here and there is no need of superimposition.

(ii) In the verse करतलं मोः etc., what is प्रस्तुत is the condition of a low-born person whose gift has been refused by a qualified recipient and this is implied from the wretched condition of a tree described by itself. The expressed sense, namely, the de-cription of the condition of a tree by itself, is impossible and so what is implied must be superimposed on it.

(iii) In the verse शोकपूरितमनालिङ्गितः etc., what is प्रस्तुत is the attachment of a devoted servant to his unappreciating master and this is implied from the description of a black bee which does not desert the elephant to whom it was attached before. Here रमनाविरोधात्, द्वेषकरत्व and मद in reference to elephant are not the causes which can justify the desertion of the elephant by the bee. Thus

the expressed meanings being impossible as regards these, there is necessity of the superimposition of a devoted servant on the bee -the above, if taken in reference to a master, being adequate causes for a devoted servant to leave him. अतिशयपल is a just cause for a bee to leave the elephant and thus the expressed meaning being possible there is no need for any super-imposition in this case.

अतिशयोक्ति

(1) When the विषयिन् (i. e., उपमान or अप्रस्तुत) swallows up the विषय (i. e., उपमेय or प्रस्तुत), or in other words, when on account of the विषय not being expressed in words at all, there is a notion of complete identity between the विषय and the विषयिन्; (2) when the विषय is represented as different from a thing of the same class i. e., from a thing with which it has no difference; (3) when there is assumption of an impossible idea brought in through the use of words meaning ‘if’ such as यदि, चेत् etc. ; and (4) when there is a reversal of the order of cause and effect, the figure is अतिशयोक्ति.

The first variety consists in the description of things different from each other as non-different (भेदेऽप्यमेदः) and the second variety in the description of things not different from each other as different (अभेदेऽपि भेदः). In the verse कमलमनम्भसि etc., कमल, कुवलय and कनकलतिका, though different from मुख, नेत्र and कान्ता respectively, have been spoken of as identical with i. e., non-different from them. In the verse अपण्ण लडहतणआं etc., the loveliness of the young girl and the brightness of her body, though not respectively different from ordinary loveliness and ordinary brightness of body, have been spoken of as different from them. The third variety* stands for both असम्बन्धेऽपि सम्बन्धोक्ति: (assumption of connection between two objects though there is no connection between them) and सम्बन्धेऽप्यसम्बन्धोक्ति: (assump- tion of non-connection between two objects though there is a con- nection between them). In the verse रकायामकलङ्क—etc., in the first half, a connection is conceived between the moon and the absence of stain though there is no connection between them and in the second half, absence of connection between the face and the moon is

• प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्यत्वं has been explained also as प्रस्तुतस्य अन्यवस्तुनानाधवसाय; i. e., when the विषय is represented as different from what it is, then also there is अतिशयोक्ति. Example—तस्या: सृङ्गे नितम्नसुधांशणालङ्कारस्याम्भोनिधे: वेदाः.

brought in by the use of the word परामृश though there is a connection of similarity between the two. [ राकायां नकलदूभिलस पूजार्दे पूज्येन्द्री कल्पा-

मात्रसामग्र्ये समुच्येते हि विपतः, उत्तरार्दे साम्यसामग्रीसमावेशेऽपि तद्गम्यनः परामृशपदेन

यथोयोकाविशयोपलक्षणम् उत्तमप्रकारद्योतयति ( उद्धृतोऽत्र )]. The fourth variety occurs when in order to show the efficacy of the cause, the effect is described as preceding the cause or appearing simultaneously with it. In the verse हृदयमधितिष्ठमारो etc, the effect, viz., the falling in love with the नायक precedes the cause, viz, the fact of seeing him. [ अन् कारणस्य कान्तापि धनस्य श्रीधरारिलतयैव वाच्यस्य कन्दर्प-

विषयतया प्रथमसूचितत्वे कार्यकारणत्वोः पैश्वाव्यपयतिरूपा आतीयोक्रियते (उद्धृतोऽत्र)]. In the verse सममेव समाक्रान्त हृदय दिरद्यामिना। तेन सिटतां पिध्वय मण्डलन् महोदयताम्।—the cause, viz., the ascending the throne and the effect, viz, the attacking the kingdoms of other kings occur simultaneously. [ अन्

निहितमन्यपाय कारणन्, महोदयन्मण्डलादाक्रमण कार्यम्। अन् सममेव न तु पूर्वपरभावेन प्रतीयते:

पैश्वाव्यपदेशयतिरूपा अतिद्योतकः ( उद्धृतोऽत्र ) ].

13

प्रतिवस्तूपमा

13. प्रतिवस्तूपमा—when one and the same common property is expressed twice in two sentences, the sense of the one constituting उपमेय and that of the other constituting उपमान, the figure is प्रतिवस्तूपमा।

13

प्रतिवस्तूपमा

[ The common property is to be expressed in the उपमेयवाक्य and उपमानवाक्य in different words, since the repetition of the same word would give rise to the fault कवितावदल ]. In the verse देवीमव मनिना etc., by the first half is expressed the impropriety of reverting to the position of an attendant and by the second half that of enjoying a jewel marked with the figure of a god. The sense of the first half constitutes उपमेय and that of the second half उपमान. Impropriety (अनौचित्य ) which is the common property is mentioned in both the halves but in different words. The figure is found in a series ( माला ) also and the verse, यदि ददशनलोभाद etc., is an example of it.

13

प्रतिवस्तूपमा

• The figure is significantly so called because there is धर्मा (common property) expressed in प्रतिवस्तु (each sentence)—प्रतिवस्तु प्रतिपाद्यार्घस्यमा यथारवर्णी

13

प्रतिवस्तूपमा

यम्-ति मुनुपपदः ( कुवचनानन्दः ०). Mammṭha, in explanation of the name of the figure, says—मुनो नो वाच्यादेशे उपमानवाक्ये प्रतिपद्यप्रक्रमात् ।

13

प्रतिवस्तूपमा

चमन्यवाक्ये च वाच्यार्थे प्रतिनियमः पनिनिम्। The उपमेयवाक्यार are more than one in माला-

13

प्रतिवस्तूपमा

प्रतिवस्तूपमा and so the words fि and ह in the definition are explained as 'signifying 'more than one' i. e., two or more—यथाह' हि द्वनेकोकल्पः, मम"द्वयोरसः

The figure differs from उपमा in that in उपमा the resemblance is between the senses of two words and it is expressed, while in प्रतिवस्तूपमा the resemblance is between the senses of sentences (which may be two or more than two) and that too is implied. ( उपमायां तु पदार्थयोः साम्यं, तत्र वाच्यं, शत्र तु वाक्यार्थयोः तद्वत्त्- वमत्त्वं तत्रैव तु स्फुटतरः ( रत्न० ) ). The difference between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त is that in the former the attribute ( साधारण्यं ) of the उपमेय and उपमान is one and the same but is expressed in different words in the उपमेयवाक्ये and उपमानवाक्ये and establishes similarity between their senses, while in the latter the attributes of the उपमेय and उपमेय are different but being similar to each other serve to establish similarity between the senses of the उपमेयवाक्ये and उपमानवाक्ये. In other words, there is वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव between the attributes in प्रतिवस्तूपमा but in दृष्टान्त there is धर्मप्रतिधर्मभाव between them. वाक्यार्थयोः पदार्थानां वा उपमानोपमेयतैकत्वं न तु धर्मप्रतिधर्मभावः तद्वत्त्वं तत्रैव तु स्फुटतरं न तु साधारणधर्मे; वस्तु प्रतिवस्तुभावे ( रुद्र० ). प्रतिवाक्यं विमृदृश्येऽपि साधारण्यं तुल्यत्व- नैकत्वं यत्रास्त्येवोपमानोपमेयतद्वत्त्वं दृष्टान्तदार्श: ( वृत्त० ). यत्र तु साधारणधर्मे वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभावेन निर्देशः दृष्टान्त तु धर्मप्रतिधर्मभावेन ! एकस्यैव धर्मस्य प्रधानस्यैवोपादानं वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभावः ( रुय्यक० ). हेतोः कार्यस्योपमानोपमेयत्वेन निर्देशः ( प्रदीप० ). वस्तुनो धर्मस्यैकत्वेनोपमानोपमेयत्वं परस्परहर्ष- दमित्रो: दृष्टान्तदार्श: विश्वप्रतिधर्मभावः ( रुचिपति० ). The difference between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त is that in the former, the साधारणधर्मः is mentioned and the senses of the sentences are independent of each other, while in दृष्टान्त, the साधारणधर्मः is not mentioned and the senses of the sentences are independent of each other.— निद्धर्मणोः साधारण्यस्योपन्यास्त्वात्; वाक्यार्थयोः स्वातन्त्र्य्य ; यत्र ( प्रतिवस्तूपमायां ) तु साधार- ण्यं वच्युपतिवस्तुभावेन निर्देशः वाक्यार्थयोः निरपेक्षत्वं (Jhalikikar). The difference between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्तर्यास is that in the former, there is the relation of उपमान and उपमेय between the sentences, while in the latter, the relation is one of समाहक (supporter) and समर्थ्य (supported).— यद्यप्यस्यैव तु समाहृतसमर्थ्यभावो विवक्षितः, यत्र ( प्रतिवस्तूपमायां ) पुनरुपमानोपमेयभावः ].

14

दृष्टान्त—

When there is धर्मप्रतिधर्मभाव between the उपमेय and उपमान, between their accessories and attributes, the figure is दृष्टान्त. [ प्रकृतवाक्यार्थघटकानाम् उपमानान्तराणां साधारणधर्मस्य च धर्मप्रतिधर्मभावे दृष्टान्तः ( रत्न० ). तत्र उपमेयस्य उपमानेन सह धर्मप्रतिधर्मभावः, वस्तुसादृश्यनिर्देशः, साधारणधर्मस्य तु साधारणधर्मेणैवेदृशेः ]. When two ideas are represented as extremely similar to each other, so much so that one seems to be the reflection of another, धर्मप्रतिधर्मभावः (the relation of the image and its reflection) is said to exist between them. We ordinarily use the expression ‘this is my face’ in reference to the reflection of the face in the mirror though actually the face and the reflection are different from each other. [ लोके हि दर्शपटादौ धर्मप्रतिधर्मतया नेतेऽपि सदृशेनैवत्र बदनं संक्रान्तमिव्यमेनेनाभिमन्यते ; सन्यथा हि प्रतिबिम्बदर्शनं क्रियतेहं मूर्तौ धनित्याद्यभिमानो नोदेीयाद्, मूषणविन्यस्ततादृशो हि नायिका नादृश्यतेन ( उद्घोत० )]. The relation of

15

उपमेय and उपमान is established by the figure between the senses of the two sentences and the उपमानवाक्य illustrates the उपमेयवाक्य. The उपमानवाक्य may be called the दृष्टान्तवाक्य (the sentence containing the illustration) and the उपमेयवाक्य the दार्ष्टान्तिकवाक्य (the sentence for which illustration is given). The figure is significantly named दृष्टान्त because it serves to help the ascertainment of the meaning of the दार्ष्टान्तिकवाक्य by the दृष्टान्तवाक्य. [ दृष्टान्तवाक्ये श्रुतेनसहचारिणा दार्ष्टान्तिकस्याप्रमाणयविषयाद् ( उद्योतः ). दार्ष्टान्तिकतेन सनिदर्शनस्याप्यस्य निश्रयदृढीनादय इष्टान्तः ( Mallināth ). निस्संदेहं प्रतीतः: सदार्शनव्यपेक्षन प्रतिपसमनोऽपि वाक्यः. तद्वाक्याहूनि चित्स्था योगकृत्. ( वृत्तिः )]. दृष्टान्त is of two kinds—the illustration is either based on साधर्म्य ( similarity ) or on वैधर्म्य ( contrast ). The verse तत्रि दृष्ट एव तस्याः etc. is an example of the former and the verse तत्रादृष्टे साधकतमर्गणं etc., of the latter kind.

15

दीपक

दीपक—When an object under description ( वस्तु ) and an object not under description ( अवस्तु ) are connected with the same property in the shape of an action ( क्रिया ) or an attribute ( गुण ) mentioned only once, the figure is दीपक. The figure is significantly called दीपक because the word expressive of the common property though occurring in connection with one word (e.g., that signifying महत् ), illuminates i.e., shows its connection with another word also (e.g., that signifying अमृतं ), just as a lamp which though meant to illuminate one particular object, throws its light upon other objects also [ यत्रनिगूढोऽर्थविरयोर्मिथ्यादृशोर्निर्दिष्ट: समनो धर्मः. मुखेनैकाहूनि चित्स्था योगकृत्. ( वृत्तिः ). निश्रय प्रसाधनस्य निस्संदेहं प्रतीतः: सदार्शनव्यपेक्षन प्रतिपसमनोऽपि वाक्यः. तद्वाक्याहूनि चित्स्था योगकृत्. ( वृत्तिः )]. यथोक्तं ( Jhalakikar ). ( यद्य निंद्यते ) तत् ( निर्दोषतया ) ( उद्योतः ). यथोक्तं ( Jhalakikar ). ( यद्य निंद्यते ) तत् ( निर्दोषतया ) ( उद्योतः ). वार्त्तिकयोः) श्रुतेनसहचारिणा तादृशी सापेक्षता. तदपि सादृश्यम् ( उद्योतः ).

K-P-16

[ The connection of and with the same property leads to similarity between them. It is, however, only suggested ; for, without understanding this similarity the sense of the sentence may be made out and as such similarity is not understood first. Herein lies its difference from the figure in which similarity is expressed by some such word as etc. A having should be regarded as and not as though similarity is suggested there, for the charm lies not in similarity which, though suggested, serves only to heighten the charm of the expressed sense.— In the figure the property connecting and , though only one, is not mentioned twice and there are not two sentences. Here is its difference from and — The distinction between and is that in the former and things are connected with the same property.— ].

In the verse etc. there is kriyādīpaka as the same kriyā viz., connects both and viz., on the one hand and and on the other. In the verse there is gundīpaka as which is a guṇavācī word connects both and ( and ).

There is another kind of named kārakadīpaka in which a single (substantive) occurs in connection with several verbs. In the verse etc. there is kārakadīpaka, as several verbs such as etc. occur in connection with a single ( or ).

is regarded by , and as a separate figure. Mammata seems to regard it as a variety of . It consists in many objects ( and ) being connected with the same property and each preceding object helping each succeeding one. In the verse etc. there is inasmuch as the same property ( ) is connected with many objects viz., etc. and each preceding object

123

helps each succeeding object—the bow helps the arrows to reach

the head of the enemy, the arrows help the head of the enemy

to reach the earth and so on.

A In कारणमाला each preceding object is represented as the cause

of each succeeding object, while in मालदीपक the relation between

them is that of the helper and the helped.

16. तुल्ययोगिता—When several objects, they being all प्रधान or

they being all अप्रधान, are connected with the same property whether

a गुण or a किया, the figure is तुल्ययोगिता. It is to be made clear

that उपमा must be implied in it as in दीपक. —औपम्येन गम्यते यस्मात्

प्रस्तुतानां अप्रस्तुतानां वा समानधर्मोऽभिसम्बन्धेन्ये तुतुल्ययोगिता ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्व० ) । औपम्य चात्र

गम्यम्, तथैवोयकर्मणामानधर्ममोक्ष्यप्रसादात्, वाच्येनाप्यर्थ ( उद्भट० ); प्रकृतानां तथैवोप

तुल्यभमेत् । औपम्य गम्यते यत् सा मता तुल्ययोगिता ( प्रताप० )। The figure is

significantly so called as there is a connection of the same property

with several things.—तुल्यभमेण यत्रो भवेद्‌वस्तुसाम्यमिति अन्येऽप्यनुमार तुल्ययोगिता

( एकावली )। In the verse पाण्डुक्षाम वदन—etc. the common property

viz., the act of indicating disease connects वदन, हृदय and वपु, whielt

are all meant to be described.—अत्र मृकताया विरहिणीवेदनादैनोभवेत् परंतेन-

वेदनाल्यो धर्म उपात्तः, न तु उपमान (= अप्रधान ) रूपभमेतया ( मम्मट० ) Similarity

is implied between these प्रकृत objects on account of having a

common property viz., the act of indicating disease. In the verse

कुसुमशरादि—etc. in the first half दृक् (eyes) is मृकत ; कुसुम, कमल and

नीलनीलल are अप्रधान and they are all connected by the common

property अभेद (censure) implied by the word हत् । This common

property implies a similarity between them. In the second half

वदन is मृकत ; अमृत, अत्यरतरङ्ग and अनुजन्म are all अप्रधान and they are

connected by the common property प्रतिबन्ध (adjugation) which

implies a similarity between them.

17. अत्युक्ति—When the उपमेय is described as dissimilar i. e.,

superior to the उपमान, the figure is अत्युक्ति. According to Rujjuka (author of the अलङ्कारसर्वस्व ) superiority of the उपमान over

उपमेय also constitutes this figure He, following Rudrata, cites the

rer-e श्लोक. शीतोष्णादि etc. as an illustration of superiority of the उपमान

( तद्‌न ) over the उपमेय ( यौवन ) Mammata refutes this vi w viz.,

that superiority of the उपमान over उपमेय constitutes व्यतिरेक. He says that in the verse शृङ्ग: क्षीणोऽपि etc. the relation of उपमान and उपमेय does not exist between the moon and youth but between the unsteadiness of the former and that of the latter. What is intended to be said is that the unsteadiness of youth is greater than the unsteadiness of the moon and hence actually there is superiority of the उपमेय over उपमान and not of the उपमान over उपमेय.*

There are twenty-four varieties of व्यतिरेक. (1) When the ground of superiority of the उपमेय over उपमान and the ground of inferiority of the उपमान to उपमेय are both mentioned. (2-4) When the ground of superiority of the उपमेय over उपमान is not mentioned, when the ground of inferiority of the उपमान to उपमेय is not mentioned, when both of them are not mentioned. (1-12) Each of these four varieties is of three kinds according as the relation of उपमान and उपमेय is directly expressed by words like इव, यथा etc., ( शब्द ) indirectly expressed by words like तुल्य, सदृश etc., ( आर्थ ) or implied from words like जयति, अभिभवति etc. ( आक्षिप्त ). (13-24) These twelve varieties become twenty-four as there are हेतु or अभिते words in them.

Examples of these twenty-four varieties.

Just like मालाप्रतिवस्तूपमा, there may be मालाव्यतिरेक also with its numerous varieties.

Other varieties are also possible in which words like इव, यथा etc., तुल्य, सदृश etc., and जयति, अभिभवति etc., being all absent, औपम्य (the relation of उपमान and उपमेय) is implied by हेतुविशेषण ( विशेषण having double meanings). In the verse स्वच्छात्मतत्क्षय——etc., the हेतुविशेषण ( स्वच्छात्मतत्क्षयसमुज्ज्वलतनुविग्रह and निश्वप्रमाधुर ) bring out औपम्य between मधु (उपमान) and आनन (उपमेय). औपम्य between two things may be implied even by विशेषणs which could have been coalesced into one but are used separately in connection with each of them. In the verse अमृतसमृतं क: सन्देह:——etc., (quoted in ch. vii) the quality of sweetness

• नह्यात चन्द्रयौवनयो: सार्धक्यं किन्तु तत्क्षययो:। तत्र चन्द्रस्य ह्रदिवाऽऽश्यतया नूनत्वं, यौवनच्युतस्याऽऽबाध्यतया श्राधिक्यम् ( उद्योत० ) For a detailed discussion of the verse, see Darpana, ch. x (under the figure व्यतिरेक ).

125

(मुप्त्वे) hās been spoken of अमृत etc. and दर्शयच्द्र separately, though by difierent words, औपम्य between them being implied thereby.—दर्शोपमानमूतेवध्युतादिवु उपमेयेऽधरे चातिमुप्तवत् ऋभुप्रसक्तं, निवेशानच्छेदादच्यते यत् स्वाद स्वादिति मज्ञा तस्यातिरवादुतवप्रलयाद् ( प्रभा० )

18

आह्हेप—When

18 आह्हेप—When what is intended to be said is denied or suppressed for the purpose of conveying विशेष ( a special idea), the figure is आह्हेप (suppression). The suppression must not be real but only apparent. When the suppies-ion is real there is no आह्हेप. The आह्हेप is of two kinds, as it pertains to what is about to be said or what has already been said The विशेष that is conveyed by the apparent suppression consists in what is about to be said being incapable of being described or in what has already been said being too well known The विशेष is not to be expressed in words but to be implied —निपेध इतो निपेधाभाम इति यावद्, दाधर्या निपेधेऽपि अज्ञातस्या निपेरेव प्रतिपत्ते (प्रदीप०) इह प्रकारान्तरेऽपि प्रकारान्तरादेव वचुनिमित्ते, तस्यापिपर्य विधानाॅहक निपेध कुरु न युज्यते। स कुरु वावितत्स्वसूपतया निपेधायते इति निपेधाभाम सम्प्रत ( अलङ्कारसर्व०) यत्र न निपेधस्य स्वार्थे वृत्ति विश्रान्ति न तत्र आह्हेप इति (तरल०). विशेषस्य वाक् द्राच्यतुप्राप्ताद् वृत्तौ न निपेधस्य स्वार्धे विश्रान्तिरिति गम्य एव। वच्यमाणविषये आकारयवयक्तत्वाद् विशेष, उत्तरीये अतिप्रसिद्धत्व विशेष ( सारसङ्ग्रहो।) In the verse पृथि किंपि etc , what is intended to be said is the extreme ping of separation borne by the gul It is about to be mentioned but suppressed in oder to indicate the idea that it is simply in describable —अत्र विरहादिविचितदईशाविलोक्यो वच्यमाणो निपिद्ध (प्रदीप०). अत्र विरहदुःखाद्याश्रयो वच्यमाणो गुमद्रासवस्तथा निपिद्ध हेत्याह्लादकार (उदाहलचन्द्रिका० ). In the ve-se ज्योत्स्या मौक्तिकदाम etc, what is intended to be said is that cool appli ances serve only to incerese the pung of separation and in oder to indicate the idea that the fact is too well-known, theit delime ition is suppressed but after they have been mentioned.—अत्र न म्हादे रुयते पीरोषो रुढो जीविताना दाहकरस्यातिमसिद्धतया ( सारसङ्ग्रहो।) अत द्विरोचनीनां शोभायदि रुश्रृङ्गारयते हेत्यादौनादीनुस्वसा तरङ्गयन् प्रतिभिदध्मना सेनाङ्गरागण (Jhalikāi)

विमावना—When

19. विमावना—When an effect is stated as happening in the ab sence of its cause, the figure is विमावना Now an effect without a cause is an impossible idea. So what is done in विमावना is that by

a striking mode of speech the effect is represented to have no cause. Really speaking, there is a cause though it is not the well-known one and as such only to be guessed by the cultured.—वस्तुतस्तु कारणप्रतिपेधे कार्यंकथनं विभावन। न च विरोध: स्वभावविकत्वस्य कारणान्तरस्य वा विभावनात् (प्रदीप०). कारणेति प्रसिद्धकारणेत्यर्थ: । सूत्रे क्रियते अननेति क्रियुत्पत्त्या क्रियाशब्द: कारणपर: इति भाव: (उद्योत०). अप्रसिद्धकारणं विदग्धमतीनां त्रिवेच कारणम्, एवं प्रसिद्धकारणनिपेधेऽपि तत्त्वकार्यरूपस्य शक्ते: (प्रकाशनम्—जयनम्) विभावनालङ्कार इत्यं: (Jhallikar). The name विभावना is significant, for it means ‘that in which something (a cause other than the well-known one) has to be surmised.’—विभाव्यते कारणान्तरं यस्मा ( अलङ्कारचन्द्रिका० ). सिद्धकारणाभावे सूक्ष्मकारणवशात् कार्योत्पत्तौ तद्विशिष्टतया कार्यभावनाद् विभावना ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्व० ). Jn the verse कुसुमितलतामिर्—etc., feeling pain, turning aside and swerving round are represented as taking place in the absence of their respective causes. There is, however, a cause, not of course well-known, which produces these effects and it is the separation from the beloved.

20

विशेषोक्ति—

20. विशेषोक्ति—When inspite of the presence of some or even all the well-known causes, the effect is represented as non-appearing, the figure is विशेषोक्ति.—कारणेपु सत्सु फलानवच: कार्याभावकथनं विशेषोक्तिः । कारणेपु . प्रसिद्धहेतुपु । अन्र बहुत्वमविशेषितम् ‘सूत्रे लिङ्गवचनमात्रनम्’ इति न्यायात्. The nonproduction of the effect serves the purpose of manifesting some speciality. The उद्योत explains the name विशेषोक्ति as ‘a statement meant to bring home something special’—विशेषं कश्चित् प्रतिपादयितुमुच्यतेर्लिस्यर्थ:. विशेषोक्ति is of three kinds—अनुक्तनिमित्ता (when the reason of the non-appearance of the effect is not mentioned), उक्तनिमित्ता (when the reason is mentioned) and अचिन्त्यानिमित्ता (when the reason is inconceivable). (a) In the verse निद्रानिवृत्ताददिते etc., though the causes viz., sation from sleep, rising of the sun etc., are there, yet the effect viz., moving away from embrace does not follow. The reason of the effect not following viz., the depth of the woman’s feelings is not mentioned. (b) In the verse कर्पूर इव दग्धोऽपि etc., though the cause viz., burning of the body is there, yet the effect viz., being incapacitated does not follow. The reason of the effect not following viz., the irrepressibleness of prowess is mentioned.

(c) In the verse स विरोचते नाभि etc, though the cause viz., destruction of the body is there, yet the effect viz., destruction of power does not follow. The reason of the effect not following is not conceivable but to be known from the śāstras.

[ It is clear that there is contradiction ( virodha ), though apparent, in both विरुद्ध and विरोधिन caused by the violation of the law of causation. Then how can they be distinguished from विरोधाभास in which also there is apparent contradiction between two objects ? Now what occurs in विरोधिन and विरोध is this : in the former कारणता (absence of cause) is real because it is a matter of fact and कार्य (effect) is only poetically fancied and thus unreal. So in विरोधिन, कारण is stronger and कार्य is weaker, or in other words, विरोधाभास is कार्य and कारण is कारण. The case is just the reverse in विरोधिन i. e., here कारण is कार्य and विरोधाभास is कारण. But in विरोधाभास both the objects are equally powerful and each of them becomes both कार्य and कारण—

विरोधाभासोऽपि कार्यवदेनोक्तः यमान्नात्तु सारवद्भवत्येव । इति हृदयङ्गमोऽप्यथो यथालक्षितः कविः ( दृश्यते ) ]

21

यथासंख्य

21. यथासंख्य—When things mentioned in a particular order are connected with things mentioned symmetrically with that order, the figure is यथासंख्य.

21

यथासंख्य

[ It should be noted that in यथासंख्य there is not the least play of poetic genius and it is nothing more than the absence of the fault called व्यतिकर which arises when the order in which things should have been mentioned is violated, e. g., कोऽपि नारीपदे पतिः; भ्रूविक्षेपाङ्कितः पन्थाः. This is why some rhetoricians object to its being called a figure. विरोध has, however, that there is some strikingness when things mentioned in a particular order are referred to symmetrically with that order in the same sentence and it is this strikingness creates a charm. न यावद्यावत्प्रियतमम्, द्वावेव न तावद्भुजौ, द्वारम् । वृत्तान्तोऽयं तदधिकरणसखीकृतसखीकृतापराधः ( विरहः ). न चाप्यनङ्गदहनादनङ्ग इवापरः । वातायनेषु जलयोजितुलसीमृदुपत्रशय्यासु ( रत्नशय्या ). माधवी वितनोति माधवमुपनयति माधवमालिङ्गयति माधवी माधवमालिङ्गनम् । ( श्लोकः ) ]

22

अर्थान्तरन्यास

22. अर्थान्तरन्यास—When either through similarity ( सादृश्य ) a general proposition is supported by a particular proposition or a particular proposition is supported by a general proposition, the figure is अर्थान्तरन्यास.

a striking mode of speech the effect is represented to have no cause. Really speaking, there is a cause though it is not the well-known one and as such only to be guessed by the cultured.—वस्तुतस्तु कारणप्रतीतेपि कार्यस्यतां विभावनां । न च विरोधः स्वाभाविकत्वस्य कारणान्तरस्य वा विभावनात् (प्रदीप०). कारनेति प्रसिद्धकारणेत्यर्थः (उद्घोत०). अपसिद्धकारणं हेत्वाभासत्वेन कारणं, एवं च प्रसिद्धकारणनिपेधेऽपि तत्त्वकार्यरूपत्वव्यक्तिः (प्रकाशानम्—कथनान्) विभावनालंकार इत्यर्थः (Jhalkikar). The name विभावना is significant, for it means ‘that in which something (a cause other than the well-known one) has to be surmised.’—विभाव्यते कारणान्तरं यस्माद् (अलंकारचन्द्रिका०). सिद्धकारणाभावे सद्भुतकारणत्वाच्च कार्यंवपत्तिविंविशिष्टतया कार्यभावनाद् विभावना (अलंकारसर्वस्व०). In the verse कुशुमितलतामित्—etc., feeling pain, turning aside and swerving round are represented as taking place in the absence of their respective causes. There is, however, a cause, not of course well-known, which produces these effects and it is the separation from the beloved.

20

विरोधोक्ति—

20. विरोधोक्तिः—When inspite of the presence of some or even all the well-known causes, the effect is represented as non-appearing, the figure is विरोधोक्ति.—कारणेपु सतत्सु फलावचः कार्याभावकथनं विरोधोक्तिः । कारणेपु , प्रसिद्धहेतुपु । अन्य बहुस्त्वमविक्कितम् ‘सद्भते लिङ्गवचनमतन्न्रम्’ इति न्यायात्. The nonproduction of the effect serves the purpose of manifesting some speciality. The उद्घोत explains the name विरोधोक्ति as ‘a statement meant to bring home something special’—विशेषं कत्निव प्रतिपादयितुमुपकिरियतयः: . विरोधोक्तिः is of three kinds—अनुक्तनिमित्ता (when the reason of the non-appearance of the effect is not mentioned), उत्तनिमित्ता (when the reason is mentioned) and अचिन्त्यानिमित्ता (when the reason is inconceivable).

(a) In the verse निद्रानिवृत्तावदिवे etc., though the causes viz., cessation from sleep, rising of the sun etc., are there, yet the effect viz., moving away from embrace does not follow. The reason of the effect not following viz., the depth of the woman’s feelings is not mentioned.

(b) In the verse कर्पूर इव दरघोषपि etc., though the cause viz., burning of the body is there, yet the effect viz., being incapacitated does not follow. The reason of the effect not following viz., the irrepressibleness of prowess is mentioned.

(c) In the reṇe u paṣaṇḍhi naṭṭa te, though the caur a vir, destruction of the body is ther, yet the chet avir, destauction of power does not follor. The ruison of the chet not follownp i is not conceiruble but to be hnonn fiom the f etras.

[It is clear that there is contrudiction (fauṭ), though uppırent, in both vimāvanā and vimeyoditị caused by the volation of the law of caunṭhon. Then how can they be disting,uished from faṭṭumṇin in which d o thuo is apperent contradıction betueen two obyects ? Now what o curs in faṭṭumṇ and vimeyoditị is this in the former kāraṇāb (thec ence cf cuue) is rul be in it is a matter of fact and kāry (effect) is only poctıcally fund i in1 this unreal. So in vimāvanā, kāraṇābhāv is sthroger and nāṭṭ is we lker, or h1u otlicr words, kāraṇābhāv is sādhak and kāry is sādhya The c1 i r i jut the rever, In vimeyoditị i e, here kāry is sādhya and kāraṇābhāv is sādhana But in faṭṭumṇin b th the obyects are equally poserful and cach of them becomcs b th nāṭṭa and sādhana - vimāvanāyaḥ kāraṇābhāve'piṣṭasamānataḥ kāryaṃ na yadnā yateyaṃ | faṭṭumṇin yaṃ kāryaṃ sāmyāt | इदं तस्मै हयीरुद वाज्छतिर्मिे गेता (दण्डकः)]

21

yathāsamvad—When things mentioned in a particular order are connected with things mentioned symmetrically with that order, the figure is yathāsamvad

[It should be noted that in yathāрray- there is not the lea 'l(uf sper) genus and it is notlung more tha the thu aris of the fa st culls ? yao which arises i hen the order in lh hthun, ! ltha rhars ? yao is viola ted, e g, alankrti and anuṣṭ h It tırs, l ıs or the n is some unlı gnes when th c rm--1 -11 d f y, ! or part ! to sy menal, -th th 'r1 in1 th in -n, d lth rth ! cesin a dırn -c r1n, f n as rcsaņ yva,pratīkāraṃ, rūpaṃ, sevyasevakatvam, rūpadvirodho, virodhādapi sevā, dviṣṭaṃ sevyaṃ, sevyaṃ dviṣṭaṃ (seṣaṃ tvayā), rūpadvirodhādapi sevā yathā—

१) न यावद्विप्रियं तावत्क्षीयते मे मनः प्रियाम् । तामेव चिन्तयित्वा तु भूयस्तस्या विप्रियं कृतम् ॥ by 4 j j by 1y l by 4 j j l by 1y l

[ In दृष्टान्त and प्रतिवस्तूपमा a particular proposition is supported by another particular proposition. Moreover, in प्रतिवस्तूपमा the relation between the two sentences is one of उपमान and उपमेय ; while in अर्थान्तरन्यास the relation is that of समथ्यं and समर्धक. In काव्यलिङ्ग the relation of general and particular does not exist—दृष्टान्तप्रतिवस्तूपमयोरस्तु विशेषेणा विशेष्य समर्थर्नमिति तत्सो (अर्थान्तरन्यासः) मेत्तः। काल्यलिङ्गे तु न सामान्यविशेषभावः ( प्रभा० ). प्रतिवस्तूपमायामुपमानोपमेयभावो विवक्षितः, इह तु समथ्यंसमर्थकत्वं विरचितमिति ततोऽन्यो मेत्तः ( सारचोधिनी० ) ].

विरोध—

When two things are described as contradictory, though there is no contradiction between them, the figure is विरोध. विरोध (contradiction) may either be प्रौढ़ or अप्रौढ़. It is प्रौढ़ when it cannot be explained away i. e., when it is real. This constitutes a fault. It is अप्रौढ़ when it can be explained away i. e., when it is not real but apparent. It is this sort of विरोध which constitutes the figure विरोध.—स च प्रौढ़ः अप्रौढ़श्च, प्रारोढश्च वाङ्मात्रचयनमिथोऽतत्वम्। तद्वैपरीत्यसमप्ररोहः । तत्राद्यो दोषस्य विषयः द्वितीयश्चालङ्कारस्य ( रसगङ्गाधर० ).

Now contradiction may be described to exist between— (i) जाति and जाति ; (ii) जाति and गुण ; (iii) जाति and क्रिया ; (iv) जाति and द्रव्य ; (v) गुण and गुण ; (vi) गुण and क्रिया ; (vii) गुण and द्रव्य ; (viii) क्रिया and क्रिया ; (ix) क्रिया and द्रव्य ; (x) द्रव्य and द्रव्य ;

So the figure विरोध has ten varieties.

Examples in order.

रसगङ्गाधर remarks that there is no charm in the division of विरोध into ten varieties. There should only be two varieties : (1) pure ( शुद्ध ) and (ii) श्लेषमूल ( based on श्लेष ).—वस्तुतो जात्यादि-मेदानामहयत्वात् शुद्धत्ववैशेषमूलत्वास्यां द्विविधो हेयः.

[ The example of the first variety of वििरोध is मधुरं चण्ण: It is evident that अमेद (non-difference) appears to exist between मधुरं and चण्ण in the example मधुरं चण्ण: and so it may be said that मधुरवण्णविरोधवचनतया is rather an example of दृपक and not of विरोध. The author of the उक्तौ notes it and makes the following remark—मधुरवण्णयोरपमानलुंक दृपकं भवति । पदवाक्यं 'मधुरं चण्ण:' इत्यादि विरोध एव न्यात्ति चेत्, वप्य विरोधोयापनानंमेदस्य विरचितस्यैवेष्टं लक्षणमार्गानुगतसादृश्यानुसारी । विरोधादिप्रतिपादनेऽपि विप्रतिपत्तिमतां तद्गुणत्वेनाभिमतं भवतीति नोपर्योऽप्यर्थो विरोध एव चमत्कारित्वं समुपस्थाय तदैवाभिवारस्तत् । 'सुर्यं चण्ण:' इत्यादौ तु चण्णनिंदापरत्वाद्वाक्यादिसकलव्यापाराणां मुचि प्रतिपत्तव्यं चण्णत्वमिदं च चमत्कारो म नु चमति विरोधः; रसवितस्त्वन्यगुणभावं —शति दृपकस्य । म नु विरोधोऽस्तारः; The sum and substance of this remark is that in दृपक चमत्कारित्व (strikingness) lies in non-difference and in विरोध in contradiction. ]

24

स्वभावोक्ति

स्वभावोक्ति—When the action, form and other characteristics of a child, a young lady, an afflicted person, an animal, a lower class man and the like are described, the figure is स्वभावोक्तिः. The description etc., should be such as are peculiar to the object under description and not common to it and other objects, and as are apprehended by poetic genius and not by ordinary understanding. The description should also be charming, as in the case of other अलंकारः.—एवं यस्य कस्यचिद्रसुनोऽपि भावारणांपरिज्ञानं स्वभावोक्तिस्वरूपं हृदि फणिभिः, श्रोषि चमत्कृतितेःतुचमलंकारसागान्नयलक्षणं प्राप्यमस्तयेव । तेन 'मेघस्य वर्षीध्वो पातयति मुहुः सन् । मूलेभूर्जाति शिवनेन अपनेषु न गोमयम् ।' इत्यादेर्निरस्तः । साधार-णरमावगंतव्यस सुपुटत्वालंकारत्वं । असाधारर्णस्तु लोकसिद्धोऽपि प्रतिभामात्र्योचितस्वारस्य अतोऽधिकंवदत् मतीयलंकृतः ( उद्भट० )।

25

व्याजस्तुति

व्याजस्तुति—When apparent censure ends in praise or when apparent praise ends in censure, that is, when from censure is implied praise or when from praise is implied censure, the figure is व्याजस्तुतिः. The name व्याजस्तुतिः is significant. It means वदन स्तुतिः (praise by artifice) or व्याजेन स्तुतिः (praise which is nothing but artifice i. e., false praise)—यत्र स्तुतिनिबंधनमादृतं प्रमाखनंरच्यते निन्दया पर्यवस्यति तत्रास्तुत्यैव स्तुतितिः, स्तुतिरेव निन्दावेशेन निबंध्यते प्रतिपक्षमालां पूरयित्वाचिरतरत्वा गम्यते माऽदित्यैव व्याजस्तुतिः श्लेषेण निन्द्योक्तेन स्तुतिहिति मूवा ( अनभिप्रेतर० )। प्रमाणांतर means 'other proofs' and 'by other proofs' in this pa-sage is to be under-stood—'प्रमाणांतर' इत्यादिवदन प्रमेयान्तरस्याप्यारोप्यमाणत्वात् ( रु०)।

particular nature of the speaker or of the person spoken to, context etc. प्रमाणान्तरादिति वक्तृवाच्यप्रकरणादिपय्यालोचनात्स्मृतिः ( विमर्शिनी ). Thus when it is intended to praise an object, the censure regarding it, if expressed by words, must not be taken as final, as that would go against the context etc. Similar is the case with the praise of a thing which is intended to be censured. So what happens in व्याजस्तुति is that praise or censure of a particular object heing found incongruous to the context, the nature of the speaker etc., turns into censure or praise of that particular object. It deserves to be specially noted that the object regarding which censure or praise is to be understood must be the same with reference to which there was apparent praise or censure. If from the praise or censure of one object is understood the censure or praise of another, there will be no व्याजस्तुति but व्यङ्ग्यवाक्याव्य.

इत्यग्रे व्याजस्तुतिरस्यैव वस्तुनः स्तुतिनिन्दे प्रथममुपक्रम्येते तस्यैव चेदिन्द्रादश्वस्यः पर्यवसानं भवेत् । वैयधिकरण्ये तु न हि स्तुतौ प्रावमलङ्कारशास्त्रप्रवर्तकानां समयः ( रसगङ्गाधर० ). व्याजस्तुति is distinguished from अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्यध्वनि (the ध्वनि in which the expressed sense is entirely rejected e. g., उपकरणं बहु तत्र किमुच्यते etc.), in that in अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्यध्वनि the expressed sense is not barred, it only suggests another sense when the context, the nature of the speaker etc., are taken into consideration ; while in व्याजस्तुति the expressed sense is impossible because from context etc., is understood praise where it is censure and censure where it is praise.— अत एव नास्या ध्वनित्वम् । तत्र हि निर्वोधेन वाच्येन व्यञ्जनयार्थान्तरावगतिः । न चैवं प्रकृते

'उपकरणं बहु तत्र किमुच्यते' इत्यादिवदिति बोधव्यम् ( उद्योत० ). अत एव नास्या ध्वनित्वम् । ध्वनौ हि निर्वोधेन वाच्येनागूरणमहिम्रा अत्यन्तरमवगम्यते ( रसगङ्गाधर० ). अत एवास्या ध्वनत्वे स हि विश्रान्ते वाच्यार्थे वक्तृवाच्यौचित्यपर्यालोचनवलादवगम्यते । इह पुनः प्रमाणान्तराद् वाधितः सन् चकार्थः स्वयमनुपपद्यमानत्वात् परत्र निन्दादौ स्वं समर्पयति । तैलैव प्रकृतवाक्यार्थस्य विश्रान्तेः ( विमर्शिनी ).

In both अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and व्याजस्तुति, प्रस्तुत (what is meant to be described) is implied from अप्रस्तुत (what is not meant to be described i. e., an irrelevant thing). Still there is difference between the two. व्याजस्तुति is based upon the peculiar charm of praise and censure alone. Here अप्रस्तुत is censure or praise and the प्रस्तुत which is implied from it is praise or censure. There is no relation of

cause and effect, of general and particular or of similarity between

प्रख्यात and अप्रख्यात as in अप्रसृतप्रकारा।—न जातिप्रसृतप्रकारसेवासक्तिवाच्यं, शक्तिनि-

न्द्रारमकनया विशिष्टविचित्रप्रकाशः, कार्यवर्णनमावादिसंभवभावादाव ( उद्योत० )।

सहोक्ति—When one word signifies two things through the

force of a word denoting सह (along with) or, in other words, when

in a sentence one word by the force of words like सह, सादृश्य

सारूप्य etc, conveys two meanings connected with two things

though it principally conveys one meaning having connection

with one thing, the figure is सहोक्ति. In the sentence पुत्रैः

सहागमन बिता, the meaning of आगत is principally connected with

पिता and subordinately with पुत्र by the rule 'सहोक्तेऽप्रधाने'. There

is thus गुणप्रधानभाव (the relation of principal and subordinate) between

the words पुत्र and पिता denoted by the word सह The अन्वय of the

word आगत with what is प्रधान is शाब्द (direct) and with what is

गौण ( अप्रधान ) is आर्थ (indirect). The connection of two things,

one subordinate and one principal, with the same word is the

essential factor of सहोक्ति.—पुत्रेण सहितमागत्यादिषु सिता आगत इति शाब्दबोध। ननु तुतीयान्तस्य

विधेयतया गुणान्वयः, प्रधानत्वस्य विधेयत्वया प्रधानत्वम् । तथा च व प्रधानत्वे आगमनस्य

शाब्दबोधः? उच्यते—एतु सहार्थे सामर्थ्यादपि यत्र गुणप्रधानभावाविष्कृतो। शाब्दार्थे यत्र

गुणप्रधानतन्मात्रस्यैवायंलक्षणमवलोक्यते: ( उद्योत० ) Between the प्रधान and अप्रधान

the relation of उपमेय and उपमान is intended to be conveyed. It

is not a real and natural one after all The प्रधान which is in the

first case-ending is उपमेय and the अप्रधान which is in the third case-

ending is उपमान.—सहोक्तेः द्वयोः प्रकृतयोः प्रकृतत्वयोर्द्वयोः प्रधानाव कल्पनिकोपमेयम्, तत्र

तृतीयान्तस्य गुणभावादुपमानत्वम्, ध्वन्यते प्राधान्यादुपमेयत्वम् ( माघी०कचन्द्र० ) उपमानोपमेयस्य

चात्र वैचित्र्यम् । सहोक्तौ प्रकारान्तरिणत्वाद्वैचित्र्यम् । सहार्थे सामर्थ्यादिपि तयोः सुतरां लक्षणम् ।

ननु तृतीयान्तस्य नियमेन गुणभावदुपमानत्वमात्रं, अभिषा परिकल्पितस्य प्रधानत्वादुपमेयत्वम् ( भट्टना-

रायण० ) In पुत्रेण सहागतः पिता there is no सहोक्ति, because there is no

cl irim अभ्राति यत्र हि द्वयोस् चादलुकारमात्रस्यदेव, चेन 'पुत्रः सहागतः पिता'

रारी न सहोक्तिः (उद्योत०) The cl irim in सहोक्ति consists in its being

based upon भेदैक्यवसाय in which there is भेदैक्यप्रकाशय (identification

pure and simple or grounded on धर्म ) or कार्यकारणभावादिप्रपंचनिप्रपंच (in-

version of the -sequence of cause and effect. हत्वा च वायाः: स्नेहवैचित्र्या

मदारोपणमात्रस्ययेन वेष्टमोदप्रपातविस्मयकारकेण । श्लाघनीयतयाद्याने मस्तकान्तः कोपषम् । तथा

मोक्तुमयुक्ते:-‘पुत्रेण सह पित्ता गच्छति’ इत्यादौ शलकृराभावाद् अतिशयोक्तिमूलिकैव चमत्कार-

जनिका सहोक्तिरलंकृतः इति (Jhalkikar). तत्र नियमेनातिशयोक्तिमूलकत्वमस्या: । सा च

कार्यकरणप्रतिनियमविपर्ययसर्पा भवेदाध्यवसायरूपा च । अभेदाध्यवसायश्र इलेपमिथिकोडन्यथा वा ( शलकृरस्तव्स्व० )। In the verse सह दिअहणिसाहिं etc., दीर्घत्व etc., are directly connccted with श्रास etc., and indirectly with दिवसनिशा etc.,

through the word सह. The दीर्घत्व of श्रास is not the same as the दीर्घत्व of दिवसनिशा and they have been coalesced into one word through

similurity and not through इलेप.—अन्न दीर्घत्वादीनां श्रासादिमिरन्वय: साक्षादेव

शब्द्र:, दिवसनिशादिमिस्तु साहाध्यन्वयवशात् । इयं धर्मेयोरभेदाध्यवसायमूला ( उद्धोत०)*.

सहाधरदलेनास्त्या यौवने रागभाकृपिय: is an example of सहोक्ति based upon

अतिशयोक्ति in which there is इलेप. Here there is identity between राग

meaning ‘redness’ and राग meaning ‘love.’

27

विनोक्ति

27. विनोक्ति—When without a certain thing another thing is represented as disagreeable or not disagreeable, the figure is

27

विनोक्ति

विनोक्ति. In the example अरुचिनिर्निशया ‘विना रश्री etc., रश्री etc., are represented as disagreeable without निशा etc. न इत्थ: in the kārikā

27

विनोक्ति

means न अशोभन: (not disagreeable) i. e., शोभन: (agreeable). The

27

विनोक्ति

utility of the two negatives ( न अशोभन:= न न शोभन: ) is to express

27

विनोक्ति

the idea that the thing under description is naturally agreeable and

27

विनोक्ति

its disagreeableness is due to the fault of proximity of another

27

विनोक्ति

thing without which it is quite agreeable. In the example

27

विनोक्ति

नगनोचनया विना etc., the prince is represented as an agreeable person

27

विनोक्ति

without damsels. Here the sense intended to be conveyed is

27

विनोक्ति

that the prince is naturally an agreeable person and his disagreeableness was due to the presence of damsels. एवंच यदपि शोभनत्व एव

27

विनोक्ति

पर्यवसानं तथाप्यशोभनत्वाभावमुखेन शोभनत्ववचनस्यायमभिप्रायो यत् कस्यचिद् वर्णनीयस्यशोभनत्वं

27

विनोक्ति

तत् परसन्निधौैव दोष: । तस्य पुन: स्वभावत: शोभनत्वमेवेति ( दर्पण० ). अत्र ‘शोभन:'

27

विनोक्ति

इति वक्तव्येऽपि ‘अशोभनो न’-इत्यभावमुखेनाभिधानस्यायमभिप्राय:-—यत् वर्णनीयवस्तुनोडशोभनत्वं

27

विनोक्ति

प्रतीयते तत्तपरसन्निधौैवदोषापेक्षया वस्तुत: पुन: स्वभावत एव शोभनत्वमिति

27

विनोक्ति

दर्पणोऽभिप्राय: ( विवरण० ).

Not only the word विना but all its synonyms also may

• For an example of सहोक्ति based upon श्रतिशयोक्ति in which there is

कार्यकरणपौर्वापर्यविपर्यय, see Ekāvalī, ch. vii ( बड्रूामालोक्यवास्य etc. ), and दवंग्य,

ch. x ( श्रमनेष नराधिपेन etc. ).

133

constitute this figure.—सदृश न केजलं विश्राव्यते सदृश दर सदृशे, किं

विनादृशादृशयोः पाकमात्रस्य । तेन नचूर्जिते-ति-प्रतिपेएड-शवेदिह्निकलेऽपि न

(उद्घोत० ) ।

28. परिदृत्ति—When there is an exchange of things—the

equal with the equal, the inferior with the superior and the superior

with the inferior, the figure is परिदृत्ति. In the verse —the wind imparts graceful movement to the

fragrance from it. In the second half an inferior thing

for a superior one—the creeper receives life-giving

eyes of travellers and gives to them mental and great

perplexity etc., in return. In the verse

an exchange of a superior thing with an inferior

of the king receive strokes of

king the earth in return. The equality or similarity of it. This

consists in both of them being agreeable or quite suitable and due

other disagreeable.—न तु सदृशमात्रं हि सा मतिः (अमरु०),

It should be noted that the exchange must be such as can be fancied by poets. When the imagery is real, there

is no वद्बार.—दानादानवशाद् भवेद्, यत्र युक्तिः स्वभावतः, स

वस्तुप्रस्तुतिरेव सा न परिदृत्तिरिति ध्वनिना युज्यते । (रसकार० ) । It could further be argued that there is a variety of

opinion as to whether the विरुद्य be at all

and taking or only conveying is giving

something in its stead (

Mammata, Vidyā-

while Rājanaka Po

fिऱिऱि

in this

fिऱिऱि

(वि—स)।

29

भाविक

29. भाविक—When objects past-or future appear as if before our eyes through wonderful description, the figure is भाविक. In verse आसौदनमतेति etc., in the first half a past object, viz., अञ्जन (collyrium) and in the second half a future object, viz. भूपणसम्भार (profusion of ornaments) are so well represented that they appear to be present. The name भाविक is significant for there is भाव i.e., intention of the poet to represent objects as occurring before our eyes though they have occured in the past or are to occur in the future ( भाव: कवेरभिप्रायोऽस्तीति भाविकम् ). अभिप्राय: भूतभाविनोरपि प्रत्यक्षतयैव प्रतिपादनेच्छा ( विवरण० ). The अलङ्कारसर्वस्व says that the figure is so called because भाव (the idea which the poet wants to convey) is as it were reflected in the hearer—कविगतो भाव आङ्गय: श्रोतृ प्रति विम्बत इवास्तीति. According to Āśādharabhaṭṭa the name of the figure is due to its capacity of making objects (past and future) vividly present to the mind—भावाय साक्षातकाराय प्रभवति भाविकमिति नीयतेपत्ति:.

[ भाविक is not अतिशयोक्ति, because there is no अतिशयोक्त्याध्यवसाय.—नाप्यमतिशयोक्तिरलङ्कार: अत्यवसायाभावात् ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्व० ). न चातिशयोक्तिरलङ्कार: अध्यवसायाभावात् ( दृपं० ). Uddyota observes, however, that in भाविक a relation is established between the present on one hand and the past and future on the other, though there is absolutely no relation between them ( अत्र सम्बन्धे सादृश्यं ) and so, there is अतिशयोक्ति. According to some, and it is also recorded by उद्योत, अतिशयोक्ति only helps this figure.—अतिशयेन चिन्त्यते—अतिसम्बन्धे सत्सम्बन्धोऽतिशयैरग्रे गतार्थोडीयमू, प्रत्यचायमास्वाद्येऽपि तत्सम्बन्धवर्जनानात्, भूतादिवस्तुसम्बन्धेऽपि तत्सम्बन्धवर्जनाच्चेति । सा चानुप्रासिकादेवि कश्चित् । There is difference between भाविक and भ्रान्तिमान also. In भ्रान्तिमान one thing is mistaken for another thing which is similar to it. In भाविक there is no mistake—the past and the future objects are not mistaken for the present objects, because the past and the future objects are described and made known as such.—न चेयं भ्रान्ति:, भूतभाविलगेपि निर्देष्टात् ( उद्योत० ). न च भ्रान्तिमान् भूतभाविनो भूतभावितयैव प्रकाशयात् ( दृपं० ). भाविक is distinct from स्वभावोक्ति as well. In स्वभावोक्तिः there is a faithful description of the peculiar property of a thing in the shape of गुण or क्रिया but there is no question of the past and future objects appearing as present. In भाविक also there is a faithful description but through this description past and future objects appear as if present.—न स्वभावोक्तिः तस्य लौतिकवस्तुगतधर्मंसभभावस्यैव यथावदवर्णनं स्वरूपम् । अत्र वस्तुधर्मों वैचित्र्यग्राह्यक्; दृश्य तु कवेश्चनिबिडस्य वा अभिप्राय: ( उद्योत० ) ].

30

काव्यलिङ

30. काव्यलिङ्ग—When the sense of a sentence or of a single word or of several words is stated as a cause, the figure is काव्यलिङ्ग.

—काव्यपदार्थेति विमाग• वाक्यार्थेता परामर्शेता वाच्यस्पे । पदमप्येकमनेनंक चेतित वोधयम् (उद्घोतन०)। In the verse वधु प्रादुर्मावाद etc., अनतमान (not having bowed down to Mahes'a) which is the sense of the two sentences ‘पुता वचिद्रपि नातः भवन्त प्रथनवान्’ and ‘अग्नेड्य्यह्मनतिमान्’ is represented as the cause of अपराध (sin). Hence the verse is an example of वाक्यार्थहेतुककाव्यालंकार। In the verse मसोदलंन etc., the sense of सुरालोकचेष्टितव (the quality of destroying the light of pleasure) is a cause of मोक्ष (liberation) being described as महामोद (dense darkness). सुरालोकचेष्टितव being a compound is a single word. So it is an instance of एकपदार्थहेतुककाव्यालंकार। In the verse प्रणसितस्यसलीलं etc. दारतोपशेप (raising of the weapon) is the cause of सुविपात (falling of the aim) वधुनि द्रक्ष्युपविष्टत् is not a complete sentence on account of the absence of a finite verb and hence there is अनेक-पदार्थहेतुककाव्यालंकार।—अथात सुरोपेक्षेपो मुनिपद्भो हेतुः । न चाप वाक्यार्थे, द्रक्ष्युपविष्टतः पततामपामात्र्य साकाक्षत्वेनवाव्यपार्थत्वात् ( प्रदीप० )। It should be noted that the हेतु (cause) which constitutes the figure must be implied and not expiessed by the third or the fifth case-ending।—वाक्यमानहेतुकत्वयैव हेतोः सुन्दरत्वेन प्राचीने वाक्यलिङ्गनाशुपगमात् । अत पदं वधु प्रादुर्मावादसुपविष्टम्’ इत्यथयो नायम-लंकार इष्यते ( उद्घोत० )।

[ काव्यपदार्थ—is different from चनमान। काव्यकतु or नियादकतु constitutes काव्यलिङ्ग —ध्वन कारकहेतोरभ्रक्, चनमानावदारो तु प्रत्य-क्षेधीकृतित भेद्। (कननाकत० )। काव्यलिङ्ग is different from परिकर in that in परिकर the suggested sense arrived at from the sense of words and sentence develops the thing intended to be described, whilst in काव्यलिङ्ग it is the expressed sense of words and sentence which serves as a cause and thereby develops the description परिकरे पदावयवावाच्यार्थकथनं प्रति वाक्यार्थो वा चोपकारकतां भजते, काव्यलिङ्गे तु पददंशेऽप्यवाच्ये हेतुमात्र भवने ( सुधासागर० ) काव्यलिङ्ग is distinct also from चनमानकलक। In चनमानकलक the sentences are grammatically independent of each other. In काव्यलिङ्ग the sense of the sentence which is to be supported is grammatically dependent on the sense of the sentence which supports it. चनमानकलके तटस्थ-हेतोर निवेश दूयये पर्यवसानम् ( प्रदीप० ) सटत्पयत्नेन परस्परमन्वितत्वेनैवेदं ( उद्घोत० )। According to Darpana there is संशकलक्षण in चनमानकलक which distinguishes it from काव्यलिङ्ग in which there is कारकलक्षण ]।

31

पयोक्त—When what is meant to be expressed ( वाच्य )

is conveyed by चनमा (power of suggestion) which is apart from वाच्यवाचकभाव (the relation between the expressed meaning and the

expressive word), the-figure is पर्यायोक्त. The figure is significantly so called because the meaning is conveyed in another manner ( पर्यायोक्त=भत्‍रनन्तरेरण ) i. e., through suggestion.—विवक्षितमर्य साक्षाद् अकथयित्वा प्रकारान्तरेण कथनं पर्यायोक्तम् । तदुक्तं दडिना—अर्थोऽमिधेयो यस्याय साक्षात्तसैव सिद्धये । यत् प्रकारान्तराल्यानं पर्यायोक्ते तदिष्यते ( विवरण०)*. पर्यायोक्तं यदन्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते । वाच्यवाचकवृत्तिभ्यां सूच्येतावगमात्मना ( उद्धृत० ). पर्यायोक्तं यदन्येन प्रकारेणाभिधीयते ( भामह० ). पर्यायेरण प्रकारान्तरेण अवगमात्मना व्यवयेनोपलक्षितं सद् यदभिधीयते तदभिधीयमानमुक्तमेव सन् पर्यायोक्तमेवाभिधीयते इति लक्षणपदम् ( लोचन० ). In this figure both वाच्यार्थ (expressed sense) and व्यङ्ग्यार्थ (suggested sense) are. finally the same but the वाच्यार्थ is not stated in the same terms. in which व्यङ्ग्यार्थ is understood.—यत्र वाच्यार्थव्यङ्गच्यार्थयो: पर्यवसाने ऐक्यं, केवलमुक्तिप्रतीतयो: प्रकारमेद:, तत्र पर्यायोक्तमिति फलितार्थ: ( विवरण० ). In the verse यं प्रेष्य etc. what is intended to be said is that Airāvana and Indra became free from intoxication and arrogance respectively and this is the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ.

This idea is the same as is directly expressed by the words 'intoxication and arrogance have renounced their love of residence respectively in Airāvana's face and Indra's heart.' That a thing which is understood in one way may be understood in a different way is not. something uncommon. When we see a white ox walking and motion as its action. This idea is quite different from the one which we have of the cow just when we see it in the abstract i. e., before acquiring the complex idea. In other words, we have first the निर्विकल्पकज्ञान (indeterminate knowledge) and then the सविकल्पकज्ञान (determinate knowledge) of the cow. In निर्विकल्पकज्ञान a thing is apprehended not as distinct from or related to other factors while in सविकल्पकज्ञान it is understood as so distinct and related.

In this figure though there is व्यङ्गच्य, it is too obvious and less charming than वाच्य, and hence it does not constitute ध्वनिकाव्य.—अत्र सन्नपि व्यङ्गच्योऽर्थ: न तथा अतिरोचते यथा उत्तैर्वैचिच्यमिति न ध्वनित्वम् ( विवरण० ).

32

उदात्त—When there is a description of extraordinary

32. उदात्त—When there is a description of extraordinary prosperity i. e.; of prosperity which surpasses the comprehension of

सुबैलै:, एकैवली and रूपेश hold different views regarding this figure.

ordinaty experience, the figure is उद्रातः. In the ve-se मुचा कें'ि निद्धदरार्गा'ना. etc, what is meant to be des-ibed is the extreme pro-peity of the king and it is done by a hyperbolical des-cription of the piosperity enjoyed by the lealned men in his kingdom thlough his munificence.—अथ निद्धदरगणन मुचादिपनमुग्धयोः। नेन कनोता-रुपने: समासोक्तिवियः (प्रदीपो) This figure consists also in the action-s description. In the veise वरिद्रमण्य यमिन्त्र etc., the दृश्यवरस्य is the sulject under description. It is therefore अधः (आश्रय) to that of the दृश्यदर्शकस्य. The fact that Rām1 who was so great used to reside in the दृश्यकारण्य suggessts the greatness of the latter. There is no sugges-tion of वीतरस in the verse, because it is only a subordin.ite factor, the predomin int factor being the दृश्यवरस्य.

समुच्चय—

समुच्चय—Where not withstanding the presence of one cause sufficient to pi-oduce an effect, othei causes which produce the same effect are mentioned, the figue is समुच्चय. In the ve-se हृदयार्तः शरमाग्निना: etc, शरमाग्निन्द्र (aiiows of the love-god) aie enough to produce the effect viz, the unbearableness of the pangs of sepnation. Yet in addition to this othei causes, such as the love being deep, the age being young, the beloved being at a distunce etc, aie mentioned as producing the same effect. The causes that aie mentioned as biinging about the effect may all be good, m1y all be had or m1y be good in one way and had in anothe1.* The cause-s are good or had as they are agreei.ithin (souices of delight) or otheiwise under a paiticul ir cicumstanes.

• The expiession सदृशयोः m1y be explaine1 in t1wo w1ys —सदृशयोर (सम) वेधतु योः (combination of things some of which aie good and some bad), or सदृशयोर मे सदृशयोर (साफल्यात्) वेधतु योः (combination of things that aie both good and bad i. e., good under one cicumstance and bad under anothe1. The acceptance of the first explant1ion would involve the fault I known as विसदृशानां समासोक्तिः (combination of good and bad things) and अव्यवस्था (thieach of the uniformity of desciption) and thus affect the स्वातन्त्र्य or मौलिकत्व योजकत्व (काव्यार्थहेतुत्व मुख्या तात्परयोजनत्वरूपमौलिकत्वं) मम्मटः न च (काव्यार्थहेतुत्व मुख्या तात्परयोजनत्वरूपमौलिकत्वं) योजकत्व मुत्कृष्ट न वा (तुल्ययोः) मेदोऽस्ति, किं तु मेदोक्तौ मेदकत्व मात्रम्। मेदाभावे तु तयोः समुच्चीयमानत्वमात्रं स्यात्। एवं च विसदृशानां समासोक्तावव्यवस्थेति न दोषः।

X—13—16

In the example दूवारा: सारमारणा: etc., the causes are all bad as they give pain to a love-lorn girl. इह सदसद्वयंग उपादेयानुपादेयतथा वक्तुरमिप्रेतत्वम् । सरमारणादीनां विरहिणां दु:खदत्वात् अनुपादेयत्वेनास्मीभूतत्वं बोध्यम् (Jhalikikar). नववय:प्रभृतीनां शोभनत्वेऽपि विरहोद्दीपक-तैनाद्योभनत्वं बोध्यम् ( चन्द्रिका ).

In the verse कुलमलिनं—etc., अमलिन-कुल (unblemished family) alone is sufficient to produce the effect viz., arrogance in one person and the absence of arrogance in another. Yet other causes such as gentle appearance, cultured mind etc., are mentioned as producing the same effect. Hence, there is समुच्चय. Here the causes are all good on account of their natural agreeableness.

In the verse राशी दिवसघूसरो—etc., दूषर-राशी (dim moon) is enough to produce the effect viz., the pangs of heart. Yet other causes such as the woman with faded youth, the tank devoid of lotus etc., are mentioned as producing the same effect. Hence, there is समुच्चय. Here all the first six causes viz., राशी, कामिनी, सरः, युषद, प्रस्य and सज्जन are both good and bad—good in themselves but bad being associated respectively with the attributes दूषरत्व, गलितयौवनत्व, विगतवारिजत्व, अतिकरत्व, धनपरायणत्व and सततदूषणतत्व. - राशी स्वरूपेण सन्न्यपि दिवसघूसरत्वेनासन्न । एवमग्रेऽपि । एवमन्य सदसद्वर्गा द्वयादीनां योग: ( उदयोत ). अन्र राशिन: स्वत: शोभनस्यापि दिवसदूषरत्वादशोभनत्वेन शोभनाशोभनरूपस्य सदसद्वर्गस्य कामिनीप्रभृतिभि: समुच्चय: ( चन्द्रिका ).*

• It should be noted that in the case of the first six causes the विशेष्यs (such as रागी, कामिनी etc.) are good but the विशेषणs (such as दिवसघूसर, गलितयौवन etc.) are bad. In the case of the last cause, however, the विशेष्य ( खल ) is bad but the विशेषण ( नुपाङ्गयगत ) is good. Hence there are the faults सदसद्विमिन्नता and अन्यप्रक्रमता affecting the श्रतुल्यारत्व of the whole thing. So the figure समुच्चय is constituted by the first six instances and the seventh one is left out of consideration :—नुपाङ्गयगत: खल: इत्यच तु नुपाङ्गयगतलेन शोभनत्वम्, खलत्वेन लगोभनत्वमिति रील्या सदसद्विपतासङ्ग्येऽपि तस्मिन्न्र्शे नायसंलङ्ङार:, किंतु स्वत: शोभनस्य धर्मविप्रसुम्पर्कादशोभनस्य सदसद: प्रकारणो स्वतोडशोभनस्य खलस्य पाठात् सहचरमिन्नत्वं दृश्य एव । एवं सर्वच विशेष्यस्य शोभनत्वं विप्रकर्षस्य लङ्ङार:, इति लन्य्रेथेति भग्रप्रक्रमवसङ्गय दोष: । तस्मात् 'नुपाङ्गयमसद्युतम' इति पाठो युक्त: ( चन्द्रिका ), 'नुपाङ्गयगत: खल:' इति प्राप्तं काममेवाद दुष्टतमावहति, सर्वच विशेष्यख्वैव शोभनत्वेन प्रक्रमादिति ( रुद्रट ).

There is another kind of मधुर्य and it is constituted by the simultaneity of (a) two qualitics-, (b) two actions and (c) a quality and an action In the वे-e विद्रुमभलारक्त—etc., the two qualitics विमलत्व and मधुरत्व are simultancously produced —अभ्र विमलत्वमधुरतयोः श्रयमेदेन चाभ्र ( नताराभ्या ) समुचय. ( उद्घोत ). अत्र विमलत्वमधुरतयोः पुनर्योगस्तुब बालारूप मधुरयक्ष्मारहयगम्य ( चन्द्रिका ). In the वे-e अयमेवादि etc., there is simultaneity of two actions उपगम (coming about of the seperation from the belovcd) and भवन (appcarance of fresh cloud-) अनौपगम भवनयो क्रिययो समुचय ( नदित्रिया ). In the वे-e बल्गु च etc., the quality कडुपत्व and the action पनन are simultancous —आय बड्गुत्वपननयोःगुणक्रियोः समुचय. ( चन्द्रिका ). Ruylata thinks that simultaneity of two qualities, two actions or a quality and an action must be described as subsisting in two different substrat a (वैधीकरणये नव ) whilc others think that the substratum should be one and the time ( सामानाधिकरण्ये वय ) Neither of these contentions is correct. For we meet with such recognized examples of समुचय as ‘युनोति नामि तनुते न दधाति’ (he blandishes his sword and spreads his fame) where the substratum of both the actions (blandishing and spreading) is one and the time, and क्रपणपाणि शरभट् रपकक्षिणी, सत्सामयुवातादृश सुरतालये (you take hold of the sword with your hand in the battlefield and the gods utter words of praise in heaven) where two simultancous actions (taking hold of the sword and uttering words of praise) are found in two different substrat1.—‘युनोति तनुते’ ह्यद्योः पत रचा न हि क्रिययोःगुणविभरन्ना, तयोः क्रिययोः पतनोः नेवा सामानाधिकरण्यं न भिन्नता. तथा न गुणक्रियामाश्रिल्मात ह्यमुचय हृयमाजसादृशं ( विवरण0 )

31

पर्याय—When one object is ( मातृ ) or made to be ( क्रियते ) in several places in succession ( परम्परया ) or when several objects are made to be in one place in succession, the figure is पर्याय. The difference between वा (or) and हि (indeed to be) is that the causal agency ( प्रयोजक ) is not mentioned while in the other it is mentioned —प्रयोजकनिदर्शनादृते मातृनिदर्शने ( विवरण0 ) (i) In the वे-e नमावधृतिरिय—etc., the same object viz., position is represented as being in several places in succession viz., the heart of the enemy, the words of wicked men Here then is no mention of causal agent.—तत्र हिर्देव नावृतं म्रक्षिणी fिञ्चत् (T. 33) is an

वैलक्षण्यं घरतुन् एकरयानेकव वासे प्रयोजकं किन्तिद्रपि नोक्तमिति भवतीत्यस्योदाहरणमिदम् (प्रदीप०). The sameness of the object may either be real or fancied. In the verse विमोक्ष etc., the राग as found in रोग and the राग as found in हृदय are indeed different from each other but regarded as one and the same through fancy. (b) In the verse तं ताग etc., the same objects viz., the hearts of the demons are made to be in several places viz., Viṣṇu and lips and a casual agency viz., the love-god is mentioned.

(c). In the verse मधुरिमरचिरं etc., several objects viz., nectar and poison are represented as being in one place viz., the words of the wicked. Here no casual agency is mentioned—अलौकसिमन् खलवचनने क्रमेणामृतविपयो: स्थितिरिति पूर्वविपरीत: पर्याय: ( चन्द्रिका ). (d) In the verse तद्रोधं नतमित्ति etc., several objects viz., hut and palace, cow and elephant etc., are successively made to be (as properties) in one place viz., the Brāhmaṇa. A casual agency viz., time is mentioned.—अलौकसिमन् द्विजे तद्रोधं हेमन्दिरादीनामनेकेपां क्रमेण स्थितै दिवसरिति प्रयोजकनिदेश: ( चन्द्रिका ).

पर्याय is not the same as परिदृति, for exchange (i. e., giving up of an object and acceptance of another by the same agent) is not meant to be expressed here.—विनिमयाभावात् परिदृत्तिमेद: ( दृपण० ) पर्याय is also not to be confounded with the second variety of विशेष, for there one thing is represented as being in many places at one and the same time.—अथ क्रमेणैति सञ्चयन्या वर्तमानाय, वक्ष्यमाणविशेषपालक्वारद्वितीयमेदवारणाय च, तत्र यौगपद्यसत्त्वादिति वोधयम् ( प्रदीप० ).

अनुमान—

When the साध्य (that which is desired to be proved) and the साधन (that which proves the साध्य) are mentioned, the figure is अनुमान. साधन is nothing but the हेतु which has three characteristics viz., of being found in the पक्ष (पक्षसत्त्ति), of being found in the सपक्ष ( सपक्षसत्त्व ) and of being not found in the विपक्ष ( विपक्षासत्त्व ).—पक्षधर्मत्वेन अन्वयितोकेन व्यतिरेकितोक्तेन च त्रिरूपो हेतु: साधनपदेनोच्यते 'पक्षसत्त्व-सपक्षसत्त्व-विपक्षासत्त्व-नीति ह्योणि रूपाणि' ( सारवोधिनी ). साध्य is the व्यापक (व्यापक=वहि, धूम being व्याप्य) which has invariable relation with the पक्ष. The अनुमान must be due to poetic imagination and not real. Therefore, there is no अलङ्कार in पर्वतो वहिमान् धूमात्.—अस्य च कविप्रतिभोल्लिखिततैवेन चमत्कारित्वे काङ्गालङ्कारता (रस-गङ्गाधर ). In the verse यवता लहरी--etc., the साधन is stated in the

111

first half and साध्य in the second half. The order may also be reversed. The strikingness remains all the same and is absolutely due to the statement of साध्य and साधन and not to the order in which they are stated. So there is no variety of this figure as Rudrata thinks. The difference between काव्यलिङ्ग and अनुमान is that in the former the हेतु is कार्य, while in the latter the हेतु is गमक — गमकाद् अनुमेयो यत्न साधकहेतुरप्येतदगम्यते तत्र काव्यलिङ्गम्। निर्दिष्टद्योतनत्वाद् हेतु कवनमनुमानमित्येव ध्वनवरत्था युक्ता ( प्रभा )

परिकर—

परिकर—When an object is described with epithets ( विशेषण ) that are significant i. e., that which nourish the meaning of the विशेषण the figure is परिकर।—सामप्रायानेकविशेषणाधारा यत्न विशेषणसमन्वितस्याप्रतीति-ी म परिकर हस्येन। ( सारस्वतिनी )। In the verse महोजस: indicates that the warriors are unconquerable, the epithet मानपनता: indicates that they are always careful to keep their self-respect in tact, and so on. From the plural number in the word विशेषण it is evident that many significant adjectives are necessary to constitute this figure.—विशेषणान् चायं बहुलत्वमेव विशिष्टतम् ( विमर्शिनी)। Mammuṭṭa elucidates the point thus.—epithets must always be significant, otherwise the fault named अपुष्टता would arise (cf. विशेष्य विशेषण श्योनितं etc, where the word विशेषण is useless) From this it may be said that परिकर is not an अलङ्कार but merely the absence of the fault अपुष्टता Actually it is not so. For a number of significant epithets used in regard to a single object brings about special charm So according to Mammuṭṭa a single significant epithet causes the absence of अपुष्टता and in many significant epithets constitute परिकर।

रमगकभार, प्रदीप and उद्योतन are against this view. According to them a single significant epithet is sufficient to constitute परिकर To get rid of अपुष्टता it is not necessary that a significant epithet should be used, for it may be done by not using any epithet at all —'निरुपादानेऽपि हि श्लाघ्यताविशयाभावाद् विशेषणस्य नापुष्टता नाम दोषः' इत्यालङ्कारिकाः । न हि कृत्स्नं *वर् गतिस्वेद नादृता वयुम् ... उद्धरते नभःकरः। रक्षितुं शक्तियुक्तो वा तदीयैरैश्वर्यमोजसः ॥ इत्यत्र ( रमगकभार० ) माधे कपीश्वरस्योक्तिः मत्वर्थीयोक्तिमात्रं वा ।

निरदयम् निर्निदयोपणतयाड्युपपत्तेरदयंविदितस्वभावात् वैचित्र्यरहितं चानुभवसिद्धत्वात् ( प्रदीप० ) । दोपापहारं निर्दोपणानुपादानेऽपि सम्भवेन सामिप्रायैकनिदर्शननिबन्धनश्रमत्कारो दुरपह्नव इति भाव: ( उद्योत० )*.

अपह्नुति—

When something concealed is somehow brought to light and then again it is concealed by some artifice, the figure is अपह्नुति. In the verse शृङ्गारद्रप्रतिपयमाननिरजा—etc., the love ( रति ) that was concealed is brought to light by thrill and other indications of love and it is again concealed by the artifice that these indications are due to cold ( श्रम ).—पुलकादेवशुभ्रां सात्रिकाक्रियां प्रकाशिता पावतीविपयया गृढा रति: रयो: दृशोर्दृश्यतयाकारकनताप्रकाशनेनापहुता ( प्रदीप० ). In अपहुति there is similarity between प्रकृत and अप्रकृत but it is not so in व्याजोक्ति (there being no similarity between रति and श्रम्य which are प्रकृत and अप्रकृत in the present example).—न चेयमपहुति: प्रकृताप्रकृतयो: साम्ये तत्त्वस्वीकारात् । तत्त्व न तु तदभावात् ( प्रदीप० ). The विमर्शिनी says that in अपहुति the denial of प्रकृत and the assertion of अप्रकृत in its place serve to show the excellence of प्रकृत, while in व्याजोक्ति, प्रकृत which somehow comes to light is hidden by अप्रकृत and thus the difference between व्याजोक्ति and अपहुति is great. अपहुतौ हि प्रकृतमेवोत्कर्षंयितुमप्रकृतस्योपनानम् । इह तूद्र्रियम् सत् प्रकृतं वस्तु वस्त्वन्तरेणाप्रकृतेन निगृहीते तसनयोरवधानं मेव:।

परिसंख्या—

When a thing being mentioned, in response to a question or otherwise i. c., not in response to a question, excludes other things similar to it, the figure is परिसंख्या. The thing mentioned is known from other sources. Its mention therefore has no other purpose but to exclude things similar to it. The name परिसंख्या is accounted for thus : परि means वर्जन (exclusion) and संख्या means बुद्धि (idea) ; thus परिसंख्या means 'the idea of exclusion (arising out of the mention of a thing)'. परिशब्दो वर्जनार्थ: संख्याबुद्धि: । तेन वर्जनानुबुद्धिरित्यन्वर्थेयं संख्या ( प्रमाः ). The exclusion may either be implied or expressed. Thus परिसंख्या is of four kinds :— (a) The exclusion implied by the mention of a thing being preceded by a question ;

• We learn from a reliable authority that Mammata's authorship of the KP. ends with the figure परिकर and the rest of the book was done by one ऋभट्ट. cf. अन्त: श्रीमम्मटाचार्यवशेः: परिकरावधि: । प्रभास्त: पूरित: श्रेष्ठो विधायाज्ञाटसूरिशः ॥

(b) The exclusion expressed by the mention of a thing being preceded by a question;

(c) The exclusion implied by the mention of a thing not being preceded by a question; and

(d) the exclusion expressed by the mention of a thing not being preceded by a question.

Examples in due order.

[विर्षि, नियम and परिष्क्रया are terms of Mīmāṁsā. They are defined in the following Kātikā of the Tantrāvatāraka—

विधिरस्य विधेयांशो नियमः पाक्षिके सति ।

तथा चान्यत्र च प्राप्ते परिष्कारे गीयते स तु ।—1. 11. 42.

The विधिविवेकोदय explains the terms as follows —

सहार्थानामवैय्यर्थ्य विधिरालमन् । यथा सङ्गकामो व्रजेतेत्यादि । अत्र च यजनादौ प्राप्तावन् । यथा तोहिणादिष्वनिति । तत्र कीदृशु मरुविदाननुसमुच्चयादिमध्ये । तदोभयोः

सुव्याहृतस्सननैव नियम्यते । स चान्तरालवर्जितविधेय । यथा पच पचनकृतो भृत्या देयम् । गमकं शास्त्रं गौडो रक्षति कुरुमद दयम्

पच पचनकृतो ग्रामी पच्यते पचनकृतो भृत्या देयम् । गमकं शास्त्रं गौडो रक्षति कुरुमद दयम्

द्वि पचनकृतो शेषः। Grammarians and वैशेषिकs do not make much distinction between नियम and परिष्क्रया on the ground that there is an idea of exclusion common to both. See Nāgeśa, Rājaga gidhar and Athak īrttisāsi]

वारणमाला—When among a number of things mentioned each preceding one is represented as the cause of each succeeding one, the figure is वारणमाला. In the example फिट्कारस्य हेतुत्वं तस्य वित्तस्य (etc.,

फिट्कारस्य is the cause of वित्तम्, वित्तम् of गुनमाला and so on.

Udbhata speaks of an अलङ्कार named हेतु and defines it as consisting in the representation of the cause and effect as identical.

Our author says that there is no charm in it just as there is no charm in the statement मृगजाम् and thus it cannot be regarded as an अलङ्कार. Of course मृग and other rhetoricians may regard the verse is due not to the figure हेतु but to वस्तुतः (वस्तुतः on the one hand and अलङ्कारः etc., on the other) i.e., a good piece of poetry. Our author suggests that the beauty of the

verse is due not to the figure हेतु but to वस्तुतः.

According to the रसगङाधर the figure कारणमाला occurs also when each preceding object is represented as the effect of each succeeding object.—अत्र पूर्वं पूर्व कारणं परं परं कार्यमित्येकां ; पूर्वं पूर्व कार्य परं परं कारणमित्येकां.

40

अन्योन्य

40. अन्योन्य—When two things are each a cause and effect of the other through a single action, that is to say, when two things produce the same action to cach other, the figure is अन्योन्य. वस्तुनो: परस्परं जन्यजनकभावोदयसम्भव: । तत्र यं प्रत्येकं पौर्वापर्ययोरेवंघोरसम्भवादित्युक्तं क्रियते । एकक्रिया-जनकत्वारेणेत्यर्थ: । भवित्रीष्टं ( वैशिष्यंहितं ) वस्तु तावज्जातकलुपं तेन वैशिष्यप्रयोजकक्रिया-जनके । जनकत्वोपचार: । तथा च मिश्रस्तादृशैकक्रियाजनकत्वमेवोभयो: आलङ्कार: ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse हंसाण सरेष्टि etc., swans add beauty to the lakes and the lakes do the same to the swans. Here there is mutual जन्यजनकभाव between the lakes and the swans through the service they render to each other. न तु पूर्वस्तोहैतुसरसानौ सिध्यो जन्यजनकभाव इत्यते बोध्य—अन्योन्य । तथा न पूर्वोत्पत्त्योरेवान्योन्यैककारोपरागे अन्योन्य जनकत्वामिधानमिति लक्षणार्थ: ( चक्रवर्ती ).

41

उत्तर

41. उत्तर—(1) When a statement embodying the question is inferred from the answer or (2) when to several questions there are several answers which being beyond the reach of ordinary comprehension do not readily occur to one, the figure is उत्तर—यदोत्तरश्रवण-मात्रेणानुपात्तमपि प्रश्नवाक्यं परिकल्प्यते तदेकमुत्तरं ( प्रदीप० ). असकृद अनेकवारं तत्र सति प्रश्न इति असंभाध्यं संबन्धपि सम्बाव्यितुमशक्यं असकृद यदुत्तरं प्रतिवचनं स्यादतद पुनरपंरम् उत्तरम्.

(1) In the example वाणिजोऽ हत्यिदन्ता etc., the request on the part of the traveller in the form 'I want ivory and tiger-skins, give them to me after taking their price' or rather the question 'Have you got ivory and tiger-skins for sale ?' is inferred from the words of the old fowler.—'अत्रिदन्ततन्याप्रकृतय: किं तत्र सन्ति' इति प्रश्नवाक्यमिहोचनीयम् (प्रदीप०). In this variety of उत्तर a single answer and the inference of a single question from it will do—उत्तरीप्रदाने सकृदुत्तरस्य चारुत्वम् ( रसगङाधर० ). Now उत्तर is different from काव्यलिङ्ग, because in the काव्यलिङ्ग there is कारकहेतु while in उत्तर the हेतु (contained in the answer) is शापक. उत्तर is also not the same as अनुमान, because in अनुमान, साध्य and साधन ( वहि and धूम ) subsist in the same substratum ( पर्वत ), while in उत्तर the साध्य and साधन ( प्रश्न and उत्तर ) pertain to two different persons. Moreover in अनुमान, साध्य and साधन are both expressly mentioned —न चेदमुमानम्, साध्यसाधनयोरेवोंद्रेश एव तस्याङ्गीकारात् ( दर्पण० ).

(2) In the example मा निम्नमा देववाग् etc., there are several questions and there are several answers. The answers do not generally occur to us and as such inconceivable. —मन्त्र दैवगयादेवंपयादि लोकासिद्धमेव प्रकारयते (प्रदीप०)

[ The author of उद्योत is of opinion that (a) when there are several answers to a single question or (b) when the question and the answer are identical i. e., expressed in the same words (c. g., कामोत्कर्षादिनो ग्रहा and the answer is कामोत्कर्षादिनो ग्रहा ) or (c) when there are several questions but a single answer, then also the figure will be उत्तर.—प्रदर्श सकटुपपादाने उत्सरसानिकलैष्यममनुदार एव प्रश्नोत्तरयोरभिन्नदेवैष्यम्, एवं प्रदर्शप्रश्नोत्तरविधौ। उद्योत further remarks that when either the प्रश्न or उत्तर or both of them are significant, one question and one answer will do. प्रदीपोऽप्यस्त्यर्थ क्रतुमध्ये प्रश्नतकारोऽड्कितः। यथा—‘निमित्त कथमपि हृदये न हतानि’ इति । यत् प्रश्नेन प्रतोकारसामर्थ्यं व्यवस्थाम्, उत्तरैक स्वन पातित्रस्य व्रतस्यम्—ततस्तत्प्रतिपादनप्रकारविशेषा (रसकार०)। Cf. प्रश्नोत्तरगौरवकृतममले साश्रयैव चमत्कारकारितयापि कृतपादादिग्रहणेचा (रसकार०) ]

The difference between the प्रदर्शप्रस्तुत्या and the second variety of उत्तर is that in the former the expressed meaning leads to the exclusion of a thing, while in the latter the expressed meaning is final.—श्लोकोत्तरतावेन नामोत्तरार्थे वाच्ये ष्य विपरीतवाच्यैःप्रतिपादने तादृशीचि त भावः (उद्योत०).

42

लक्ष्म—

यत्सम—When a subtle thing known by an intelligent person either from (a) आकार (change of appearance—स्वदेहेऽन्यथासमारः: —प्रदीप०) or from (b) इहित (nature—नैसर्गिक रहितम्—प्रदीप०) is intimated to another person by means of a sign i e., a clever hint, the figure is यत्सम. In the verse वक्षस्युज्झितरत्नादि—etc, the गूढादान of a girl, a very subtle thing after all, is known by her friend from आकार (e. g., व्रीडादररुमेखर) and it is intimated to that girl by means of a clever hint viz, तरवारेखा (painting of a sword ) on her hand, गूढदानाभित being a characteristic of munis.—अनाराधित शिरि गूढोद्देशदत्ता यत्सं प्रतिपादयन् पालये रत्नाद्योःकेतन प्रासिनिमिति यत्समास्यात् (नटीसार). In the verse यावन्तमन्यं व्रजत गुरव etc., a subtle thing viz, that a lover was eager to meet (e. g., the glances on the part of her lover) and the fact that she understands the meaning of his glances is intimated to him by means of a clever hint viz, श्रृङ्गार (clinging

K-P-13

takes place at night, indicating the night thereby as the time.—अथ नीलोत्पलहुपेणेढितेन लक्षितः कामिनः संकेतिकालमिलापः कामिन्या: निशासूचकेन पश्चानिमीलनेन लीलया प्रकाशितः ( प्रदीप० ).

[ The figure भ्रान्तिमान is involved in सूक्ष्म but one is different from the other. In सूक्ष्म, भ्रान्तिमान is subordinate and the charm does not lie in the inference of the subtle thing from ज्ञात or इष्ट but in intimating that subtle thing to another with a view to prove one's own intellect. भ्रत विद्यमानसङ्यनुमानं सूक्ष्माङ्गस् ( उद्द्योत० ). यथाप्रत स्त्रीविशेषपुरुषायितयेः साधारसाधनयोरेकधर्मिग्यातलवेनोपादानदनुमानस्सेवाकाडरो भवितुमर्हति तथापि स्वादेरन्धप्रतिपिपाद्यविशया भ्रान्तिमसै सूक्ष्मार्थप्रकाशनसुखेनैव चमत्कार इति स एवालङ्कार:, भ्रान्तिमानं तु तदनुगुणकमिलन्यददेतत् ( चक्रवर्त्ती )].

43

सार

सार—When of the several things described each succeeding one is represented as more charming than each preceding one, till the limit is reached with the last one, the figure is सार,—परः पर्यन्तभागो यस्मिन् पदस्य वा अभिहितविकर्षसीमा यस्य । तेन पर्यन्तभागो यस्मिन् सद्योन्तवृत्त इत्यर्थः, धाराभिरोहतया ( प्रवाहलुपेण ) तदैवोत्कर्षनिश्रान्ते: ( प्रदीप० ). According to the रसगङ्गाधर and उद्द्योत this figure occurs also when each succeeding object is represented as of inferior charm to each preceding object till the climax is reached with the last object.—सैव संसर्गस्योवृकृतपदपकर्षभावरुपत्वे सारः ( रसगङ्गाधर० ) उत्कर्षपक्ष इत्यादिगुणानाम् अथलस्यगुणानां च सञ्भवति । तत्रायो सूने अन्यो यथा—ञणाहलदुतरस्तूलस्तूलादपि च याचकः । वायुनां किं न नीतोडसौ साम्यं याचविष्यति ( उद्द्योत० ).

[ In this figure the charm of the last thing is caused by the exclusion of other charming things. Hence some rhetoricians think that सार is not different from परिसंख्या. This view is not correct. For in परिसंख्या the final idea is exclusion, while in सार it is the surpassing excellence of the thing last spoken of.—अञ्ञान्यच्चोहरतचातलमिलयां परिसंख्यैवेदंकी, तदस्तु, सारत्वे ह्यच विरोधिनिर्नान्त्य-व्यपोह ( सहृदय० )].

44

अतद्गति

अतद्गति—When two things standing in the relation of cause and effect are represented as existing, at the same time, in two different places, the figure is अतद्गति. It is a wellknown fact that cause and effect exist in the same region (e.g. fire does not exist in the kitchen while smoke is seen on the mountain). The figure अतद्गति therefore involves the abandonment of natural propriety ( सदृत्ति i.e. the propriety of cause and effect being in the same place) for the sake of a special meaning. In the example

147

जसेअ वणो etc., the cut is repie-ented to exist in one pl ce and the pin consequent upon it in .nother, and this is done to indicate that the sight of the cut of tcth inflicted on the chek of a newly wedded wife by her husband is extremely pinful to her co-wives. It should be noted here that the actual p in of the cut is difierent fiom the pin caused to anothei person by its sight Yet they are iegarded as non-diflicient.—अथ रेन वेनाति प्रतीय वायमेउपेतौवाधप्रसङ्गानुमुच्यतेनम् ( उद्घोत० ) अतिदयोक्ति is thus at the root of

this figure.—अनेनातिशयोक्तिरतरथा अध्युनुवादकत्नेन वदाधिना। अनवथा हि विरोषो दुविविधः स्वार ( विरार्दनी ). The प्रतीय remarks that the expre-sion उभयत: (at the same tim ) in the definition is redumd int and the oxi-tence

of the cause and cffect in diffcrent plces alone is uficient to constitute this figure.—जुगुप्सिते स्वहृपतिन्चन तमं, न तु व्याससङ्गन्। तेन वायवार्थ- भूतयोःपम्योदयत्र यत्र निर्वेदेतया सम्पतिपादन सा अमद्रति Though this figure implies inconsistancy it is not the same as विरेषनाम It only restricts the scope of विरेषनाम, विरेषनाम having a widei cope of application than अमद्रति. Thus where there is possibility of अमदति, विरेषनाम is excluded To be more clear, when two things which should subsist togethei are found in diffiercnt substrata, it should be iegarded as a case of अमदति and when two things which should sub-sist in the diffierent -ub-th ite the found togethei it should be regarded as a cuse of विरेषनाम.— इदम निरवरणम्—“न दशावयोभिर्दशति न चैकस्मिन्नपि दृश्यते । एवं समवति विरोषनामरतु अन्यत्रापि तत्कथारात्ननियाधिनी हि द्वेषरपा अमद्रति

सामान्य-विशेषकथयेन विरोषनाम वाघते, सुतरां विरेगनामो भिद्यतेराक्योभयत्र । य प्वंरप्त, अनरब विरोषनामोदाहरगति पूर्व तसैव दशानि ( विरामो )

समधि

When inspite of the presence of a competent cause the fulfilment of an action becomes eisy for the agent through the accidental op ration of some othei cause, the figur is समधि. In the evample मानमरवा etc, the action of remon ing the wounded pride of a woman is done through the acidental thundering of the cloud, though a cau-e compctent to bring it about viz., falling on the feet i- present. The diffierence between ममधि and वर्म is that in the former thcie is mainly one cause, the action being only facilitated or made peifect by the op ration of some other cau-e,

while in the latter all the causes operate together and are equally powerfal.—द्यात् कारणान्तरगते कारणेनोपकृतः कर्त्ता यदकेरेत् कार्यं करोति स समाधिः (प्रदीप०) एककारणजन्यकार्यस्य आकारककारणान्तरसमवधानाहितं सङ्कर्यं समाधिरित्यर्थः । सङ्कर्येण्न कार्यस्यैककारणमात्रापत्तात् सङ्कर्यादित्थुपातिशयसम्पादनम् । समुचये तु एककार्यसम्पत्तौ सर्वेपां कार्यैकपोषणतत्पत्तः कार्यस्य न कोऽप्यतिशयः इति भावः (उद्घोत० )

46

सम

सम—When there is a connection of two things befitting each other, the figure is सम. The two things may either be both good or both bad. So there are two varieties of this figure. In the example यत्नः शिथिलतनुः—etc., there is a connection of two things viz., यत्नः and तनु, which are both good. In the example चित्तं चितं वत etc., the connection is between two things viz., निम्ब and काक which are both bad.

47

विपम

विपम—(i) When the connection between two things which are incongruous on account of extreme dissimilitude is conceived to be impossible, (b) when the agent not only does not get the fruit of his action but comes by an undesirable effect, (c) when the quality of a cause is contrary to the quality of its effect, and (d) when the action of a cause is contrary to the action of its effect, the figure is विपम. (i) In the verse विरहपवन etc., there is a great incompatibility between a girl whose body is as tender as Śirīṣa flower and the fire of love which is as terrible as straw-fire and their connection with each other is conceived to be an impossibility which is indicated by the use of the word कव twice. (ii) In the verse सिंहिकासुतसन्नत्रः etc., the hare being frightened by a lion, seeks protection from the moon, does not get it, but on the other hand is devoured by Rāhu. (iii) In the verse स चः करतस्पर्श etc., the black sword produces white fame. (iv) In the verse आनन्द- ममन्दिमं etc., the action of the cause viz., the lotus eyed girl, consists in giving extreme pleasure but the action of the effect viz., the separation brought about by her, gives extreme pain.—अत्र नायिका- विरहयोजेन्यजनकयोरानन्दजननताप्रक्रिययोर्विरोधः ( उद्घोत० ). It should be noted here that generally the qualities of a cause and those of its effect are similar. When however they are dissimilar in the natural

course of things there is no viṣama. In order to constitute this figure the dissimil arity must be due to poet's fincy*.

Other varieties of viṣama which rest on the as-sociation of incongruous objects are also possible. One of them occurs when there is incongruity between the avayava and avayavin. In the ver-e viṣuṇa sāgarasārasya etc, viṣayukṣi which is avayava (a put of the whole) is the agent of dinking ( i e, swallowing) the world, while viṣayavī which is avayavī (the whole) is the object of drinking (i e, eagerly looking at) by the single eye of a woman. Thus there is an association of two incongruous objects vi, viṣayukṣi (avayava) which swallows all the worlds and viṣayavī (avayavī) which is swallowed by the eye of a woman. Here the act of swallowing in the case of viṣayukṣi is of course different from the act of swallowing in the case of the woman. But the two are regarded as non-different.—yena vibhā-vitamekṣaṇena samyogino'rthasya vastumāmakṣa vidharmaṛ śayate'daṃ medurā samagavatī, amāvayavā'vayavino'pi yathā—viprule'neti (pratīpaṛ). an nṛkṣitadirābhayorvayavā'vayavinoḥ-

vaipamya pānakṛtsnā'hvapanakāntavṛṣpam pānaprādhāyo'ṃśe'dapi ametropacāreṇa kośyam (pramāṇaṛ). varaṛ kuṭilair satyā'ghravanapānasmadheḥ tasya sampyṛṇasāravāhaneḥ. śriṇvā pṛthvī pān cāpar vibhamaṃ (udāhṛtaṛ).

48

ādhikya—

48. ādhikya—When of the two large things standing in the relation of āśraya (abode or the container) and āśritin (abider or the contained), one which is of le--er magnitude is repre-ented as larger than the one of greater magnitude, the figure is, ādhikya. The figure has thus two varieties—(i) the āśraya may be repre-ented as larger than the āśritin and (ii) the āśritin may be repre-ented as larger than the āśraya. The purpo-e of such de-scription is to bring home the greatness of the object de-scribed In the ver-e maho nidhāl etc, the three worlds (āśrayaṛ) and the fume of the king (āśritin) are both large. The object of de-cription is the fume of the king Its greatne-s is brought home by the de-scription that the three worlds which though smaller in magnitude than the fume, the

• The distinction between viṣam, tatva and atiśayokti is clearly brought out by the उदाहृत in the following way — यत्रान्यतरविषयिणोः 'कन गौरवं, विषयिणोः सामानाधिकरण्यं, चमत्कृतो विषयाद्वैलक्षण्यं तद viṣayoktiḥ । यत्र तु ऐक्यविषययोः गौरवविशिष्टयोः भेदप्राधान्येन विवक्षितोऽर्थः सा अतिशयोक्तिः ।

description only proves the superiority of the nāyaka. In the verse दस्स शत्रिदत्तं चुम्बनंक्ष etc, राङ being unable to do any harm to his enemy, viz, विष्णु, is described as assimilating the moon who is similar to the face of विष्णु and thus indirectly connected with him ( अत्र यदप्यनङ्ग सुगतस्य रसभाव-विवक्षया समनुप्रेतेन नन्द्रस्य मादृश्वलक्षण इति परपरामर्शकल्प - प्रमाण० ). The description only proves the superiority of विष्णु.

[ In the verse just referred to राङ is represented as molesting the moon as if through his enmity with विष्णु because the moon is similar to विष्णु's face and therefore शत्रुप्रेक्ष may be thought to be the वदनार here वक्त्र ys that it is not so, because there is a special charm in the description that somebody unable to injure his enemy, injures, another connected with the enemy directly or indirectly.—न च अमन्दोदररत्नपर्याय मारकतमणिकाञ्चनमाल्यादि वारणाव्याजेन इति प्रतीयते नैमित्तिकसंबन्धात्, यांर्थ नु यौगपदि रेति किंमेनानन्तरदर्शनेन वाच्यम् । तदपकाराच्चिदानन्दरुचि पोष्यतोनि प्रतिभैयैव चमत्काररादृश्यम् ]

मीलन—When though common characteristics one thing is obscured by another more prominent thing, the figure is मीलन The common characteristic may either be natural or adventitious and thus the figure is of two varieties. In the verse अवगततले दरी etc, the tremulousness of the eyes, sweetness and antfulness of words etc, are characteristics common to both शर ( lusciousness ) and मद ( intoxication ) सीत्क being more apparent a reason thin मर, is more prominent of the two and obscures ( hides from view ) the latter through these characteristics which are natural on account of the fact that शरङ which produces them is natural to the body. वडार

प्रविष्टतया वङ्गिनः शोकहर्षरागरुणा etc., वनीषया धीगया। रसाभिव्यक्ताव इव द्वारतालये। रसाभितरसं, जनारतुल्य नन-वन्ही निह्नुतादि मर (Jhalkikā ). अत्र चरुरिति गाढारतया रसाभिवि: । नित्नात्; समालोक निरीक्षण गर्ते । समालोकेतेनुप्रसङ्गमार (वसीय०) अथ रसान्तरेपि द्वात्रयादिना निगूढोनामरमभावेन रमया मतोऽभिप्रेते ( उद्घोत० ).

In the verse ये रत्नतुङ निसित etc, thrill and shivering are characteristics common to both cold and fire cold being more apparent reason thin fire obscures the latter through these characteristics which are adventitious on account of the fact that cold (implied by the residence in the Himalayas ) which produces them is something adventitious i.e., not a natural condition of the body.—अथ वड्येः

प्रादुर्भूततनुतिमिरमालोक्यतां नयति निशातातङ्कम् । ममालम्बुजं तु, येषां निसितमोहान्धकार ( मेदिनी० ).

51

एकावली

51. एकावली—When among a number of things each succeeding thing is represented as affirmed as a qualification of each preceding thing or denied as such i.e., when the absence of each succeeding thing would indicate the negation of each preceding thing ( अपोहकतद्वन्न स्वन्यतिरेकैन विशेष्यतावच्छेदकन्यतिरेकैक्युद्भिजनकत्वम्—उद्घोत० ), the figure is एकावली. In the verse पुराणि यस्यां etc., there is a series of qualifications affirmed—the excellent women are a qualification to the city, beauty is qualification to the women, and so on.—अत्र पुराणामधनारतासामध्र विशेषणक्रियामुखेन रूपं तस्य विलासास्तेपामस्त्वमिति क्रमेण विशेषणतया विधि: ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse न तज्जलं यत्न etc., lotuses are denied as a qualification to water; bees to the lotuses and so on i.e., the absence of lotuses and bees indicates the negation of water and lotuses respectively.—अत्र जले पद्मजस्य तत्र पट्पददानाम् अत्र पुंञ्जितस्य तत्रापि मनोहारिताया विशेषणतया निषेध: ( प्रदीप० ). [ In मालाद्दीपक each preceding thing enhances the charm of each succeeding thing and there lies its difference from एकावली in which each succeeding thing adds to the beauty of each preceding thing.—पूर्वं वस्तुना उत्तरसुत्तं चैडुपक्रियते तत् मालाद्दीपकम् ]

52

सरणा

52. सरणा—When there is recollection of an object with a well-defined character, just in the way in which it was perceived before, from the perception of an object similar to it, the figure is सरणा. The object recollected may either be one perceived in this or in previous birth. Thus the figure is of two varieties.—स द्विधा—एतज्जन्मनि जन्मान्तरे वानुभूतस्य स्मृते: ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse निम्ननाभिकुहरेषु etc., there is recollection of an object which was perceived before in this birth. In the verse करजङ्घाहिब etc., an object which was perceived in previous birth is recollected.

53

भ्रान्तिमान्

53. भ्रान्तिमान्—When at the sight of a thing which forms the subject of description ( उपमेय or प्राकरणिक ) another thing which does not form the subject of description ( उपमान or अप्राकरणिक ) is cognized through resemblance, the figure is भ्रान्तिमान्. To put it simply when the उपमान is charmingly mistaken for the उपमेय, there is भ्रान्तिमान्. It should be noted that the mistake must not be gross but poetical.—भ्रान्तिमात्रञ्चालम्बनारः । सा च कविप्रतिभानिर्मितेन ( उद्घोत० ). Thus when a piece of rope is mistaken for a snake there is not this

figure. The difference between भावनमान् on one hand and रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति (first variety) on the other is that in भावनमान् the identification is real ( यथार्थ्य ) i. e., the उपमान is really mistaken for the उपमेय, while in the रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति the identification is artificial ( आध्यार्प्य ) i. e., in रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति we are conscious of the difference between उपमान and उपमेय but identify them on account of great similarity between them.

54. प्रतीप--(1) When the उपमान is discarded as superfluous or useless with a view to bring home the idea that the उपमेय through its excellence can do the function of the उपमान, or (2) when the उपमान is regarded as the उपमेय, and thereby condemned, the figure is प्रतीप. In The Verse शशाङ्कोक्ति etc., all the उपमानs, viz., शशी, पूषा etc., have been discarded as of no importance in the presence of the उपमेय, viz., the king, to convey the idea that the alone possesses all their qualities and can do the functions assigned to all of them.

—अथ निषिध्यमानवरतुगतसकलयुगप्रतितिथ्यनुसृता प्रयोजनम् ( उद्दिष्ट0).* In the second variety the condemnation of the उपमान may be effected in two ways—(1) by non-accomplishment of comparison and (2) by comparison correctly accomplished.—द्वितीये तु मत्वचिदुपमित्यनिष्पया निन्दा तिरस्कारः ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse र रधे दार मन्दारे etc., the moon is sought to be compared to the face, but as the moon is possessed of inferior qualities there is no comparison ( तिरस्कार ).† This non-accomplishment of comparison which is,

• The figure in the verse is neither यादृशं nor प्रतिरूपक. वच यादृश्य-मर्यादापयैः एव अतिशयोक्तिलावैरोपमादर्शकत्वात् ( प्रौढ० ). वच चन्द्रादीन् उपमानतया प्रयुज्य देवांशे तदनुप्रासेन मतिवाद्यते म तुरीय-रत्नप्रभामात्रन म यथासंख्यमन्वित न वा Jhalakikar). यशोमात्रस्यापि मत्वचिदुपमित्यनिष्पया निन्दा तिरस्कार इति योज्यम्।—माधवोविदारायन स्तोत्रात् रत्नप्रकारः। तत्र ( जै० ) चोपमानतया मुखादीनाम् ऐश्वर्याद्यनुरूपं तत्तत्सामान्य उपमानानाम् उपमानत्वम् । अपि च मुखवत् इन्दोः कान्तिः सादृश्येनैव; तेन न सादृश्यमात्र उपमानत्वम् इति माधुर्यादि न ग्राह्यम् ।

† उपमित्यनिष्पत्तिः । अतपच यतिरस्करोति पीत; ममोक्तिप्रचालनाद्वार्ति उपमेयं निष्पादयति । यत् वच्यते निन्दार्थम् उपमानोक्तिः । तया न यत् निष्पाद्यते तत् उपमेयम् । एवं तिरस्कारो न सादृश्यमात्रेण; उपमानोक्तिः निन्दार्था इति नियमात् । यथा न यन्मुख मिति न तद् इन्दोः । एवं च निन्दाप्रधानोऽयं तिरस्कारः । यद् वच निन्दार्थम् इति न व्यवस्थाप्यते; तदा सादृश्यमात्रेsपि स तिरस्कारः । यथा—मुखेन इन्दुः चिरन्तन इव ।

X—13—20

implied by the word वचनीय is the cause of the condemnation of the moon.—अत्र मुख्योपमानस्य शशिनः स्वरूपगुणस्वादुपमित्यनिष्पत्ति: ‘वअणिज्ज’मिति पदेन योलते। सैव तिरस्कारहेतु: ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse गर्वमसंवाद्यामिमं etc., there is comparison ; blue lotuses are made उपमेय and thereby condemned.

Another variety of this figure is also possible, viz., when a thing which is incomparable on account of being possessed of a unique property is condemned by being made to assume the position of an उपमान. In the verse अहमेव गुरु: etc., हालाहल which is too dreadful to have another thing to be compared to it is made an उपमान to the words of wicked persons and thereby condemned.—अत्र निरुपमत्वेन गर्वोयमानस्योपमानताकल्पनरूपं प्रतीपम् ( चन्द्रिका ). अत्र हालाहलस्य खलवचनोपमानत्वम् असंभाग्यमानमेवोपनिबद्धं तिरस्कारहेतु: (प्रदीप० ).

The figure is significantly so called because in all its varieties the उपमेय is represented as प्रतीप (opposed) to the उपमान.—उपमानप्रतिदूल-त्वाद् उपमेयस्य प्रतीपमिति ब्यपदेश: ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्व० ).

55

सामान्य

55. सामान्य—When an object under description ( प्रस्तुत ) is represented as identical with another object which is not under description (अप्रस्तुत ), with a view to describe that they possess similar properties, the figure is सामान्य.* This connection (through similar properties) accounts for the name of the figure ( सामान्य-निवन्धनात् सामान्यम् ). In the verse म्लेयजेरस-etc., अमृतसरिका is प्रस्तुत and चन्द्रिका (moon-light) अप्रस्तुत. They are represented as identical (not distinguishable from each other) with a view to describe that they possess in common the quality of whiteness. The figure सामान्य occurs also when the प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत being at first cognized to be identical are afterwards known to be different from each other through some cause. This is so for the simple reason that the idea of identity has already been cognized and being once cognized cannot be rooted out by the cognition of difference produced afterwards. In the verse वेत्रस्वच्चा etc., the प्रस्तुत (cheeks) and the अप्रस्तुत (champaka flowers) had been perceived to be identical and could only be distinguished

• According to the Darpana the possession of similar properties by the प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत is the ground of identity.—सामान्यं प्रकृतान्यतादात्मं सदृशश्रयैर्गम्यते:

from each other by the loveing of the hees.—अथ भेदाभाननार्द्ध मेर्दार्दयो न तु पूर्वेदृश प्रतितिः। ननु भ्रुतार्थावैच मैत्रेयप्रसाद कथमेकमेकस्माद्वृत्तिति रीतिः पोत्, तां तया टिप्रा प्राथमिकमैत्रेयप्रसादयोरभिरासाव्, तथा च रूपकादयो ( प्रदीप० ) एवं चोन्मीलनविधेरपवर्गान्तस्यमेदस्यान्। मुक्तकादिषु न पूर्वोक्तप्रबन्धशब्दः। निरमित्सितुरसहृदये, उद्भटप्रायोक्तिनिरसेपणैः, तद्विप्रलम्भनसमासगुणग्रहणप्रलयस्याधिरकार इति तादृशपदं ( उद्भटोक्त० )।

[ It should specially be noted that the प्रस्तुत in this figure must be represented as identical with the पदसूत without renouncing its own qualities and herein lies its difference from the figure तद्गुण.—पदार्थान्तरभिन्नस्य, भण्यया तद्गुणत्वादिराहित्येऽपि ( प्रदीप० ). The difference of आभास from the सदृशौत—सदृश ( मोहिते ) शब्दाभासमात्रक and रूपक has been thus brought out by तस्मादृशोत—तथ ( मोहिते ) शब्दाभासमात्रकोपमातत्सादृश्यवचनं, तथा त मेयमात्रशब्दोः। न च आभासमात्रं सदृशम्। तथा मेयमात्रशब्दोऽपि। तथा ह्युक्तम्—उपमानतादात्म्यादात्मीयादपसते यथा दृशादपते रपकाभासवत्। उपमानान्तरखेदेऽपि दृश्यते तादृशीयमात्रलामतिकयोधिः ].

56

निदर्श—(1) When the आबेय (the abider or the contained) is represented as existing without its अभेद (the abode or the container), (2) when a single thing is represented as being in several things in the same character and simultaneously, and (3) when a person engaged in doing one thing is represented as doing something else which is impossible to be done in the same manner (i.e., by the same effort), the figure is निदर्श. There are in reality three figures which go by the one name of निदर्श.—निदर्शना वदः। न पुनरन्यविधेयः। अत्युग्र निष्ठुर ( निमित्तं ) (1). In the first figure—when the word of poet—( वाच्य ) are represented as existing even in the absence of the प्रस्तुत—the ( वाच्य ) . The अत्युग्र etc., the word of poet—( वाच्य ) are recognised by persons which is not real but one merely recognised by persons. ननु दृष्टान्त एव अयं न तु निदर्शना इति—नैष दोषः। वाच्यो हि प्रस्तुतोऽर्थः। न तु प्रस्तुतः प्रस्तुतोऽर्थः। न तु प्रस्तुतः। ननु प्रस्तुतोऽर्थो वाच्य एव। इति न दोषः।

tönnection with several things in different characters and in पर्यायं not simultaneously but by turns.—एकात्मेत्येकैत स्वभावावेनैत्यर्थः। एतच्च विशेषणं 'परस्परथा वसति'—इत्यादि यथासंरयग्यावर्त्तनाय। युगपदिति पर्यायवाचरणाय ( प्रदीप० ).

(3) In the verse रफुरदद्युते—etc., विधि while creating the king is represented as creating (in the person of the king) a new Love-God, a new Sun and a new Brhaspati on the earth, which is impossible to be done by the effort needed for the creation of the king. The expression तथैव in the definition is meant to exclude क्रियासमुच्चय (simultaneity of actions) from the range of विशेष.—अत्र तथैवेत तेनैव प्रकारेणेत्यर्थः। एतया 'धुनोति चांशि ततुत इ च कीर्तिम्'—इत्यादिसमुच्चयग्यावर्त्तनाय ( प्रदीप० ): The doing of a different thing in the above example is शाब्द (expressed by words) ; it may also be व्यङ्ग्य (suggested). In the verse मृहिणा सच्चिवा: etc., it is suggested that the cruel death in depriving Aja of his beloved wife has deprived him of his counsellor friend and pupil.—अत्र कि न मेँ हतामिति सचिवादे: सवंहरणरूपं कार्यकरुणं व्यज्यते ( प्रदीप० ).

It is true that a thing cannot exist without a receptacle, one thing cannot exist simultaneously in several things and one effort cannot produce two effects. Then how can there be any अलङ्कार in such descriptions? Our author on the authority of Bhāmaha replies that these descriptions rest on अतिशयोक्ति (meaning not the figure अतिशयोक्ति but अतिशयेन उक्ति:, i.e., metaphorical expressions). It is the soul of अलङ्कार without which almost all अलङ्कारs would cease to be अलङ्कारs.—नन्वाधारं बिना वास्तव्यस्याधेयस्य व्यवरस्थितिरनुपपत्ते:, एवमन्योरप्यनुपपत्तिरिति चेत, न, अतिशयोक्तिमवलम्ब्य तथाभिधानात्। सर्वत्रैवविधे विप्रलक्षितशयोक्तिरेव प्राणयिता, तां विना प्रायशोऽलङ्कारत्वासम्भवात् ( प्रदीप० ). अतिशयोक्तिम् अतिशयेनोक्तिमित्यर्थ:.....नत्वत्ति-शायोक्तिरलङ्कारोऽन विवक्षितः, तस्यात्रासम्भवात् ( उद्योत० ).

57

तद्गुण

57. तद्गुण—When an object which is प्रस्तुत and possessed of inferior quality is represented as giving up its own quality and assuming the quality of another object which is अप्रस्तुत and possessed of superior quality through the relation of nearness, the figure is तद्गुण. In the verse विभित्तवर्णा—etc., the horses of the sun are प्रस्तुत (objects under description). They come in contact with Aruna, who is अप्रस्तुत (an object not under description) and assume his colour

giving up thein own Ag in they conie in cont ict with the

green gems of the mountain ( मरकत ), give up the colour they

hid taken up and assume that of the gems It should be noted

that the Sun's horses are infetior in colour to Aun i and Arun i

to the gems —प्रत तद्गुणग्रहण । रवितुरगाश्वैवक्षया गरुडाश्रयस तरपेशया न हरिण्मनाता

प्रकृष्टगुणावचचूषया प्रतीते ( प्रदीप० ) यत्न विभित्रवर्णा ह्यवयवसदृशा, रष्यतां रवुज

सागेनाप्रसृतगुणैःप्रादुर्यगुणमहागाव, पुनस्त्रस्यगोनेप्रकृतुमतरवस्तमनियुग्नप्रगाढाविप्रकलष्यतुः (प्रभा० )

[ The difterence betw een तद्गुण, मोहित, श्रामात्य and श्रानिमानू is thus

explained by the उद्योत—नोचिनिते धर्मिणि एवायः, " सामान्ग्येपरित्यक्तगुणसेबावधक प्रतिभोभि

इह तु युयमाच्छेयाभिभाव, धर्मिणि प्रकृष्टगुणाश्रयति मेद एव दर्शय । भाक्तिमति करणेऽप्यचारोप, श्य श्र

मोष्यादौ मेद, भाक्तिमतिनिबहुलमिभावोऽपि ।

58 भतद्गुण—(1) When an अप्रकृत object of inferi or qulity

does not take up the qulity of the object wh ch is प्रकृत and

possessed of superi or qulity though the two come in contact with

erch other and (2) when a प्रकृत object does not take up the qu lity

of the object wh ch is शप्रकृत inspite of the conne ction of nearnes-s

the figure is भतद्गुण —अख्य तद्गुणगुणोभेदि यदिन न्यूनगुणोदप्रकृत प्रकृतस्य गुण नानुधते

तदा भतद्गुण । तथा चाप्रकृतोभन प्रकृततृपानुकारगुणवत प्रकृतोभनप्रकृतसुतृपानुकारोदन्यक प्रकार

( प्रदीप० ) (1) In the veise भवलोकि etc, the नायक ( अप्रकृत ) his

not become red (affected by love) though he is enhrined in the

heart of the नायिका ( प्रकृत ) wh ch is red (glowing with love) —मदनात

रक्षी मनसति पूरितयाश्चकतवचचनादचतुराश्चारुश्चर मेवोदरारणम । ततः प्रकृत हदयसं, सम्भोग्यतस्तत्प्रकृत

रषदयाश्चतुन्तनिदर्शनयोरपि विवक्षितत्वात ( प्रदीप० ) (2) In the ve ise गहमझ etc,

the रजहस ( प्रकृत ) does not assume the qulities of गता and यमुना ( अप्रकृत ),

though it comes in cont ct with them,i —अश वण्यतया प्रकृतेन राझगन्मन महा

वमनदोर्मि्रहणोभुग्नसागहमालात भतद्गुणोदकद्वार (Jhalkikar)

59 व्यापात—When a cet ain thing done by a man adopting

a certain me ans is undone by another by the f me me ins the

figure is व्यापात. In the ve ise दधा दभय—etc, the Love-God is redued

to ashes, by क्रि by me ins of a gl ince and he is re-iv ified by

• मोनित प्रकृतस्य वस्यो वस्तनार्यप्याश्रयादनम । इह तु वस्तनार्यदनार्यमा भवति एव

मेद ( हरदत्त० ).

† वमनारातस्य हारो! विचमानायामपि न गदाधनिच्छया महतां वसन महादशो नादरंविन्दै

हतनुना । यत तत गुरगदपर्वसहस्रनिन्दितविनिन्द्यनार्यपात्र द विरोचतेन । वम्लोक्यनुप्राणितया व दिवा न

हरतुः (वामन० ).

women by the very same means, viz., the glance. The glance of Śiva and the glance of women are in reality different from each other but they are regarded as one and the same.—अत्र दृशौ दाहो जीवनज ( प्रदीप० ). यथापि विरूपाप्यक्षरग्वामलोचनाइशोभंयम्, तथा च न न्याधातः तथाप्येक-जातीयत्वादेकं विवक्षितवेद्मुपपादनीयम् ( चक्रवर्त्ती ).

60

संस्कृत्ति

60. संस्कृत्ति—When in a poetic composition there is union of two or more figures standing independently of one another,* the figure is संस्कृत्ति. 'The union is like the union of sesamum and rice which can be separated from each other when mixed up. To put it simply, in संस्कृत्ति figures are connected by the relation of संयोज.—एपां तिलतण्डुलवदनिमित्तश्रुतेनार्थयधायि संस्कृति: । तिलतण्डुलन्यायस्तु संयोजन्यायः ( एकावली ). संस्कृति is of three kinds as there is (1) union of शब्दालङ्कारs only, (2) union of अर्थालङ्कारs only and (3) union of a शब्दालङ्कार and an अर्थालङ्कार.—सेयं त्रिविधा—शब्दालङ्कारमात्रस्यार्थालङ्कारमात्रस्य शब्दार्थालङ्कारयोर्वेति त्रिप्रकारा ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse वचनसौष्ठव—etc., there is union of शब्दालङ्कारs only, viz., अनुप्रास and यमक. In the verse लिङ्पतित etc., there is union of अर्थालङ्कारs only, viz., उत्प्रेक्षा and उपमा. In the verse सो ऽपतिय etc., there is union of a शब्दालङ्कार and an अर्थालङ्कार, viz., अनुप्रास and रूपक. In the last instance though the figures belong to two different classes, one being based on शब्द and the other on अर्थ, and though they are independent of each other, yet there is connection (union) between the two as they occur in the same वाक्य (sentence) or in the same verse ( छन्दः ). तद्वस्तुनोः शब्दार्थ-रूपाश्रयमेदेन कथमेकार्थसमवायालक्षणा संसृष्टिरिति चेत्, एकवाक्ये छन्दसि वा समवेतत्वात् ( प्रदीप० ). हन्त्सि चतुष्पादातमके इत्यर्थः । समवेतत्वं सम्वद्धत्वम् ( उद्घोत० ).

[ It is true that each of the figures that make up संस्कृति and सङ्कर produces a charm to the kāvya just as each of the ornaments worn produces a charm to the body. Yet the reason for treating them as separate figures is that when combined in a poetic composition produce a special charm just like the combination of ornaments in the body. किन्तु कटककेयूरादि-नामिव पृथक् कामनोऽकर्हेतुस्त्यपि संघटनोपपादितं किंपि रामपोयकसुनिर्मितं ( एकावली ). यथा लौकिकानामलङ्काराणामपि परस्परमिथस्ते पृथक्चारुत्वेन प्रौढगलङ्कारत्वं वचोभङ्गिपार्श्वं काव्यालङ्काराणामपि परस्परमिग्रले संस्कृतिसङ्कराख्यौ प्रौढगलङ्कारतै ( दर्पण० ) ].

61

सङ्कर

61. सङ्कर—When in a poetic composition (1) there are two or more figures which are not independent by themselves, but bear

• सेदः स्वरूपतो विषयतो वा परस्परमनपेचलम् ( प्रदीप० );

159

the mutual relation of helper and helped, (2) there are two or more figures and there is a doubt as to which of these figures should be accepted and which should be rejected, there being no determining circumstances for accepting any one of them or for rejecting the other or other-, and (3) there are two आलंकारs, one a उपमानालंकार and the other an उपमेयालंकार, residing in one and the same expression, the figure is सदृशसादृश्य. सदृशसादृश्य is thus of three varieties--(1) अत्यंतसादृश्य, (2) सदृशसदृश and (3) एकतद्रूपतादात्म्यसदृश. In all these varieties of सदृश the different figures are mixed up by the relation of समवाय just like water and milk which cannot be separated from each other after they have been mixed once--मदृशौचित्य क्षीरनीरवद्येन, समवायन्यायेनैति यत् तत् ( प्राचीन ).

(1) In the verse आर्ज सिमननतते etc, तद्गुण, however, does not produce the charm independently but with the help of आर्जिमान and thus there is the mutual relation of helper and helped between these two figures--अत्र निमित्तनिमित्तभावं दोमुनी तद्गुण-तादात्म्यमपेदय गुढालंकारा रस -अर्थ आर्जिमानं आलंबनं स्तभे, तद्गुणोल्लासप्रदर्शनं न स्वातंत्र्येण चमत्कारविधायी करोति, तस्माद आर्जिमदपेक्षयैवैति परस्परमुपाहालुमाहकभाव ( प्रदीपः ). † In the above verse there is सदृशसादृश्य of two अलंकारs only सदृश of many अलंकारs also is possible and the verse जडाभिमानिमामि etc, is an instance of the same In this verse there is उपमा in जडाभिमानिमामि and तिरस्कार in हत् स्वध्वनि, रूपक in वचक्रकल्पतरु and तारापरिकरतापालद्रुततर, उपमा in त्रिपुरनिद्यापचिहत and द्वेष in वैरस्यनिदान.

[ The वचक्रालंकार between these वचक्रs is thus brought out by मम्मट--वनारोहवते परस्परमुपकाराभिव्येन प्रतीक्ष्यंते । यद्यपि दृपकोपमादार्ती मटाव्य वचक्रव्य चमत्कारविधायकं । तस्माद् य प ममाने धौयत यत् तत्, म.हृदि दृशि दत्तालंकारद्वयेनैवं न य प वतत् यत् । वचक्रालंकारद्वयेनैव मटाव्य वचक्रव्य चमत्कारविधायकं । मदोव further remarks that here the final च is यम fo]य as

• वचाहिलं=वचचाहार:, वचसः ( मदोव ).

† Cak dik's remarl is as follons --ननु हि स्वारसिकतया तद्गुणस्यैवात्र चमत्कारविधायित्वं तस्यैव चर्वणानन्दनानन्दनात्मकतया तद्रूपतादात्म्यमपेदय गुढालंकारा रस -अर्थ आर्जिमानं आलंबनं स्तभे, तद्गुणोल्लासप्रदर्शनं न स्वातंत्र्येण चमत्कारविधायी करोति, तस्माद आर्जिमदपेक्षयैवैति परस्परमुपाहालुमाहकभाव । The inter relation between the पर and अल ( on's in the व ल bring generate l) the व -वचाहारस्य व हतलंघु, चमत्कारविधायकं ( मम्मट टीक ).

प्रकृत ( प्रकृतती ) is inferred from the description of प्रकृत ( चन्द्र ) through the force of common adjectives.—चन्द्रं चैशत पार्यन्तिकचारुलदेहैरज्निभूता च समासोक्तिः । चन्द्र-

गतया चन प्रकृततिवृत्तौ तन्रमयोते: । मा च न्यायवैति प्रकारक्ता नोक्रियवधेयम् ]

Now the expression कलङ्काक्षवलयम् (in the verse just referred to) may be taken both as an instance of रूपक (by breaking it as कलङ्क एव अक्षवलयम् by the rule मुख्यवृत्तिसंकरादयश्र) and उपमा (by breaking it as कलङ्क: अक्षवलयमिव by the rule उपमितं न्यायादिमि: सामान्यप्रयोगे). So there is doubt if there is the figure संदेहसङ्कर (the variety of संदेह which will just be treated) or रूपक in this part of the sentence. ननु कलङ्काक्षवलयेतिव कथमेकान्त-

तोऽपकसुधयते । उपमाया मपि सम्भवे संदेहसङ्करोचित्यादिति चेत्न ( प्रदीप० )। The doubt is set at rest, however, by the adjective करधृत (worn in hand). It is universally known that अक्षवलय and not कलङ्क is worn in hand. So the adjective करधृत indicates that अक्षवलय is the predominant factor and कलङ्क being merged in it appears to be entirely identified with it and thus hidden from view. So there is रूपक and not उपमा in

कलङ्काक्षवलयम् । रूपकपरिग्रहे करधृतत्वमेव साधकं प्रमाणमत्तः संदेहस्याभावात् । कथं च साधकत्वमिति चेत्, तदथं—करधृतरुपविशेषणस्याक्षवलये एव सार्वत्रिकी प्रसिद्धिः न तु कलङ्के अतः

प्राधान्येनाक्षवलयप्रतीतिरेवोदेक्ष्यते । सा च न रूपकपरिग्रहेणैव सम्भवति । तत्र तिरोधितकलङ्करूप-मक्षवलयत्वमेव मुख्यतयाावगम्यते ( प्रदीप० )। Now the following objection may be raised : the adjective करधृत applies only to अक्षवलय and not to कलङ्क ; thus there being no साधारणधर्म between the two there is no similarity

( साम्य ) based on साधारणधर्म ; how is then रूपक possible which rests on similarity? The objection may be met in this way: the word कर means hand ; it means rays as well. The adjective करधृत when meaning 'held by rays' may apply to कलङ्क. Of course, कलङ्क is held by the disc and not by the rays of the moon. But as the disc and the rays are related by proximity, the rays may figuratively be said to hold कलङ्क. In this way the adjective करधृत may apply (of course, figuratively) to कलङ्क as well. So there is similarity

between अक्षवलय and कलङ्क on account of the साधारणधर्म consisting of the sameness of word, viz., करधृतत्व (and not of quality or action) and this is the basis of रूपक.—यद्यपि कलङ्के करधृतत्वम्, अक्षवलये च हस्तधृतत्वमिति न साम्यम्, तेन रूपकयोग:, तथापि करशब्दवाच्यधृतत्वं साम्यमिति रूपकोपपत्तिरिति

नीयम् ( चक्रवर्ती )। If it be said that there is उपमा in the expression कलङ्काक्षवलय on account of the साधारणधर्म (the same करधृत) being there,

then कर्दृ will have to be regarded as the predominant factor being the उपमेय and करणत्व (being held by ryaṅs) will have to be taken here in a figurative sense in regard to it, which is not desirable*

The author of the Alamkāra-vārtika is of opinion that the mixing up of two वाच्यार्थौ cannot constitute अत्यन्तातिशयवर्णन, because there cannot be the mutual relation of helper and helped between them, as they are based merely on words. Our author refutes this theory by citing the verse रजति कर्ण etc, as an instance of सहचर caused by two अलङ्कारौ ( यमक and दीप ) being mixed up.

Each of these अलङ्कार is charming to a cultured mind on account of the difficulty involved in their constitution Then charmingness is much increased when they get mixed up. So in the matter of increased charmingness one is helped by the other Thus there is the mutual relation of helper and helped between them - निष्कर्षारतातिद्योः परपरामुखैवात्सुगन्धातुगन्धाहकमानोवोलीयलयने ( उद्घोतोल ) पादयुग्मनयोरेऽप्राप्तीललयौ। मयूरेणैव दृशर्तया विद्रुमशमनोद्गुरुत्सक । तयोः साधिय स्तुतरां विद्रुमशमनोद्गुरुसम्पी परस्पर वावनिधायने परस्परमुपैक्षते ह्यमिप्रायं ( विवरणं ) The author of the प्रवीण is of opinion that the actual figure in this verse is rather the third kind of सहचर (and not the first kind of it, i.e., अत्यन्तातिशयवर्णन) -तथ यप्ति यमाननोलोमविलोमविनिवेदयितोभयोन सहृदयैः परस्पतोपेक्षितु य यमाननियोगादुप्रसर य लौङघुमद्वारत

• The maxims 'साध्यं हि साधनेभ्यो नातिरिक्तं प्रवर्तते यथा' and 'मूले समाक्षिप्तस्ना' tell us that the figurative use of a word should not be encouraged, but when it is unavoidable it should be done in regard to a subordinate factor. According to the प्रौढ the use of a figurative word in regard to a subordinate factor is preferable to that in regard to a principal factor -गुणेष्वेव हि काव्ये न तु वस्तुनि वस्तुनि । चाह्लादपुष्टिर्व्यङ्गयेन गम्यते। उपमान is the principal factor in दृश and उपमेय in उपमा If कर्दृकत्व is taken as an instance of दृश, then दृश being उपेय is to be regarded as a subordinate factor and the figurative use of a word in regard to it will not be so bad -चाह्लादिकाव्यार्थसमर्थनादपि । न तावत् । कार्यतेन हि वियोगे नायकेनापि काव्यताम्, न ताव च । कार्यतेति वियोगेन नायकस्यापि काव्यता । हृदि न्यस्यत इत्यादि । काव्यबन्धे हि नायिकायां नायकस्यापि काव्यता । यद्युदयनायकस्य तिरोधाय उपमानस्यापि माधने न भिद्यते १ परस्यापि तस्य निपुणेऽपि काव्येऽपि हृदयङ्गमने । ननु चेह यदि हि काव्यं स्यात् तदोभयोरपि काव्यता । ननु भवतु तयोः काव्यो न भावः ( विवरणं )

K-P-21

निर्वृत्ततया अनुलोमविलोमस्योत्पत्तौ यमकापेक्षा यमकस्य तु चारुत्वातिशये तदपेक्षता। तदाश्रये-पातिसुन्दरतयाडतिशयेन विदग्धमनोडनुरक्तत्वादिति तेषामाश्रयः। वस्तुतस्तु यमकनिवोह एव कविप्रतिभतिरिति निश्श्रायकं नास्ति। अस्तु वा तथा। तथापि यमकं न चित्रहेतुः किन्तु तत्प्रयत्नः। तस्मादेकाश्रयानुप्रवेशेनैवायं सद्दरो न त्वनुगमाद्यानुगाहकतयेत्येव युक्तम्।

(2) In the verse जहँ गहिरो etc., there is doubt whether the figure is समासोक्ति or अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. In the verse नयनानन्द--etc., there is doubt of several figures, viz., पर्यायोक्त, अतिशयोक्ति, रूपक, दीपक, तुल्ययोगिता, समासोक्ति and अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा.

It should be noted that in सन्देहसङ्कर, doubt regarding the several figures should be equally strong. When, however, argument in favour of a particular figure is stronger than that in favour of other figure or figures, that is to say, when there is either न्याय, i.e., reason in favour of the acceptance of one of the figures or दोष, i.e., reason against the acceptance of the other figure or figures, there will be no सन्देहसङ्कर.

In the passage सौभाग्यं वितनोति etc., हास्युतिः, taken in its primary sense, viz., हास्थशोभा (brightness of smile), pertains to face (उपमेय). It is neither applicable nor wholly inapplicable to the moon (उपमान), because it is not a property of the moon if taken in its primary sense but may be so if taken in a secondary sense, viz., विकासशोभा (beauty of full display). This expression thus makes it clear that the face and not the moon is the principal factor. It has already been noted that उपमेय is the principal factor in उपमा and उपमान in रूपक. So the expression हास्युतिः does not so much bar रूपक (because it may be construed to the moon if it is taken in a secondary sense) as it establishes उपमा; or, in other words, in this passage, doubt in favour of उपमा is stronger than that in favour of रूपक.—मुख्यत्वेन प्रतीमपानां हसितस्यैवङ्के एतदुक्तं भजते। तत्रैव मुख्यतस्तत्सम्बवाद्। वक्त्रस्य प्राधान्येन। स्थितिरुपमायामेवे्युपमा-साधिका। शशिनि तु नानुकूला मुख्यतस्तत्न हास्युतिरभावात्। नापि प्रतिकूला हास्यपदस्य विकासपरत्वं परिकल्प्य कदचित् शशिन्यप्यन्वयसम्भवात् (विवरण०). In the passage—वक्त्रेन्दुस्तव etc., the expression अपर points to the previous mention of another moon and it is in the shape of the face (वक्त्रेन्दुः—वक्त्रमेव इन्दुः); the meaning being, ‘in the presence of the

moon in the shape of your face, the appearance of the other moon (in the sky) is useless.’—सुखरुपेन्द्रो मति मिन्दुरेपेन्दुनेति भवति। (प्रदीप०)। So the figure here is रूपक —नयथा अवयव अपहर। सङ्कितः हृयवत् पणिततादृश्य निहितेनाप हरत् पणिततादृश्यं पूरयोत्कना प्रत्याययति, तथा ‘अपरः ईदृशोऽपरः’ हृयव चन्द्रस्य निहितेनवया उपमान् अपरस्य चन्द्रान्तरस्य पूरयोत्कता प्रत्याययति। चन्द्रा-नरर गूर्वोक्तत्व च हृयवत् रूपक एव भवति, तदेव उपमानस्य चन्द्रस्य प्रधानतया प्रतीते: (निरनु०)। But the उपमा is not altogether baried. Because the passage may also be taken to mean ‘when your face which is as beautiful as the moon exists, what is the use of the principal moon ?’—हन्तुसमानुपणे चक्रो सति किमिव द्वितर: (मुखः ) इन्दुदित इति प्रतीतावनवसातत्यभावात् ( प्रदीप० )। न तु वक्तृस्य प्रधानतया मतीति प्रतिपूणमिलष्ये: इन्दुतुर्ये सुये सति किम् अपेरण सुयोन चन्द्रोति यथाख्यात्प्रतीयमानप्रतिपादनाय वक्तृ-प्रधान्ते न प्रतिपूणमिति उपमाया न बाधकत्वमिति भाव: (Jhalikikar). This me.ning is after all far-fetched. So the doubt in favour of हृयवत् is stronger than that in favour of उपमा। Doubt in favour of a particular figure being stronger in each of the two above examples, there is no सदेह-

सदूर (in which doubts regarding two or more figures are equally strong).—प्रतयनमोभयद्वयाहारण्योभयेदकोते: साधकमार्ति सदकोप्यधे सदृशप्रतिपत्तिसादृश्यात्, मदृर-लक्षणो च तुण्यकोटिकतद्वयाहार्यनिवृण्णमार्ति सद्देहसदृट हृयवात: (उद्योत०)। Likewise there is no सद्देहसदृट in the passages सामानताप्य etc., and पादामृज etc. In the former passage उपमा is barred by the circumstance of the embrace on the part of Lakṣmī, because it is highly improper for the wife of one person to embrace another who may be like her husband.—रामासदृश प्रति प्रयमिव्याहारवितत्सादृनोत्पत्तियाद ( मम्मट० )। So the compound राजतादृश must be di--olved as दृश राजतादृश इव नासादृश: where नासादृश (उपमान ) becomes prominent and राजत becomes merged in it and hidden from view, as it were. In the latter pa-sage फणित (jingling) bars हृयवत् because it is impossible in अज (lotus). So the compound पादामृज must be di-olved as पाद: अमृजतिं where पाद becomes prominent and is merely liked to अमृजत्। The cirum-tance of jingling being po-ible in पाद does not, however, e-tabli

त्पनय हृयवत् ( दृग्मान्त: निःसकुजः ) is much fue in favour of उपमा.*

3

(3) In the verse स्पष्टीक्लसत् किरण—etc., there is mixing up of a शब्दालङ्कार ( अनुप्रास ) and an अर्थालङ्कार ( रूपक ) in each of the three expressions किरणकेसर, सूर्यविम्बविस्तीर्यर्णकर्णिक and दिग्दलकलाप.*

3

The three varieties of सदृश have been illustrated. It is not possible to sub-divide this figure on the basis of any other method (e. g., the method suggested by Bhojarāja or the method of taking up all the figures two by two—उपमारूपकयोः अनुप्रासोपमयोः अनुप्रासरूपकयोरित्येवं रीत्याेति यावत् ) because the varieties would then be innumerable.—शब्द-गततयेनार्थगततयेन शब्दार्थयोःभयगततयेन चानुगतीकृत्योक्तम्। उपमारूपकादीन् विशेष्योपदाय स्वनन्त-तावत् सदृरो वकुं न शाम्यते ( उद्योत० ).

3

Now follows the discussion about the difference between शब्दालङ्कार and अर्थालङ्कार. It has been stated in the 9th chapter that अन्यतिरेक are the criteria to determine whether an अलङ्कार, दोष or गुण pertains to शब्द or अर्थ or to both शब्द and अर्थ. Thus, when a word on which an अलङ्कार, दोष or गुण rests does not bear any change, that is, when a particular अलङ्कार, दोष or गुण disappears with the substitution of a synonym of the word that has caused it, then it is called शब्दालङ्कार, शब्ददोष or शब्दगुण ; but when it bears such a change, that is, when a particular अलङ्कार, दोष or गुण remains as such even when the word that has caused it is substituted by its synonym, then it is called अर्थालङ्कार, अथंदोष or अर्थगुण. When some words bear change and some do not, then there will be शब्दार्थालङ्कार, शब्दार्थदोष or शब्दार्थगुण.

3

उद्योत.—यस्य यथार्थम् उत्कटं तु प्रतीयते तथा तस्य तथालव्यपदेशः। श्रुतं तु विध्युपमर्दि नाधकं साधका-पेच्छोत्रकटतलेन प्रतीयते इति नैव व्यपदेशो युक्तः। तद्वतेदृकं विध्युपमर्दि श्लाघ्यस्य तद्पेच्छोत्रकटलेन प्रतिपत्तेरिति। श्रुत्ये तु तद्न्यथा व्याचचते—विधीयते श्रवणेनैव विधिः; साधकं, तदुपमर्दि तन्मात्र बलोयः। एतदृकं भवति—सझोरप्यजितस्य पादे सम्भावनालेया ने तावदुपमा-साधकत्वं निर्वेष्टि यावदस्मुजे तदिरहो न निश्रीयते। तथा च तदाधकस्यैव प्राधान्यमिलात्तन्मुखेनैव व्यपदेशः ( प्रदीप० )। विध्युपमर्दीति—स्वविरोध-कोटिमूतविध्युपमर्दींलयर्थः ( स्वशब्देनोक्तोपमा, स्वविरोधिका )टेष्टुपमाविरोधिकोटिमूतस्य विधेः रूपकविश्रानस्य उपमर्दः। उपमा-स्वाधकमिल्यै किं किश्चित् रूपकस्यापि साधकं स्यादश्रिति सदृशो नापैति। बाधकं लभिहते तथावच्छेदप्रतीतेः सन्देहोऽहि ‘द इत्याशयः ( उद्योत० ).

3

• According to the प्रदीप, एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसन्दर् occurs also when two शब्दालङ्कारs are mixed up.—शब्दार्थालङ्कृतिति प्रायोवादः। शब्दालङ्कारयोरप्येतदग्रनान्त। यथा ‘कलकलोलकलोलह्रादन्या’ इत्यादौ श्रनुप्रासयमकयोः। According to the विवरण, the mixing up of two अर्थालङ्कारs also will constitute this figure.—शब्दालङ्काराव्युप-लचणम्, कलकलोलकलोलह्रादन्या इत्यादौ शब्दालङ्कारयोरनुप्रासमकयोः, वक्रोक्तिविन्दसपुलकस्सम-न्नताथ धावन्यमेव वक्रोक्तमझुलकज्जगमधी’ इत्यादौ अर्थालङ्कारयोः रूपकातिशयोक्त्योःन्येन सदृरोदरधियः.

165

On this principle पुनरुक्ताभास will have to be regarded as a दृश्यभेदल्कार because in examples like सतनुत्रुः—etc., of this figure (ch. ix) the word वधू: can be substituted by its synonym but the word नतु cannot. Similar is the case with परम्परितसूचक, अभिनवतर्न्यास, उपमा etc. In the verse विदत्नमानसहस्त etc., ( an example of परम्परितसूचक ) the word मानस cannot be substituted by its synonym but the word हंस can. In the verse उपपादयति लोकस्य प्रीति महयमारुत. । नतु दाक्षिण्यसम्प्राप्तः सर्वस्य भवति प्रियः।।(an example of दण्डहेलकु अभिनवतर्न्यास ) the word दाक्षिण्य cannot be substituted by its synonym but the word महयमारुत can. In the example सकलकलं पूरमेतज्जगत्—etc., ( an example of उपमा ) the word सकलकल cannot be substituted by its synonym but the word पुर can. Why are then परम्परितसूचक, अभिनवतर्न्यास, उपमा etc., regarded as अदृश्यालङ्कारs and not दृश्यभेदल्कारs? The answer is that they are in reality दृश्यभेदल्कारs but as the meaning is of an outstanding charm in them they are regarded as अदृश्यालङ्कारs.

According to the अलङ्कारसर्वस्व, आश्रयाश्रयिभाव and not अन्यव्यतिरेक is the criterion to determine whether a particular अलङ्कार is दृश्यभेदल्कार or अदृश्यालङ्कार, आश्रय is either शब्द or अर्थ and आश्रयी is अलङ्कार. The sum and substance of अलङ्कारसर्वस्व's view is that when the आश्रय of an अलङ्कार is शब्द, the अलङ्कार is दृश्यालङ्कार and when it is अर्थ, the अलङ्कार is अदृश्यालङ्कार. Our author criticises the view as unsound. He says that ultimately अन्यव्यतिरेक will have to be resorted to. For, without अन्यव्यतिरेक the ascertainment of particular आश्रयाश्रयिभाव ( शब्द and अर्थ being आश्रय and अलङ्कार being आश्रयी ) becomes impossible.

According to the older rhetoricians there are defects of अलङ्कार. Our author is of opinion that they are included among the defects dealt with in the seventh chapter and so there is no need of giving them a separate treatment.

(1) Three defects are mentioned (by older rhetoricians) in connection with अनुप्रास, viz., प्रसिद्धिदोष, वैफल्य and हत्प्रतिरोध. These defects are in reality not different from प्रसिद्धिविरोध, असुन्दरता and प्रतिकूल-वर्ण, respectively.

(2) The presence of यमक in three feet of a verse has been mentioned as a defect This defect is not different from यमकप्रकृतता. —नहृदय गृ पादचतुष्टये यमनप्रकृतत्वलक्षणम् । कवीनामप्यडिमाग्रजुषाम् ( प्रतिप0 ).

3

Defects of उपमा (as mentioned by older rhetoricians)

(3) Defects of उपमा (as mentioned by older rhetoricians) are :-(a) जातिगतन्यूनता-In the example चण्डालैरिव etc., उपमान being Candālas (people belonging to extremely low caste). the उपमेय has been condemned as capable of perpetrating all sorts of misdeeds, though the intention is to accuse him merely of rashness.-अभ्य चण्डालत्वजातेर्यूनतया दुष्कर्मकारित्वव्यक्तरनुचितार्थत्वम् ( प्रदीप० ). यदा साहसिकभावालोपमान-विवक्षया चण्डालादिपदसुपादीयते तदैवेदमुदाहरणम्, न तु दुष्कर्मकारित्वविवक्षायामपि ( सुधासागर० ).

3

Defects of उपमा (as mentioned by older rhetoricians)

(b) प्रमाणगतन्यूनता-In the example वह्निस्फुलिङ्ग एव etc., the sun is compared to a spark of fire. This is nothing but a condemnation of the sun.

3

Defects of उपमा (as mentioned by older rhetoricians)

(c) जातिगताधिकता-In the example अत्यं पद्मासनासीत् etc., the उपमान is मुनि and the उपमेय is चक्रवाक्. The comparison, therefore, is simply ridiculous.

3

Defects of उपमा (as mentioned by older rhetoricians)

(d) प्रमाणगताधिकता-In the example पातालमिव etc., the उपमानs are पाताल, क्षितिधर and कालिन्दीपात (the stream of Yamuna) and the उपमेयs are नाभि, स्तन and वैणीदण्ड, respectively. The comparison, therefore, is nothing but ridiculous.[The defect in all these cases also is merely अनुचितार्थत्व.-एषु चण्डालादिभिरुपमानैरुपमेयभूता अथोऽत्यान्तमेव कदर्थिता:, निन्दोपहासादिप्रतीतोरित्यनुचितार्थता ( प्रदीप० ). अत्युत्कृष्टवह्न्युपमानकत्वम् अपकृष्टेऽपमेयस्यासत्यतापर्यवसायितयोपहासाय भवतीति भाव: ( उद्योत० )†. ]

3

Defects of उपमा (as mentioned by older rhetoricians)

(e) धर्मंगतन्यूनता-In the example स मुनिरिवषिच्छतो—etc., there is absence of the mention of तडित् in connection with the sun ( उपमान ) which would be corresponding to मौञ्जी mentioned in connection with the मुनि ( उपमेय ). [The defect involved here is therefore हीनपदत्व ].

3

Defects of उपमा (as mentioned by older rhetoricians)

(f) धर्मंगताधिकता-In the example स पीतवासा: etc., the mention of the moon in connection with cloud ( उपमान ) is redundant in the absence of the mention of conch or a similar thing in connection

• ब्रह्मया: कल्पमात्रेण भेदाद् ब्रह्मत्वं जाति: ( प्रदीप० ).

† The remark of उद्योत refers to (c) and (d) only.

with Śrikrṣṇa. [ The defect, therefore, is मथिकवदोष.—आयोममेये दशादान-

निदर्शत उपमानि तरतुस्वर्यो ध्वनयो महाणमतिर्वच्ये हयश्विकपदतवमेवैनत् ( प्रदीप० )।]

Diver-ity in the gender and number of the उपमान and उपमेय with a qualifying word agreeing with one of them (e. g., चित्रारसमिते

वं च्युतोदात्ति and सत्त्वतो मधुरा देवन शुधा: दृव्यपुष्टि ) al-o con-titutes a defect

of उपमा (according to old rhetoricians). Our author says that the defect is no other than मथामकत्व. The reasoin is that the qualifying

word expressive of the common property is directly connected with one of them (उपमान or उपमेय ) and impliedly* (i. e., after

alternation of the gender and number of that qualifying word) with the other (उपमेय or उपमान) and thus the common property is expressly

understood in one case and through implication in the other.—

उपमाने प्रतियमानत्वया वाच्यत्वया व उपमान्तरस्य साधर्मैर उपमेये तत्स्याथा (वाच्यतया प्रतीयमानत्वा

वा उपसंहाराव् भवति क्कचित्तम् ) इति प्रकारान्तरमत्र (विद्युल०)। अन्र च्युत मत्युपमेयमप्यनुगतानीधी इ।

अत्र शुधा: दृश्युपमेयाशिलिमागनीधीरे ( प्रदीप० )। अलोकमेये पुस्ति च्युत दो वार्च्यो भने: उपमाने

चित्रारने हि च्युतमिति लिङ्गविपरिणामेन प्रतियमानो परं। आय शुधा हि न वद्यसमाहितशुद्रस-

साधारणभमस्य सदृशवारसदृशकुनेवान्वयो न सेखावादवदत्प्रयुक्त उपमान इति भाव. (उद्घोत० ).

. When, however, notwithstanding the diver-sity of the gender and number of the उपमान and उपमेय the qualifying word can equally

be connected in its original form with both of them, this fault will not arise. In the example गुहेंद्रचामी: etc, though स्त्रियो: and गुहा: (

उपमान and उपमेय ) are of different genders, the qualifying word (अनतभू: ) can equally be connected with both of them without

any ; change in either case —गुहेंद्रचामीयोलिनमेदेर्य मनस्विनी पनस्यनसारत

निरयेदृशि तुल्यस्पलात्न दोष हि भाव: (उद्घोत० ). In the example सन्तोषेमूर्ति-

डयामि: etc, the उपमान is सिश्रमा: (in plural number) and the उपमेय

† उपमानोपमेयतयैकस्मिन्नेवोभयोर्माधिकमुपमानमिति कुवलयानन्दमुखमन्तर्भितिति युक्तिमोन—Thus, उपमेय offers

an explanation as to why मधिकत्व and म्यत in regard to उपमा has not been separately illustrated.

. The expression प्रतोतमनेन has been variously explained. Jhalkikar's

explanation (e. g., मयमानेन, निमित्तवाचकलेन मत्यक्षाद्यनुमानाद्यैः सङ्केतैः यत् कियते ) is quite

reasomble. This explanation seems to be supported by the उद्घोत who'e

remark on the topic is as follous :—"प्रतीतौ यत् पन्यासमानमभिधेयं स च चने रस: म्रदिते

मदर्शने च्युमानिर्वाच: माकादनित भाव:। यत् तु विश्रान्तिहेतुं तत् तु न म्रदितं यस्मात्

स्यादारोप्यत्व हति तात्पयम्.

is तत्र: (in singular number). But the words expressive of common properties, viz. सदृशः, सदृशवत्: and सदृशे can apply equally to both of them without a change in either case.— सदृशो तत्रोऽनयोर्यत्र । विशेषः सदृश इत्यादि सदृशवत्त्वं हि सदृश इति सदृश इत्येव भेदावचनयोर्यानपोहनं । अत्र हि अनन्वयत्वं विरुद्धयुपचत्व । यत् तद्वाच्येऽनन्वयित्वं विरुद्धयुपचत्व । यत् तद्वाच्येऽनन्वयित्वं विरुद्धयुपचत्व ।

i. e., diversity in वाच्य (tense), पुरूष (person), and वृत्तिः (i.e. संख्या etc.) in relation to वाच्य and वाचक would certainly mar the clear comprehension of वाच्य and thus constitute defects. Our author says that such defects also come under विरुद्धयुपमा.

Examples of :—

(a) सदृश—सिंहो नृप etc. Here the verb अस् is in the past tense. It may apply to नृपः ( वाच्यः ) but as applying to the वाचक (i.e. सिंहः ) it should be in the present tense.— स चेतनः प्रधाननायकः स्यां न तु सदृश इत्यन्वयविरोधः । स चेतनः प्रधाननायको न स्यात् स च सदृश इत्यन्वयविरोधः ( उद्योतो ).

(b) सदृश—तं त्वं बिम्बसे. Here the last portion of the verb बिम्बसे (i.e. the portion से ) agrees with the person addressed (i.e. त्वां addressed in the second person singular) and not with the object not addressed (i.e. तं ). In other words, the verb agrees with the त्वं which is in the second person and not with the तं which is in the third person.— स तु यद् बिम्बसे इति अस्युवं न तु तं त्वं बिम्ब इत्यन्वयविरोधः । ननु युष्मद्युपचयेन तद्वाचकस्यापि त्वं बिम्बसे इति नास्य अनन्वयः ( उद्योतो ).

(c) विशेष्यते:—

(d) विशेष्य—विशेषकः प्रधानं ये त्वं ते तस्मिन्. Here विशेष्य i. e., ( विशेष्ये ये— वाच्याः ) applies to the उपमान (i.e. त्वं ) and not to the उपमेय ( वाचक ) to which applies सदृश इत्यादि विशेषकत्वं विरुद्धम् । यतो ग्ला प्रधानतयिर्विशेष्यते । यतो ग्ला प्रधानतया तथा कार्यः प्रधानतया विशेष्यते ( उद्योतो ).

• काव्यस्य सदृशादि प्रकारांतरकल्पनाप्रस्तुतः । काव्यप्रकाश इत्याख्यः स्फुरिता मयि नो मतिः ।

(ii) आशीर्वीन्दमेद:--निर जीवतु ये पुलो मार्शप्टेयो मुनिदेया Here आशीर्वाद

applies to the उपमेय ( पुत्र ) and not to the उपमान ( मार्शप्टेयमुनि ).

(iii) प्राभ्नामेद:--इन्द्रमेव धियो युदिसतव संदृश्यो न ये। Here the थप्रुधि wished for does not apply to the उपमान (इन्द्र ) but to the उपमेय (the person addressed)—प्राध्यमानताद्रििष्टश्रीरुद्रिनोपमाने हति दृश्यम् ( प्रमा० )

It is evident that in the above instances defeets are due to काल, पुरुष etc, applying to the उपमेय and not to the उपमान It may be contended that in such instances उपमा may be cognized through other common properties either expressed or implied* and उपमा being once cognized काल, पुरुष etc., applying to उपमेय alone, will not constitute any defect.—नेन्द्रमेदयेत्य पद हृश्यते । निष्कालसमीपाद् धर्मोद अविरतिसमुपात् प्रत्नीयमान

या कचिद् साधारण धर्मेसुपादेयोपमापयेयमाने प्रकाश मिन्कालादिसमीपतिभ्रमींनभूयात् । तथा हि निमित्ते ह्यन्वय निबन्धनस्थितावेदिना स्त्रतान्वयिकयोरुपमापयिष्यसाने प्रकाश मिन्कालादिसमीपविश्रान्तसे हेतुरय नाविधमायानन्येपि न दोप (प्रदीप०) एव तु माम इवाय राजा भातिर्लादि सौन्र्यादिनाडनुप्राणित साम्प्रतिकीनी पक्षा न

किञ्चिद्यद्यालम्बनेऽपि याव मोहाद् एवमय मातीयतावरो न दोप , कामद्देशहरुसन्दरेऽपि भान्तिकौ मतौते. (उद्घाटन०) There may, of course, be instances where the common property is expressly mentioned, it is one and only one and appears to involve the defect of मालादिमेद. We may take, for example, the sentence युधि्दिर इवाय सत्पय वर्तते Here the only common property is सत्यवदनतुण्यत्व (the agency of telling the truth) which is expressly mentioned The present tense refers to the उपमेय (the person pointed out) and not to the उपमान (युधि्दिर ) In order to get rid of the defect of मालमेद here सत्यवदित्य (the habit of telling the truth) should be regarded as an implied common property and the

स्मृतिरिहतनय मिलटल मव्यादेश्च प्रविभिनिदर्श्यनुस्वप्रकृती कयो वदारा स्मरखेद म्रयादिमेदापर 'निदं 'ह' स्मरतिरितनमदामनतप्रकृतिप्रलिप्ति याथा। म्रकोदादर्शे न ह मामनदपं सादृश्यननया कोऽपि 'हति समनयीत 'हदयं या मग्निवार्द्रकुम्मो यं पामोद्दरर्समुन्निदार्श चोरोदपदलदाकानो फले 'रति समनवीर 'शदयं

(Jhalkikar)

† In फिदिमेद also there is श्रप्रोभेद but not direct.

• काल रव युद्रेरोः्य नाम भाति and काल रव युद्र मतिः—in both the e instances काल etc may be cognized through the common property etc which is expressly mentioned in the former case as implied in the litter.

K-P-22

full idea of the sentence would be—‘he, as truthful as Yudhiṣṭhira, tells the truth’ ( युधिष्ठिर एव सत्यवादी यं सत्यं वदति ).—युधिष्ठिरो हि सत्यमवदत् । न च वदतीति चेत् । उच्यते । तत्रापि सत्यवादिति प्रतीत( प्रतीमात्र )-धर्मेणैवोपमित्यनव्याघात: ( प्रदीप० ). ‘There is no tautology ( पौनरुक्त्यम्‌ ) involved in the idea ‘a truthful man tells the truth’ just as there is no tautology in the sentence (according to the authors of the Kāśikā and Nyāsa) रैपोषं पुण्णाति (he nourishes with the nourishment of wealth, i. e., by spending wealth ).—रैपोपमित्यत्रार्थव्ययेन पोपणस्येवात्राप्याज्ञानिकसत्यवादित्वस्य प्रतीतेरिति ( प्रदीप० ). धनकृतं पोषणमित्यर्थलाभाय रैपोमित्युक्तेन वैयर्थ्यं ( उद्घोत० ). यद्यपि राया धनेन पोपयित्वेति रैपोपं यथा स्वातथ्या पुण्णातित्यनुपयोगानुशासनान्न पौनरुक्त्यम्‌, प्रकृते च तदभावात् पौनरुक्त्यमेव, तथापि घटेन घटवद् भूतलमितिवत् सत्यवदनेनार्थां सत्यवादिति न पौनरुक्त्यमिति घ्येयम्‌ । तथा पोपणवदन सत्यवदनमात्रेणोपमा, तेन कालादिशेदो न दोष इति महाशाब्दार्थ: ( कमलाकरभट्ट० ).

These contentions are not at all sound, because in instances like these a quick comprehension of उपमा ( प्रस्तुतवस्तूपमालुपस्य प्रतीति: ) is marred. Of course, we should attempt to justify the uses found in standard authors.

असादृश्य and असंभव, two defects of उपमा (mentioned by old rhetoricians), would come under अनुचितार्थे.

4

(4) संभावन (assumption) is the soul of उत्प्रेक्षा. It can be expressed by words like ध्रुव, हव, मन्ये, शङ्के etc., and not by the word यथा. This word, by itself, i. e., without being joined with any other word can only express साधर्म्य (relationship of the common property with the उपमान and उपमेय ) which is not intended to be expressed in उत्प्रेक्षा. Thus, if the word यथा is used to express संभावन as in the example उदयौ दीर्घिकागर्भात etc., it will constitute a defect of उत्प्रेक्षा (according to old rhetoricians). According to our author the defect is no other than अवाचकत्व.

Another defect of उत्प्रेक्षा has been named निर्हेतुत्व (by old rhetoricians). It consists in the object imagined or assumed ( उत्प्रेक्षित ) being justified by अर्थान्तरन्यास. The object assumed in उत्प्रेक्षा has no real existence and hence to justify it is quite improper just as painting in the sky. The verse दिवाकराद् रक्षति etc., has been cited as an example of this defect. Here darkness has been des-

cribed as getting protection from the Himalayas. Darkness being an insentient thing there is no possibility of any fear on its part and hence its protection by the Himalayas is after all imaginary. This being so it is useless to justify such protection by the means of arthāntarāśrayaḥ pratīyate na yat sāmarthyāt ( arthāntara ). This defect would come under arthāntarānuprāsaḥ ( according to our author ) -निजविशेषवश्यस्यैव हेतोरन्यत्र हेतुमत्वात् । मुख्य तथाविधहेतौ सदृशोऽनतर्यादृशोपादान तदुप हि वृथा ( वृथा )

(5) In samāsokti, upamān ( उपमान ) is suggested from the upameya ( उपमेय ) through the force of common adjectives. If the result is expressly mentioned it will constitute a defect and it has been named anupādāya ( by old rhetoricians ) The verse रसवत् हृदयम् etc., has been cited to illustrate this defect. In this verse through the force of common adjectives as well as from the predicate of the nouns it is indicated that the sun is the ātmā, the quantity, the śakti and the summer day-light ( दिवसा ) the guṇavat to the direct mention of दिविता ( upamān of summer day-light—तत्सदृशा ) causes the defect anupādāya. This defect is not different from anuprāsaḥ ( according to our author ) -ननु वाच्यार्थतः प्राप्ते त्रिरूपेहेतौ निषेधनं कार्तुमात्रं नोक्तं तत्र । न पुनरुपचाराद् गृहीतस्यैव विधिनिषेधपरत्वम् । यतः स्यात् तदर्थः ।

It is not right to say that there is अर्थान्तरम् in the श्रुति etc., and thus the direct use of the word अर्थः ( अर्थः ) is not useless. The reason is that the अर्थः etc., is not used with the force of common adjectives. The very use of अर्थः etc., is the direct mention of the अर्थः it is not used with the force of common adjectives.

adjectives.—अयमारायः—चतोपमानस्य स्वपदोपादानेsपि न समासोक्तियागस्तत्रावश्यकसमा-सोक्त्यैव निर्देशेऽपि उपमानपद्रोपादाने वययं । यथा स्वरूपतस्तादृशोऽत्र द्रवितयेत्युपादानेsपि रूपेणीयकत्वं ।तुबां नायिकात्वं न समारोचनीयंयेतित तस्याः आवश्यक्तयत्वं । यथा तृपमानपद्रोपादाने समासोक्तिनि-

र्याततदसुपादाने न यत्नोपमानानुरूपतत्साधारणधर्मीणामुपमेयमात्रान्वितततयैव प्रतीते: तलोपमाया एव समासकारित्वाय देयं तत् पदंन । यथा स्वर्यं चेत्यादौ । अत्रोपमानपद्रोपादाने समासोक्तियागात् ( सङ्केत० )।

In अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा also the प्रस्तुत or उपमेय should not be mentioned but suggested from the अप्रस्तुत or उपमान through common adjectives, otherwise there will be अपुष्टार्थता as in समासोक्ति. In the verse आहूतेपु etc., the प्रस्तुत or उपमेय (अचेतन प्रभु i. e., unappreciative master) is suggested by the अप्रस्तुत or उपमान . (सामान्य ) through the adjectives common to both and as such should not have been directly mentioned.—अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामप्युपमेयस्योपादानवैयर्थ्य यत् तदुपष्टार्थत्वमेव दोषः । तत्राप्युप-

मेयन साधैयच गीतादिवगततंगं, न पुनः शब्दप्रयोगेण दुष्टतां नियम । अत्र ( आहूतेपिविलस्याचुदाहरणे ) प्रभोःपमेयस्याप्रस्तुततिनिsसामान्यद्वारेणाभिधीयक्त्र( प्रनीति )-सम्भवादुक्तमेव शब्देन कथनमिल्युपष्टार्थत्वं पुनरुक्तता वेधि ( प्रदीप० )।

Thus, the defects of अलङ्कार as also other defects, of similar nature come under the general defects described in Ch. VII and do not deserve a separate treatment.

Calcutta University, January, 1936 } Amareswar Thakur