1. Kavya Prakasa Gajendragadkar Chapters 1 2 3 and 10 Gajendragadkar A.B

GAJENDRAGADKAR EDITION OF MAMMAṬA'S KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA

· · ·

मम्मट विरचितः

· · ·

का व्य प्रकाशः

· · ·

प्रथमद्वितीयतृतीयदशमोल्लासः

· · ·

THE

· · ·

KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA

· · ·

of

· · ·

MAMMATA

· · ·

First, Second, Third & Tenth Ullāsas

· · ·

Edited with an Introduction Translation into English Notes (explanatory, critical, comparative and historical) and Appendices by

· · ·

The Late A. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR M.A., M. B. E., E. D.

· · ·

Principal & Professor of Sanskrit Siddarth College of Arts and Science, Bombay

· · ·

Revised by Dr. S. N. Gajendragadkar M. A., Ph., D.

· · ·

Professor of Sanskrit Wilson College, Bombay

· · ·

Rs. 12.50

· · ·

POPULAR BOOK DEPOT Lamington Road, BOMBAY 7

· · ·

First Published 1939 Second Edition August, 1959

· · ·

Printed by B. G. DHAWALE KARNATAK PRINTING PRESS Chira Bazar Bombay 2

· · ·

Published by G. R. BHATKAL POPULAR BOOK DEPOT Lamington Road Bombay 7

· · ·

Preface to the First Edition

· · ·

Most of the material which is published in the following pages had been collected by me during the academic year 1921-1922,when for the first time I lectured on Ullasas I, II, III and X to my B. A.

· · ·

(Pass) students. I well remember how I then had sometimes to spend hours together for the preparation of just one of my class lectures. I have had occasion of teaching this same portion of the Kāvyāprakāśa four times since then. Each time I took the opportunity to add to my Notes which in a manuscript form used to be placed at the disposal of my students. It was suggested to me more than once that I should publish these Notes for wider circulation. I have, therefore, been thinking of bringing out an edition of these Ullasas for some years in the past. But not until this year could I find time to prepare this long-contemplated edition.

· · ·

I claim that in the Notes to this edition I have offered much original exegesis and criticism. In my Introduction also I have suggested new points with reference to problems connected with Mammata and his Kāvyaprakāśa.

· · ·

It has been my custom to give to students numerous stanzas as illustrations of the various topics explained in the class and especially of the figures). I find this method very useful. It makes the discussion interesting by calling the attention of students to some of the most beautiful stanza in Sanskrit. It also helps to widen their Sanskrit reading. For this purpose I drew stanzas from the works of other rhetoricians and from well-known kāvyas and Nātakas. A large majority of these are incorporated in my Notes. For fear of increasing still more the bulk of this volume could not include all those that I had collected. Most of the stanzas from the kāvyas and Nātakas have been kept back. Appendix C, which is an Index to those stanzas that are quoted in the Notes, already contains more than 800 entries.

· · ·

An effective method of grasping the essentials of a figure is to distinguish it from others with which it is likely to be confounded. But it is not enough merely to know the points of distinction between one figure and another. One must also note their resemblance, on account of which the possibility of one being mistaken for another arises. I have paid special attention to this point in my Notes on the 10 th Ullasa. In the case of all figures which are likely to be

· · ·

vi

· · ·

Preface to the Second Edition

· · ·

This new edition of Kāvyaprakāśa needs no apology. The previous edition of my uncle, the late A. B. Gajendragadkar has been out of print for long. The University of Bombay like many other Indian Universities has not prescribed Kāvyaprakāśa for the B. A. and hence there is an urgent need for the book.

· · ·

In view of the prohibitive cost of paper, again continuously rising, a mere reprint of the earlier edition would have been economically out of reach for most of the students and alas, for most of the teachers also. This is the genesis of the revised edition. A good deal of the material from the notes, particularly 'other examples' so painstakingly collected by my uncle from other works on poetics, has been regretfully dropped without sacrificing the utility and value of the work. In the introduction as well as in the notes I have added some material either with a view to concising the original matter or supplementing it.

· · ·

It was said of the earlier edition that it left very little for the teacher to say. I only hope that the present revised edition does not compel the teacher to say a great deal by way of correcting the mistakes of comission and omission.

· · ·

It was both a duty and a pleasure to revise this edition originally prepared by that great scholar and inspiring teacher my uncle A. B. Gajendragadkar. I feel that through this I have paid, though in a very small measure, the debt of gratitude I owe to him.

· · ·

I must also express my sincere thanks to Dr. G. H. Godbole, my collegue in the department, for going through the proofs. We all know what a soul-killing exacting task it is. But for him, the edition would not have seen the light of the day so soon.

· · ·

Wilson College, Bombay. 9th August, 1959. S. N. GAJENDRAGADKAR

· · ·

CONTENTS

· · ·

Preface to the First Edition

· · ·

Preface to the Second Edition

· · ·

Introduction

· · ·

Text and Translation

· · ·

मङ्गलम्

· · ·

काव्यप्रयोजनानि

· · ·

काव्यहेतुः

· · ·

काव्यलक्षणम्

· · ·

ध्वन्यपरनामकोत्प्रकाव्यलक्षणम्

· · ·

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यापरनामध्यमकाव्यलक्षणम्

· · ·

अव्यङ्ग्यापरनामकाधमकाव्यलक्षणम्

· · ·

त्रिविधः शब्दः

· · ·

तात्पर्यार्थः

· · ·

सर्वेङ्गोः व्यङ्गकाः

· · ·

वाचकशब्दलक्षणम्

· · ·

सङ्केतविषये मतद्वयम्

· · ·

अभिधालक्षणम्

· · ·

लक्षणालक्षणम्

· · ·

शुद्धायाः लक्षणाया द्वौ भेदौ

· · ·

[ Sutra (१५) ]

दीपकम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (१६) ]

मालादीपकम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (१७) ]

तुल्ययोगिता

· · ·

[ Sutra (१८) ]

व्यतिरेक:

· · ·

[ Sutra (१९) ]

आक्षेप:

· · ·

[ Sutra (२०) ]

विभावना

· · ·

[ Sutra (२१) ]

विशेषोक्ति:

· · ·

[ Sutra (२२) ]

यथासंख्यम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (२३) ]

अर्थान्तरन्यास

· · ·

[ Sutra (२४) ]

विरोध:

· · ·

[ Sutra (२५) ]

स्वभावोक्ति:

· · ·

[ Sutra (२६) ]

व्याजस्तुति:

· · ·

[ Sutra (२७) ]

सहोक्ति:

· · ·

[ Sutra (२८) ]

विनोक्ति:

· · ·

[ Sutra (२९) ]

परिवृत्ति:

· · ·

[ Sutra (३०) ]

भाविकम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (३१) ]

काव्यलिङ्गम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (३२) ]

पर्यायोक्तम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (३३) ]

उदात्तम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (३४) ]

समुच्चय:

· · ·

[ Sutra (३५) ]

पर्याय:

· · ·

[ Sutra (३६) ]

अनुमानम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (३७) ]

परिकर:

· · ·

[ Sutra (३८) ]

व्याजोक्ति:

· · ·

[ Sutra (३९) ]

परिसंख्या

· · ·

[ Sutra (४०) ]

कारणमाला

· · ·

[ Sutra (४१) ]

अन्योक्तिन्यम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (४२) ]

उत्तरम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (४३) ]

सूक्ष्मम्

· · ·

[ Sutra (४४) ]

सार:

· · ·

[ Sutra (४५) ]

असंगति:

· · ·

[ Sutra (४६) ]

समाधि:

· · ·

INTRODUCTION

· · ·

I PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF MAMMATA

· · ·

As in the case of most Sanskrit writers not much is known about Mammata's personal history. Neither from his own works nor from those of any others do we obtain any information about his life. What little we know of him is supplied by some of the introductory stanzas of the Sudhāsāgara or Sudhodadhi, a commentary on the Kāvyaprakāśa by Bhīmasena Dīksita who completed it in Samvat 1779 or A. D. 1723^1. From these stanzas we learn that Mammata was a son of Jaiyāta and that he had two younger brothers viz. Kaiyata, the author of the Pradīpa, a commentary on the Mahābhāśya of Patanjali, and Uvata or Auvata, the author of a commentary called Bhāśya on the Rk-prātiśākhya of Saunaka and of a commentary called Mantra-bhāśya on the Vājasaneyī-samhitā or the Śukla-Yajurveda. He was born in Kashmir and following old tradition went to Benares for study, where he composed his Kāvyaprakāśa. His two younger brothers Kaiyata and Auvata studied under him and distinguished themselves by their commentaries on the Bhāśya and the Veda respectively. Mammata was an incarnation of the goddess Sarasvati^2.

· · ·

Scholars are not inclined to place any reliance on the information supplied by Bhimasena. Thus, Bhimasena's statement that Mammata was a son of Jaiyata and brother of Kaiyata and Uvata is dubbed by Aufrecht as 'a silly tradition^3. To Kane this account 'seems to be more or less fanciful and based probably on the similarity of sounds in the three names [ viz. Mammata. Kaiyata and Uvata ].^4 Uvata, according to his own statement,

· · ·

1 संवत्सरप्रमाथसुनिभुजाते माघे मधौ सुदि त्रयोदश्यां सोमवासरे समासोष्यं सुधोदधि: || p. 712 (Chowkhamba edition of the Kāvyaprakāśa with the commentary Sudhāsāgara)

· · ·

2 'तद्वेव हि सरस्वती स्वयमभूत् काश्मीरदेशे पूमान्' (stanza 4) 'वाग्देवतारूपिण: (stanza 5) and 'सा देवी मम्मटाद्या' (stanza 7). Bhimasena refers to Mammata as वाग्देवतावतार in his commentary also at several places, especially when defending him against the criticism of the Pradīpa. Read p. 4, 19, 125;

· · ·

3 See Catalogus Catalogorum by Theodor Aufrecht Part I p. 432.

· · ·

4 See P. V. Kane's The History of Alamkāra Literature p. cv, prefixed as an Introduction to his edition of the Sāhityadarpana.

· · ·

का. I. 1

· · ·

कृष्यादेः पुरस्कृत्यावनल्यामुट् वसन् । मन्त्रभाष्यमिमन्द चक्के भोजे राज्ये प्रशासति ॥ आनन्दपुरवास्तव्यव्यङ्जनाटव्यहास्यसूनुना । मन्त्रभाष्यमिमन्द क्लृप्त्ताम् भोजे पृथ्व्याः प्रशासति ॥

· · ·

Introduction

· · ·

(2) Mammata, Son of Jaiyaṭa and Brother of Kaiyaṭa and Uvaṭa

· · ·

[ Sutra 12 ]

‘हि च नाम्ना चायं मानुषः किन्तु वाग्देवतैव । प्रमाणं तु इथन्थ्यालौकिकत्वम् ।’ सुधासागर p. 4

· · ·

[ Sutra 13 ]

‘अयं खलु मम्मटो वागत्सर्वस्वशोभादर्शीति मुख्यतया वैयाकरणः ।’ p. 8 of the Sanskrit Introduction to his edition of the Kavyaprakasa.

· · ·

dramas of Bhavabhūti and Śriharśa, the Veṇisaṃhāra and the Amaruśataka appear to be his special favourites for illustrations. In this connection we desire to call attention to a curious fact. Though Mammaṭa often quotes from the Mahāviracarita and the Mālatimādhava of Bhavabhūti, he does not quote a single stanza from the Uttararāmacarita. The Uttararāmacarita could easily have supplied him with illustrations for many an alamkāra. Why he completely ignores Bhavabhūti's best drama is more than we can say.

· · ·

In ancient India the education of a Pandit began with grammar. The Vyākaraṇa-śāstra formed the foundation on which stood the structure of specialization in any other śāstra. The study of Sanskrit grammar plays an important part in the training of a scholar. It creates the habit of precise and clear thinking and gives sharpness to intellect and accuracy to judgment. This was realized in ancient India though in modern days it has become almost fashionable to belittle its importance. Mammaṭa's young brother Kaiyaṭa chose Vyākaraṇa as his special subject. Mammaṭa was also proficient in that science. As such he generally accepted the grammarian's point of view in rhetorical matters. The Kāvyaprakāśa offers ample evidence to prove Mammaṭa's fondness for grammar and respect for the grammarians generally. The following facts deserve note in this connection.

· · ·

(1) In commenting on Kārikā 4 in the first Ullāsa Mammaṭa uses the expression 'budhair vaiyākaraṇaiḥ' ( p. 5 ). Though the word 'budhaiḥ' in the Kārikā is intended to stand for rhetoricians like Ānandavardhana, in the Vrtti Mammaṭa makes it go with the grammarians also. This is evidently intended to show his respect for the grammarians.

· · ·

(2) In discussing the question of the conventional meaning of words Mammaṭa mentions the 'jātyādi' view of the grammarians first and apparently accepts it. This is confirmed by his Śabdavyāpāra vicāra, wherein he refutes the 'jātireva' view of the Mīmāṃsakas.

· · ·

(3) Mammatā's treatment of Upamā offers many indications to show that he was a grammarian. Most of the divisions of this figure are based on principles of grammar.

· · ·

(4) In dealing with the figure Virodha, Mammaṭa divides it into ten varieties. These are based on the four classes of word which the grammarians accept.

· · ·

Introduction

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 5 ) ]

According to the grammarians single words as well as compounds made of more than one word constitute a pada.14 Mammaṭa accepts this view. Thus, when in the seventh Ullāsa, he wants to illustrate a kliṣṭa pada or a word not easy to understand he quotes a big compound ( vide p. 284 of Vāmanācārya's edition ). Then again, in illustrating 'hetor ekapadārthatā-rūpam. Kāvyalingam' he once more cites a compound. Here it may be remembered by the way that according to the Naiyāyikas pada means a single word only ( 'Śaktam padam '). They do not admit that śakti or expressive power belongs to compounds, which according to them are not padas properly so called, but a collection of padas.

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 6 ) ]

According to the grammarians a cause is everywhere an action. To them the words 'kāranam', 'hetuh' and 'kriyā' are synonyms. In defining the figure Vibhāvanā Mammaṭa uses the word 'kriyā' in the sense of a cause15. Only a confirmed grammarian would do so.

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 7 ) ]

Mammaṭa quotes as authority Patañjali's Mahābhāṣya and Bhartrhari's Vākyapadīya and sometimes requisitions grammatical topics and maxims to illustrate his points16. Mammaṭa must also have studied the science of Pūrva-mīmāṃsā. Evidence of his knowledge of this science is furnished by certain passages of his Kāvyaprakāśa. Thus, he mentions the views of the Abhihitānvayavādin and the Anvitābhidhānavādin, the 'jātireva' view of the Mīmāṃsakas Arthāpatti with its two divisions and prakātatā or objective manifestness as the fruit of cognition. He quotes the authority of Kumarilabhatta ( p. 18 ) to support the third view regarding the operation of gaunī lakṣaṇā and Jaimini's sūtra III, iii. 14 in the fifth Ullāsa for another purpose.

· · ·

Mammaṭa also knew the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika systems. Thus, he refers to the atomic theory of creation, the theory of causation and the technical rule about two jatis found in one object, of the Naiyāyikas and the Vaiśeṣikas17, the jāti-viśiṣṭavyakti-vāda or the theory

· · ·

[ Sutra 14 ]

Compare Pāṇini's definition of a word , सुप्तिङन्तं पदम्' 1. 4. 14.

· · ·

[ Sutra 15 ]

'क्रियाया : ( = कारणस्य) प्रतिषेधेऽपि फलव्यक्तिरिविभावना ॥' p. 73

· · ·

[ Sutra 16 ]

Note 'शब्दशक्तिमदर्थे शुध्द्यैवं षष्ठीवन् सम्बन्धं प्रतिपादयति !' p. 35, 'अपवादविषयपरिहारेण उत्सर्गस्य व्यवस्थितेः l p. 101 and 'रैपोर्थं पुणालीतिवत् युधिष्ठिर इव सत्यवादनेन सत्यवादी अयम्—इत्यर्थावगमात् ।' p. 134.

· · ·

[ Sutra 17 ]

Read 'परमाण्वादिप्रदानकर्मोद्देशसहकारिकारणपरतन्त्रा' p. 1 and 'परमाण्वादीनां गुणमध्यपाठात् पारिशेषिकं गुणत्वम्' p. 12.

· · ·

Rājānaka Ānanda ( 1665 A. D. ) in his commentary called the Kāvyaprakāśa-Nidarśana or Śitikaṇṭha-vibodhana, says that Mammata was a Śaiva22. There is nothing to test the accuracy of this statement. The Kāvyaprakāśa offers no indication of his being a Śaiva. As Rājānaka Ānanda was himself a Śaiva, he probably thought that Mammata was one.

· · ·

The Mangala stanza or stanzas of Sanskrit writers often reveal their creed. Mammata glorifies Sarasvati in his Mangala stanza. In the very first line of his Vṛtti he refers to Sarasvatī as ‘the appropriate and favourite deity’. From the adjective ‘favourite’ we conclude that Mammata was a devotee of Sarasvatī and as such a Sārasvata Brāhmaṇa.

· · ·

Mammata and Śriharṣa

· · ·

According to a story of Kashmirian Pandits which Buhler heard Mammata was a maternal uncle of the Brāhmaṇa poet Śriharṣa, the author of the Naiṣadhīyacarita23. A subsequent part of the story, which has not been recorded by Buhler, is that when Śriharṣa showed his Kāvya to Mammata, the latter regretted that he had not seen it before. For, if he had, he would have been spared the trouble of hunting out examples to illustrate doṣas or poetical defects in the seventh Ullāsa of his Kāvyaprakāśa, as he could easily have found them all in one book viz. the Naiṣadhīyacarita.

· · ·

No reliance can be placed on this tradition, because Śriharṣa flourished in the latter half of the 12th century and Mammata’s date, as we shall see below, is about the middle of the 11th ( 1050 A. D. ). So the two could not have been contemporaries. The story was apparently formulated by some critic, who wanted to express in a picturesque manner his view that the Naiṣadhīyacarita contained all the defects mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa of the Kāvyaprākāśa.

· · ·

22 Read ‘इति शिवागमप्रसिद्धया शरत्रिशाततत्वदिक्षाक्षपितकल्मषपटलः प्रकटित- सत्स्वरुपविदानन्दधनः: राजानकुलको सममत्तनाम्रा देशिकवरः’ निदर्शन, as quoted by वामनाचार्ये in his प्रस्तावना p. 6.

· · ·

23 Vide Buhler’s Detailed Report of a Tour in search of Sanskrit Mss in Kashmir, Rajputana and Central India ( Extra Number of Journal of B. B. R. A. S. 1877, ) Bombay 1877, p. 68.

· · ·

यतच अन्यत्र विस्तारेण विचारितमिति संक्षेपे हृद् ( ध्वन्यालोकविचारे )

· · ·

तन्वङ्गया गजकुम्भपीनकटितटोच्छ्रितया वह्न्य: स्तनौ

· · ·

मध्य: क्षामतरोरपि यत्न झमगिति प्राणोति भृङ्ग द्विधा ।

· · ·

तन्मध्ये निपुणेन रोमलतिकोद्द्रप्तपदेशादसौ

· · ·

नि:स्पन्दासृट्लोहरहुल्लकिलया सन्दानितो वेधसा ॥

· · ·

( 2 ) Mammata quotes four stanzas from Padmagupta's Navasā-hasankacarita viz, stanzas, 123, 146, 148 and 157 in the tenth Ullasa of this edition, which are respectively 6·60, 16·28, 1·62 and 1·15 of the Navasāhasankacarita, which was composed about 1020 A.D. This confirms the conclusion that he wrote after 1020 A.D.

· · ·

( 3 ) Ruyyaka, the author of the Alamkārasarvasva, refers to the Kāvyaprakāsa several times in his work and at some places criticizes Mammata. Ruyyaka, otherwise known as Rucaka, also wrote a commentary on the Kāvyaprakāsa, called Samketa. His Alamkārasārvasva was composed some time between 1135 and 1155 A.D.⁸ There-fore the Kāvyaprakāsa must have been written before 1150 A.D.

· · ·

( 4 ) Mānikyacandra, the Jain author from Gujarat, wrote his commentary, also called Samketa, on the Kāvyaprakāsa, in Samvat 1216²⁹ i. e. A. D. 1159–1160. This confirms the conclusion that Mammata composed his Kāvyaprakāsa before 1150 A. D.

· · ·

These four pieces of evidence go to show that Mammata's literary activity must be placed somewhere between 1020 A. D. and 1150 A.D. But we are able to fix Mammata's date a little more accurately on account of another reference.

· · ·

In illustration of the figure Udātta Mammata quotes a stanza (P.86) wherein the munificent liberality of King Bhoja towards the learned is referred to. Who the author of this stanza is, is not known. It is not unlikely that Mammata himself composed it. We have seen before that Mammata's younger brother Uvata was a protégé of Bhoja. It is possible that Mammata obtained glowing descriptions of Bhoja's munificence from Uvata and composed this stanza. Or somebody else may have composed it. But the present tense used in the stanza shows that it was composed during the life-time of Bhoja, probably towards the end of his reign. Bhoja's reign is known to have extended from about 1005 A.D. to 1054 A.D. So we may take it that the stanza was composed and incorporated by Mammata in his Kāvyaprakāśa about 1050 A.D. This means that Mammata was a contemporary of Bhoja and lived in the middle of the 11th century A. D.

· · ·

28 Vide Kane Loc. cit p. cxi and De loc. cit p. 194.

· · ·

29 रसवक्त्रमहाद्रवीशवल्सरे ( 1216 ) माघे माधवे । काव्ये काव्यप्रकाशस्य संकेतोष्यं समर्पितः ॥ — माणिक्यचन्द्रकृतसंकेतटीकासमेतः काव्यप्रकाशः p. 470 ( Mysore )

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाश:

· · ·

Even if we suppose that the stanza was not composed by Mammata and do not believe in his relationship with Uvata, who enjoyed Bhoja's patronage, the fact of the stanza being quoted in the Kāvyaprakāśa shows that Mammata must have written his work some time after 1050 A.D. So the date of the Kāvyaprakāśa under this supposition falls between 1050 A.D. and 1150 A.D. Here we must remember that some considerable period of time must be supposed to have elapsed before the Kāvyaprakāśa attained fame and scholars like Ruyyaka and Maṇikyacandra thought it an honour to write commentaries thereon. Therefore, the latter half of the 11th century would be the most satisfactory date for Mammata.

· · ·

IV THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA

· · ·

The Kāvyaprakāśa is made of three constituent parts viz. (1) the Kārikās: These are stanzas in Āryā and Anuṣṭubh metres, number 142 in all and define the various topics dealt with in the book. (2) the Vṛtti: This is a prose commentary on the Kārikās, which explains and many a time supplements them. (3) the illustrations : These are stanzas mostly quoted either from the works of previous rhetoricians or from those of well-known poets and number a few more than 600. When we say that Mammata is the author of the Kāvyaprakāśa, we mean that he is the author of the Kārikās and the Vṛtti. The illustrations are obviously the composition of others, except a few, which cannot be traced to their sources and which may perhaps have been composed by Mammata himself.

· · ·

But Mammata's authorship of the Kārikās and the Vṛtti is not altogether undisputed. In this connection two views must be discussed viz. (1) That Bharata composed the Kārikās long before Mammata and that Mammata wrote only the Vṛtti there-on. (2) That Mammata composed the Kāvyaprakāśa, meaning thereby both the Kārikās and the Vṛtti up to the end of the figure Parikara, and that an author named Allaṭa completed it by writing the subsequent portion. We now proceed to discuss these two views.

· · ·

Mammata and Bharata

· · ·

Two commentators, hailing from Bengal and belonging to a comparatively late date, state that Bharata composed the Kārikās, drawing upon the Agnipurāṇa for that purpose, and that Mammata

· · ·

wrote only the Vrtti thereon. They are Mahesvara Nyayalamkāra (beginning of the 17th century)30 and Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa (18th century)31. The arguments for Bharata's authorship of the Kārikās have been set forth by Maheśvara. They are mainly three and may be stated as follows :

· · ·

(1) Some of the Karikas in the Kāvyaprakāśa are found in the Nātyasāstra of Bharata32. Therefore, Bharata must have been the author of all the Kārikās.

· · ·

(2) At the commencement of his Vrtti Mammata refers to the author of the Karikas in the third person.33 Had he been the author of the Karikas. he would have spoken of himself in the first person.

· · ·

(3) In defining 'samasta-vastu-viṣaya sanga Rupaka' the Karika uses the word 'aropita' in the plural. The Vrtti adds that the plural is avivaksita or not significantly used. Vide p. 48 of the Text. If the author of the Vrtti had been the author of the Karikas, he would have used the dual in the Karika instead of the plural.

· · ·

It will be noticed that these arguments carry no weight whatsoever. We shall examine them one by one.

· · ·

(1) As pointed out before, there are in all 142 Karikas in the Kavyaprakasa. Out of these only six in the fourth Ullasa are found in the Natyaśāstra. This does not prove that Bharata is the author of the Karikas in the Kavyaprakasa. The only fair conclusion that follows from this circumstance is that Mammata borrows these Karikas from Bharata. These Karikas deal with rasa. Bharata is the earliest and the most authoritative writer on that topic, being in fact the founder of the Rasa school of poetry. It is, therefore, no wonder if Mammata

· · ·

30 Maheśvara's commentary called काव्यप्रकाशदर्पण or काव्यप्रकाशभाव-र्थचिन्तामणि has been published in जीवनान्द्'s edition of the काव्यप्रकाश ( Calcutta 1876 ), from which note 'शुकुमारान् राज-कुमारान् स्वादुकाव्यप्रवर्त्तयितुमिपुराणादुद्भुत्य काव्यरसा-स्वादकरणमलङ्कारशास्त्रं कारिकाभिः संक्षिप्य भरतमुनिः प्रणीतवान् ' p. 1.

· · ·

31 Vidyābhūṣaṇa's work is known as Sāhityakaumudi ( निर्णयसागर 1897 ). It is of the nature of an independent Vrtti on the Kārikās, like Mammata's Vrtti, on which it is admittedly based. Read pp. 2 and 189 'मम्मटयुक्तिमाधृत्य मितां साहित्यकोसुदीम् । ग्रात्तं भरतसूत्राणि श्रावयिष्णुणि साहित्य कौमुदी.'

· · ·

32 Karikas 29–34 in the 4th Ullasa ( वामनाचार्य's edition ) are the same as नाट्यशास्त्र 6.15, 17–21.

· · ·

33 Note 'प्रत्यकृत् परामृशति ' p. 1. Also see our relevant notes.

· · ·

करणोत्सादिपदैः पदे करणोद्भवन्निर्मिती । सन्निधानादिपोष्यार्थे स्थितेऽप्ये वेतत् समर्थनम् ॥

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

had said in another work, he would have introduced the quotation in some such form as 'To the same effect has this same author said elsewhere.'37

· · ·

(5) In the definition of Mala-rupaka 'Mala tu purvavat' (P. 50 of our text) the word purvavat refers to Malopama. which has been mentioned in the vrtti only. From this it is clear that the author of this Karika is aware of the vrtti, which precedes. it. This is possible only on the supposition that the author of the Karikas, and the Vrtti is the same viz. Mammata. Bhimasena has duly called attention to the fact that this passage proves the identity of the authors of Karikas and the Vrtti.38

· · ·

(6) The Natyasastra knows of only four figures. three of sense and one of word,39 while the Kavyaprakasa deals with 62 figures of sense and 6 of word. If Bharata were the author of the Kārikas, we should have to suppose that he at once jumped from 4 figures to 68 when he came to write them. This is most unreasonable.

· · ·

(7) Mahesvara and Vidyabhusana, who are responsible for starting this theory of Bharata's authorship of the Kārikās state that Bharata drew upon the Agnipurāna for their composition. The date of the Agnipurāna cannot be definitely determined. But it has been shown that its chapters (336—346), which deal with the topics falling within the scope of Alamkārasāstra, belong to the beginning of the 9th or the 10th century A. D.40 The Nātyasāstra is our oldest work on the science of poetics and belongs to the beginning of. the Christian era.41 It is, therefore absurd to say that Bharata composed the Kārikās of the Kāvyaprakāsa drawing upon the Agnipurāna.

· · ·

37 In such cases the usual form is 'तदुक्तमनेनैव ग्रन्थकृता अन्यत्र ।'

· · ·

38 It must here be added that Vidyābhusana who believed in Bharata's authorship of the Kārikās, explains पूर्ववत् as 'पूर्वेषामिव पूर्ववत् ('पूर्वेषां सुनिनामिव पूर्ववत्' कृष्णानन्दिनी)'. साहित्यकौमुदी p. 141. This explanation necessitates the supposition that there were rhetoricians who preceded Bharata. In the present state of our knowledge of Almkāra literature such a supposition is impossible.

· · ·

39 Note 'उपमा दीपकं चैव रूपकं यमकं तथा । काव्यस्यैते चतुवारः परि कीर्तिताः ॥' नाट्यशास्त्र 16.41.

· · ·

40 Vide Kane loc. cit. p. v and De loc. cit. p. 104

· · ·

41 See Kane p. ix and De p. 36.

· · ·

परमार्थष्टाचार्यस्य कृति: । इत्याहुः । वामनाचार्य p. 700.

· · ·

or Sitikantha-vibodhana, is the first writer, who states that Mammata composed the Kāvyaprakāśa, evidently meaning thereby both the Kārikas and the Vrtti, up to the end of the figure Parikara, and that the remaining portion was supplied by the learned Allata47. Other commentators of the Kavyaprakasa, both early and late, such as Manikyacandra, Ruyyaka and Somesvara, have also referred to the joint authorship of the Kavyaprakasa in general terms48. A manuscript of the Kāvyāprakāśa dated Samvat 1215 (= A.D. 1158) possesses the colophon ‘Krti Rajanaka-Mammata-Alakayoh49. Further, in a manuscript of Ruyyaka’s Kavyaprakasasamketa, seen by Peterson at Jeypore, the colophons to the first and the tenth Ullasas ascribe the composition of the Kāvyaprakāśa to Mammata and Alaka50 Then again, Arjunavarmadeva (1st quarter of 13th century). while commenting on stanzas 30 and 72 of the Amaruśataka,

· · ·

यथोदाहते दोषनिर्‌णिर्णयेऽम्मटालकाभ्याम्-प्रसादे वर्तस्व प्रकटय सुंद० अमरशतक पृ. 29 (निर्णयसागर) and 'अत्र केचित् वयुपदेन जुगुप्साश्लीलमिति दोषमाचक्षते । तथापि कीरदेशे कुडमलिताननेन्टुप्सानिन्धावपि कमलपरिमलोद्गारिणो सुकुमारुतस्य प्रतीतिर्‌न भवति, भवति वाचां शीलप्रतीतिः । तदा वाग्देवतादेश इति व्यवस्थितिर्‌एवासौ । किं तु हृदयकमयेऽवरलङ्घ्यप्रसादौ काव्यप्रकाशकारौ प्रायेण दोषग्रे येन एवंविधेष्वपि परमार्थंसहदृयानन्दप्रदेऽु सरसकविविदस्मेंऽतु दोषमेव साक्षाद्‌दोषग्रे कुर्तलाम् । उक्तं च भट्टवार्तिके 'न चात्रातिकर्‌तेन दोषाद्‌धिकतरं मनः । दोषो हि व्यसनानुपे तच्चित्तानां प्रकाशते ।' (कुमारिलभट्ट's श्लोकवार्तिक ग्रन्थकारप्रतिष्हा 4) इति । पृ. 55

· · ·

the Kavyaprakāśa, Rajanaka Ānanda says that Mammata wrote the Kavyaprakāśa up to the end of Parikara and that Ālata completed it by supplying the remaining portion. Ānanda gives no reason for his assertion, but quotes two apparently old stanzas to support it53. On the other hand Arjunavarmadeva, who flourished four hundred years before Ānanda, speaks of Mammata and Alaka, as the joint authors of the seventh Ullāsa and of the whole of the Kavyaprakāśa generally54. From this it appears to us that none of the writers had any definite information and that they all wrote from mere hearsay. Their statements, therefore, cannot be accepted as true.

· · ·

[ Sutra (3) ]

The style and the manner of treating topics in the portion of the Kavyaprakāśa up to the end of Parikara and in that which follows it do not materially differ. If another writer had composed the portion which follows Parikara, it would have shown peculiarites of style and treatment different from Mammata's, inspite of 'samyag viniṛmita saṅghatana,' Bāṇa's son completed his father's unfinished Kadambarī. But the Uttarabhāga thereof is easily made out as another's owing to the difference in the style of the two writers. No such thing is seen in the case of the Kāvyaprakāśa55.

· · ·

[ Sutra 53 ]

Read यदुक्तं । कृतः श्रीमम्मटाचार्यवयैः परिकरावधि: प्रबन्धः पूरितः शेषो विधायालटसूरिणा ॥ अन्येनाप्युक्तम् । काव्यप्रकाश इह कोपि ( v. 1. काव्यप्रकाश-दशके'डपि ) निबन्धकृतां द्वाभ्यां कृतेऽपि कृतिनां रसतत्त्वलाभः । लोकेसि्त निश्युतमिदं नितरां रसालो बन्धप्रकाररचितस्य तरोः फलं स्यात् ॥' Peterson's Second Report p. 15

· · ·

[ Sutra 54 ]

It may here be noted that H. R. Divekar in his article 'The Dual Authorship of the Kavyaprakāśa' J. R. A. S., 1927, pp. 505 ff, has tried to prove that Mammata composed only the Karikas up to the end of the figure Parikara and that Alaka wrote the remaining Karikas and the whole of the Vrtti. This is another indication of the absence of unanimity pointed out by us. Divekar's arguments seem to make much of what he himself is conscious are 'insignificant points' and are based on the application of a too mechanical test to the style of the author of the Kavyaprakāśa. They create the impression that the writer is trying to discover some reasons for bolstering up a position which he almost takes for granted as true.

· · ·

Rucaka's Samketa in the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, does not possess the colophons, which Peterson found in a manuscript of the same work at Jeypore.

· · ·

[ Sutra (6) ]

The fact that many commentators refer to the joint authorship of the Kāvyaprakāśa does not make it in any way the more acceptable. For, old commentators are known to 'repeat 'what some predecessor has said without caring to see whether it is true. We may here call attention to the story of Dhāvaka's selling his Ratnāvali to Harṣa which has been repeated by almost all commentors of the Kāvyaprakāśa.

· · ·

For these reasons we hold that there is no truth whatsoever in the idea that Allaṭa is with Mammata a joint author of the Kāvyaprakāśa.

· · ·

As regards how this idea of joint authorship arose we suggest the following explanation:

· · ·

Mammata's concluding stanza viz. 'Ityeṣa mārgo ' (V. 139 below) is as we point out in the notes, intended to bring out the skill with which he has collected together and treated in one single properly inter-connected volume topics, which had been dealt with by his predecessors in many works. Therefore, it easily lent itself to another explanation, based on the idea that the Kāvyaprakāśa is the composition of two authors. In this connection it is significant to note that commentators offer this second explanation in addition to the first. If they had known it for certain that two authors were responsible for the composition of the Kāvyaprakāśa, they would have offered only the second explanation for this stanza. Thus it appears to us that the general nature of the wording of the stanza 'Ityeṣa mārgo', coupled with the penchant of commentators to discover even unintended senses in the words of an author was responsible for starting this theory of dual authorship for the Kāvyaprakāśa. But how and why the name of Allaṭa came to be associated with Mammaṭa as the continuator of his unfinished Kāvyaprakāśa is more than we can say.

· · ·

The name of the supposed continuator of the Kāvyaprakāśa occurs in three forms viz. Alaka, Alaṭa and Allaṭa. Manuscripts are not of much use in judging which of these forms is the most authentic. For, they indiscriminately give one or the other of these three. Under these circumstances Allaṭa with the double

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

V THE CONTENTS OF THE KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA

· · ·

56 Vide his Catalogue of Sanskrit Miss. in the Raghunath Temple Library of the Maharaja of Jammu and Kashmir ( Bombay 1894 ) p. xxvi. It may here be noted that Kane mis- quotes Stein and makes him support the form अलट, while he actually supports Allaṭa. Vide Kane's 'The History of Alamkāra Literature' p. cv.

· · ·

57 Vide his 'The History of Alamkāra Literature' p. cv.

· · ·

Introduction

· · ·

possesses a technical sense.68 It means a short or concise pithy expression, made of one or more words and originally intended as a help to memory. The Sūtras are written in prose. Sanskrit literature knows of a period, called the Sūtra period, roughly extending from 600 B. C. to 200 B. C., in which works in this particular style of writing were produced- By no stretch of imagination can Mammata's Kārikas or parts thereof be termed Sūtras. They have not the slightest claim to this title. It would appear that uncritical commentators, impelled more by respect for Mammata than by historical and technical accuracy, applied this term to Mammata's Karikas and parts thereof, which dealt with complete topics. For, Sūtrakara is a more respectful title than Karikakara.

· · ·

The whole of the Kavyaprakaśa represents an elaboration of the definition of poetry given in the first Ullāsa.50 We give below a short analysis of the contents of the ten Ullasas :

· · ·

First Ullāsa : Mangala stanza; purposes of poetry; causes of poetry; definition of poetry; three kinds of poetry viz. best, mediocre and lowest.

· · ·

Second Ullāsa : Three kinds of words and senses; the purport-sense; all senses generally suggestive; the expressive word; the conventional meaning of words; expression; indication and its six divisions; another three-fold division of indication; indicative word; suggestion; suggestion based on indication; necessity of admitting suggestion; based on expression; suggestive word.

· · ·

Third Ullāsa : Suggestive sense; the special circumstances which make sense suggestive.

· · ·

Fourth Ullāsa: Two kinds of dhvani or best poetry; their sub-divisions ; the nature of rasa : different theories about rasa ; eight rasas ; eight sthayi-bhāvas; thirty-three vyabhicaribhavas; ninth rasa; rasabhasa and bhavabhasa ; further sub-divisions of dhvani.

· · ·

[ Sutra 58 ]

स्वल्पाक्षरमसंदिग्धं सारवद् विश्वतोमुखम् । अस्तोभमनवद्यं च सूत्रं सूत्रविदो विदुः ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 59 ]

तददोषौ शब्दार्थों सगुणावनलंकृती पुनः क्वापि ।

· · ·

Fifth Ullāsa : Mediocre poetry and its eight divisions.

· · ·

Sixth Ullāsa : Lowest poetry and its two divisions.

· · ·

Seventh Ullāsa : Defect defined ; sixteen defects of word ; defects of sentence ; twenty-three defects of sense ; sometimes a defect becomes an excellence ; thirteen defects of rasa.

· · ·

Eighth Ullāsa : Excellence defined ; figure defined ; three excellences, not ten ; combinations of letters which reveal excellences.

· · ·

Ninth Ullāsa : Six figures of words and three styles.

· · ·

Tenth Ullāsa : Sixty-two figures of sense ; defects of figures are included under defects treated in the Seventh Ullāsa.

· · ·

From the above analysis of the contents of the Kavyaprakasa it will be seen that Mammata deals with all the topics of the Alamkara-śastra in his book, except those that fall under dramaturgy.

· · ·

Among writers on rhetoric Mammata occupies a position of unique importance. The Alamkaráśastra had been developing for more than a thousand years before him. Mammata carefully studied the works of his predecessors and wrote his Kavyaprakasa, wherein he embodied all the important theories and doctrines propounded by the rhetoricians that flourished before him. His book is thus an epitome of the Alamkaráśastra at the stage of development which it had reached in his days. Further, the Kavyaprakasa became the starting point for futher exegesis and development of the Alamkaráśastra. Its position in Alamkara is, therefore, analogous to that of Patanjali's Mahabhasya in Vyakárana, Sabara's Bhasya in Mimamsa and Samkara's Sarírakabhasya in Vedanta.

· · ·

The Kāvyaprakāśa is undoubtedly the most popular work on poetics in Sanskrit. Its unparalleled popularity is testified by the very large number of commentaries written thereon. Vāmanā-carya mentions 46, while in the 'Index of authors and works on the Alamkaraśastra,' compiled by Kane, this number rises to 71.60

· · ·

See his 'The History of Alamkara Literature' pp. clxv-clxvi.

· · ·

Kamalākarabhaṭṭa says that there are a thousand commentaries on the Kāvyaprakāśa.

· · ·

This is a record, which is certainly unequalled by any other work in Sanskrit.

· · ·

The universal popularity of the Kavyaprakāśa is also borne out by the fact that among its commentators are included scholars, who have distiguished themselves in different sciences.

· · ·

Thus, famous rhetoricians like Ruyyaka and Viśvanatha, grammarians like Nagoji Bhaṭṭa, Naiyayikas like Jagadiśa, Gadadhara, Jayarāma and Narasimha Thakkura, Dharmaśāstrins and Mimamsakas like Vacaspati miśra and Kamalākarabhaṭṭa, Vaiṣṇavas like Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa, Samnyasins like Narahari alias Sarasvatītīrtha, Tāntrikas like Gokula nātha and Jainas like Maṇikyacandra thought it an honour to write commentaries on the Kāvyaprakāśa.

· · ·

Among Paṇdits in Western India an idea prevails that nobody is properly entitled to the honorific title Bhaṭṭa unless he writes a commentary on the Kāvya-prakāśa.

· · ·

This idea is responsible for Vāmanacārya styling himself Bhaṭṭa on the title-page of his edition of the Kāvyaprakāśa.

· · ·

The causes of this immense popularity of Mammaṭa's book are mainly two.

· · ·

First his Kāvyaprakāśa, as we saw before, epitomizes all the important theories and doctrines that were developed before his time.

· · ·

Topics, which were treated by his predecessors in different books, were by Mammaṭa for the first time brought together and systematically arranged within the compass of a single work.

· · ·

He refers to this fact and deservedly claims credit for it in the

last stanza of the Kāvyaprakāśa.

· · ·

Secondly, his treatment of the various topics, though full, is concise.

· · ·

Practical considerations, rather than a desire to secure theoretical exhaustiveness, evidently prevailed with him in dealing with different subjects.

· · ·

Thus, his definition of poetry, though scientifically objectionable, is good from the practical point of an aspirant to poetic fame.

· · ·

Then again, his division of Lakṣaṇā into six kinds is from the

· · ·

61 Read 'काव्यप्रकाशे टिप्पणयः सहस्रं सन्ति यद्यापि । तास्स्वसवस्य विशेषो य- पण्डितैः सोऽवधार्यताम् ।।' Introductory stanza 3 to his commentary, as quoted in Julius Eggeling's Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts :in the Library of the India Office, Part III, p. 327

· · ·

62 This stanza runs, 'इत्येष मार्गो विदुषां विभिन्नोऽप्यभिन्नरूपः प्रतिभासते यत् । न तद् विचित्रं यदुत्तमर्गविनिर्मिता सङ्गटनैव हेतुः ।।'

· · ·

ricians are found to borrow illustrations from their predecessors. Why they should do so we cannot say. Sanskrit literature is certainly extensive enough to supply illustrations for all topics dealt with in the Alamkarasastra. Apparenty writers did not take the trouble of hunting out new examples, but adopted those that were before them in the works of others.

· · ·

Mammata's Kavyaprakasa exercised great influence on the rhetoricians who followed him. His influence can be traced in the work of almost every writer in the Alamkarasastra, who flourished after his date. Visvanatha wrote his Sahityadarpana evidently with a desire to emulate Mammata and throw into the background his Kavyaprakasa. With that object in view he incorporated in his book the subject of dramaturgy, which Mammata had left out. His Sahityadarpana thus contains an exhaustive treatment of all branches of the science of rhetoric. Visvanatha severely criticizes Mammata's definition of poetry. But even he seems to have looked upon Mammata's Kavyaprakasa as his model. Though the Sahityadarpana is really superior to the Kavyaprakasa because of its treatment of the science of rhetoric in all its branches, its systematic exposition of topics, its clear and precise definitions and its easy and flowing style, it did not suceed in supplanting the Kavyaprakasa. Mammata apparently had taken a firm hold on the mind of the students of the Alamkarasastra.

· · ·

After saying all this in praise of Mammata we must also point out the faults that we have noted in him. First, Mammata is a careless and inaccurate writer. His choice of words is many a time not happy. Several examples of his loose diction have been pointed out by us in our Notes. Secondly, many of his Karikas are clumsy and involved and lack, if we may say so, the quality of perspicuity64. Most of his definitions of figures compare very unfavourably with those of Visvanatha. Thirdly, his treatment of topics is not methodical. When he wants to divide a subject into so many varieties, he does not start with a plain statement that it has so many kinds and then proceed to deal with each of them. But he often begins with a

· · ·

63 Vide pp. 220, 267-268-, 464-465, 471, 635, 669, 679, 744 and 771.

· · ·

64 Vide for example the Kārikās, which define अपरा निदर्शना p. 62 and अधिकम p. 113 and our Notes thereon.

· · ·

sub-division and later on gives us the main divisions, or leaves us to imagine them. His unmethodical way of treatment is really responsible for the difference of opinion which exists among his interpreters as to which exactly are the six divisions of Lakṣaṇā that he means. His treatment of Vyanjanā and of Rūpaka may also be cited as examples of this fault. Fourthly, he does not attach to certain topics the importance they deserve. Thus, his treatment of the figures Upreksā and Sāmāsokti is so meagre that it fails to give us a correct idea of the importance which these figures occupy in poetry. And fifthly, he follows no principle in the classification of figures. We are elaborating this point in the next Section.

· · ·

Though a great critic Mammaṭa was no poet. Nowhere in his Kavyaprakāśa does he offer any illustrations as being his own compositions. Critical acumen and poetic genius are generally not found together. Mammaṭa was no exception to this rule. In Sanskrit literature Jagannātha is the one glorious example of a writer, who combined in him critical scholarship and poetical faculty of the very first order. In his Rasagangādhara he proudly declares that he feels no necessity of borrowing illustrations from others, because he possesses the power of composing them

· · ·

VII CLASSIFICATION OF FIGURES

· · ·

It is a well known fact that the expression of our thoughts is preceded by certain clearly defined mental processes and as figures of speech are but the various modes of expressing our thoughts, they are closely connected with psychology. Psychology as a distinct science was not developed by the ancient Hindus. It is true that in some of the Upaniṣads, in the Nyāyaśāstra and especially in the treatment of rasa in the Alamkārasāstra we have a very close and sometimes a very remarkable study of some of the mental phenomena. But all the same these phenomena were studied not for themselves, but as subservient to something else and it is to this neglect of psychology as a separate science that we must attribute the fact that no attempt has been made by any writer on rhetoric to divide the figures in their relation to mental processes.

· · ·

Introduction

· · ·

66 Read 'अर्थस्यालङ्कारा वास्तविकोपम्यमतिशयैः शेषैः । एषामव विशेषाः अन्ये तु भवन्ति निःशेषाः ॥' काव्यालङ्कार 7. 9.

· · ·

67 Vide Chapters 343-345.

· · ·

and Sabdarthalamkaras. Bhoja in his Sarasvatikanthabharana (Paricchedas 2,3 and 4 ) elaborates this division and gives 24 figures for each of these classes. His total of figures thus comes to 72.

· · ·

The only division of figures that Mammata gives is this three-fold division into figures of both word, figures of sense and figures of both word and sense. Mammata's treatment of the figures of sense in the tenth Ullāsa is unscientific. He follows no system or principle in the grouping of figures or in the order in which they are taken for treatment.

· · ·

Among post-Mammata rhetoricians Vidyānātha is the only one who attempts a scientific classification of figures. Following the ancient practice he divides them first into the three usual classes of Sabdalamkāras, Arthālamkaras and Ubhayalamkaras. Then, he divides the figures of sense into four kinds according as they possess for their suggested sense an entity, similarity, rasa and others, or do not possess any suggested sense at all. Then again, he gives another classification, according to which figures of sense are divided into nine groups based on circumstances such as similarity from which they spring 68 .

· · ·

From this brief survey of the classification of figures as it is found in the works of well known rhetoricians it is clear that none of them has tried to divide them on the ground of psychological processes. The basis of the commonest division of figures into those that belong to word, sense and both is purely external and has nothing to do with Psychology. Some of the grounds on which Rudraṭa and Vidyānātha base their divisions are connected with mental processes. But their divisions cannot be said to have proceeded from purely psychological considerations. It is rather strange that a writer of such eminence and critical acumen as Jagannatha should not have been attracted by this useful and subtle inquiry into the psychological bases of figures.

· · ·

We shall now try to show a somewhat scientific way of classifying the figures of sense that Mammata treats in the tenth Ullāsa.

· · ·

[ Sutra 68 ]

Vide Prataparudrayosobhusana pp. 337–339, from which read ‘तत्र प्रथमं शब्दार्थोभयगतवेन त्रिविध्यमलंकाराणाम् । अर्थालङ्कारांश्चतुर्विध्यम् । केचित् प्रतीयमानरसभवादयः: केचित् प्रतीयमानवस्तवः: केचित् प्रतীয়मानसङ्करोपम्यादयः । केविदस्फुटप्रतीयमाना इति ।’ The other nine groups of अर्थालङ्कारs are (1) साधर्म्यमूल (2) अध्यवसायमूल (3) विरोधमूल (4) वाक्यन्यायमूल (5)लोकव्यवहारमूल (6) तर्कन्यायमूल (7) रसूलावैचित्र्यमूल (8) अपह्नवमूल and (9) विशेषणवैचित्र्यमूल ।

· · ·

Three well-defined mental processes can be distinguished in analysing our thoughts. The child, we know, learns by analogy, The resemblance between things and things strikes it the most. So analogy or similarity is the first and most important basis of dividing figures. Advancing a little further we begin to abserve differences between things which at first struck us as similar. Contrast, dissimilarity or opposition is, therefore, another basis of division. A step further and we meet with phenomenon known as association of ideas. We have perceived a certain object before. Another object similar to it is now seen. That reminds us of the object previously perceived. This is roughly how association of ideas works. Contiguity is thus the third principle of division.

· · ·

Out of the 62 figures of sense which Mammata has treated in the 13th Ullasa no less than 20 are based on Similarity. Of these उपमा, उपमेयोपमा and अनन्वय form a group by themselves. The next group is supplied by ससंदेह (द्विकोटिक ज्ञानम्), उत्प्रेक्षा (उत्कटकोटिक ज्ञानम्), रूपक (अभेद: अपह्नुति (अपह्नवप्रचछादनाभेद:), अतिशयोक्ति (अध्यवसानम्) and श्लिष्टिमान् (अनन्वयाभेदज्ञानम्), where we find that the knowledge that the उपमेय is similar to the upamana becomes intensified by degrees until the idea of the upameya is completely lost sight of and the upamana is honestly mistaken in its place. Out of the remaining figures based on similarity प्रतिवस्तूपमा इष्टान्त and निर्देशना, दीपक and तुल्ययोगिता, समासोक्ति, and अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा (5th variety), सामन्य and मीलित, and प्रतीप and व्यतिरेक go together. Now looking to the order in which Mammata deals with these figures, it is easy to see that he does not follow any principle in their treatment.

· · ·

The next broad division is supplied by figures based on Dissimilarity, Contrast or Contradiction. This Contradiction may take the form of intrinsic contradiction between two things or may procede from the violation of the law of causation. Nine or ten figures fall under this division. Of these विरोध is the most general. विषम (1 st variety), व्याधिक, विशेष and व्याघात are based on certain specific aspects of contradiction and thus form a separate group अतिशयोक्ति (4th variety). विभावना, विशेषोक्ति, असंगति and अतद्गुण involve violation of the law of causation and reperesent the second group falling under this head.

· · ·

Figures based on Contiguity are only three viz. अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा (1 to 4 varieties) सूक्ष्मम् and स्मरणम्. Contiguity can also be traced in अतिशयोक्ति (1 to 3 varieties), अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा (5th variety) and समासोक्ति, which have been included under similarity. का. I.-3

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

Thus, these three grounds of division account for 31 figures. Of the remaining 31 four are based on Chain श्रृंखला- They are मालादीपक, कारणमाला, सार and एकावली. Five more are founded on some kind of Reasoning ( तर्क )viz. काव्यलिङ्ग, अर्थान्तरन्यास, अनुमान and उत्तर (first variety).

· · ·

The remaining 22 figures must be classed as miscellaneous. It is however possible to put most of these into groups on the ground of their being generally analogous to one another. Thus-आक्षेप, व्याजस्तुति, पर्यायोक्त, व्याजोक्ति and प्रत्यनीक, सहोक्ति and विनोक्ति 'भाविक and उदात्तम्, समुच्चय and समाधि, परिसंख्या and उत्तर ( 2nd variety ), अन्योऽन्य, सम and तद्गुण and संसृष्टि and संक्र go together. श्लेष, यथासंख्य, स्वभावोक्ति, परिप्रत्ति and पर्याय stand more or less by themselves.

· · ·

From this it will be seen that it would have been possible for Mammata to treat the figures of sense in some systematic manner. Rudrata before him had aboted some principles of division with reference to the Arthālamkārās. Mammata could have improved upon him. But he does not trouble himself with this problem. He apparently prefers to follow the older rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata in adopting no principle in the treatment of the figures of sense.

· · ·

VIII. (a) SANSKRIT POETICS-THE ORIGIN AND GROWTH

· · ·

Though the development of poetics as a science is of a later period in the history of Sanskrit literature, the employment of literary devices like the अलङ्कारs is very old. study of the Vedic Samhitās tells us that in them, particulary in Rgveda there is a conscious effort made by the poets to show their individual skill in matter of versification paying due attention to metrical accuracy, figures of speech etc. Rgvedic poets have made abundant use of अलङ्कारs like उपमा, उत्प्रेक्षा, रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति. The oldest references to something very near to the science of poetics are much later. निवन्धु mentions words like इत, यथा under the vague form उपमा. Panini uses a number of technical terms like उपमा उपमित सामान्य. Inscriptions, particularly the Junagadh Rock inscription ( 150 A. D, ) throw interesting light on the development of the science.

· · ·

Bharat's नाट्यशास्त्र, however, has the signal honour of presenting for the first time a Systematic treatment of this Science or at any rate a portion there of.

· · ·

( 6 ) IMPORTANT AUTHORS IN THE ALAMKARASASTRA

· · ·

Mammata in his Kāvyaprakāśa refers to the views of some of his predcessors and sometimes criticizes them. In our Notes we have at

· · ·

numerous places quoted the opinions of other rhetoricians in order to present a historical and comparative study of the various topics dealt with by Mammaṭa. In order properly to understand all this a student must have a general idea of the various authors who have helped the development of the science of rhetoric. We, therefore, mention below in chronological order the important authors in the Alamkārasāstra who preceded and followed Mammaṭa together with some brief information about them.

· · ·

Predecessors of Mammaṭa

· · ·

(1) Bharata, the author of Nāṭyaśāstra. The Nāṭyaśāstra was first published by the Nirṇayasagara Press, Bombay, in 1894. A four-volume edition of this book with the commentary of abhinavagupta, edited by M. Ramakrishna Kavi, is included in the Gaekwad's Oriental Series. The First volume containing Chapters 1 to 7 was published in 1926 and the Second running over Chapters 8 to 18 in 1934. A complete edition of the text of the Nāṭyaśāstra was also published at Benares in 1929 in the Kashi Sanskrit Series.

· · ·

The Nāṭyaśāstra consists of 37 Chapters and deals primarily with dramaturgy. The Chapters, which are important from the point of view of a rhetorician in the limited sense of that word, are 6, 7, 16, 18 20 and 22. The date of the Nāṭyaśāstra is about the beginning of the Christian era. It is our oldest extant work on the Alamkāraśāstra.

· · ·

The importance of Bharata in the science of poetics lies in his being the founder of the Rasa school of Poetics.

· · ·

(2) Bhāmaha, the author of the Kāvyalamkāra. Bhāmaha's Kāvyālamkāra, also called Bhāmahālamkāra, was first published by K. P. Trivedi as Appendix VIII to his edition of Vidyānātha's Pratāparudrayśobhūṣana in the Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series in 1909. Two more editions have appeared since then. The first was published in the Kashi Sanskrit Series in 1928 and the second with a commentary was brought out by the Srinivasa Press, Tiruvadi, in 1934.

· · ·

Bhāmaha's Kāvyālamkāra consists of six Paricchedas, which in all contain 399 stanzas. Figures are treated in the second and third Parichedas. Bhāmaha's date is not definitely settled, but he is supposed to have flourished some time between 500 and 600 A. D.

· · ·

Bhāmaha's importance lies in his being the oldest exponent of the Alamkāra school of Poetics.

· · ·

( 3 ) Daṇḍin, the author of the Kāvyādarśa. The Kāvyādarśa with the commentary of Premacandra Tarkavāgiśa was first published in

· · ·

स्वीयैः परकीयैश्च पुंस्कलैः । शब्दवैचित्र्यगम्येयसुपमैनि हृदयप्रपञ्चिता ॥

· · ·

authors, his book is of very great importance in determining the date of many Sanskrit writers.

· · ·

Vamana is a great exponent of the Riti school of poetics. He boldly declares that Riti or some special arrangement of words is the soul of poetry70.

· · ·

(6) Rudrata, the author of the Kavyalamkara. Rudrata's Kāvya-lamkara with the commentary of Namisadhu (1068–69 A. D.) was first published by the Nirnayasagara Press, Bombay, in 1880.

· · ·

Rudrata's Kavyalamkara is an extensive work and deals with all the topics of the sciencec of poetics. It is written in verse, mostlv in Arya metre, and consists of 734 stanzas in all, which are divided into 16 Adhyāyas. Rudrata has composed all his examples. His date is between 800 and 850 A. D.

· · ·

From the importance which he attaches to figures Rudrata is regarded as a supporter of the Alamkāra school, though he knows the Rasa theory of Bharata and remarks that kāvya should be possessed of Rasa71.

· · ·

(7) Anandvardhana, the author of the Dhvanyāloka. The Dhvānyaloka, with the commentary called Locana of Abhinavagupta (990–1020 A. D.) on the first three Udyotas was first published by the Nirṇayaśagara Press, Bombay, in 1891.

· · ·

The Dhvanyaloka, which is also known as Kavyaloka and Sahrda-yaloka consists, like the Kāvyaprākaśa, of three constituents viz. Kārikās, Vṛtti and illustrations. The Kārikās number 129. The Vṛtti explains and supplements the Kārikās, at great length many a time. The illustrations are mostly quoted from previous poets.

· · ·

The whole of the work is attributed to Anandvardhana who is often referred to as Dhvanikāra. But some writers, headed by Abhi-navagupta, make a distinction between the Karikakara and the Vṛttikāra. On the other hand there are writers like Pratihārendurāja and Mahimabhaṭṭa, who make no such distinction, but indiscriminately attribute the Kārikās and the Vṛtti to Anandavaradhana. According to those who believe in the theory of the double authorship of the Dhvanyāloka, the Kārikās were composed by a predecessor of Ananda-

· · ·

70 Note 'रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य' विशेष पदरचना रीतिः । विशिष्टो रसादिगुणात्मा ।' काव्यालङ्कारसूत्र 1. 2. 6-8

· · ·

71 Read 'ननु शब्दार्थौ काव्यम्' 2. 1 and 'तस्मात् तत् काव्यं यत्तेन महीयसा रसैर्युक्तम्' 12. 2

· · ·

[ Sutra 72 ]

शब्दार्थों सहितौ वक्रोक्तिव्यापारशालिनि । बन्धे व्यवस्थितौ काव्यं तद्विदाह्दकारिणि ॥ वाच्योर्थो वाचकः शब्दः प्रसिद्धिमित यथापि । तथापि काव्यमार्गेऽस्मिन् परमार्थोंऽगमयेतयोः ॥ 9 ॥ शब्दे विवक्षितार्थैकवाच्योऽयेऽपि सत्स्वपि । अर्थः सहदयाह्दकारिस्वप्नदशदर्शद् ॥ 10 ॥ उभयेतावलंकांर्यों तयोः पुनरलंकृति । वक्रोक्तिरेव वैदग्ध्यभङ्गीभणितिरुच्यते ॥ 11 ॥ उन्मेष 1. The वृत्ति explains वक्रोक्तिः as प्रसिद्धाभिधानव्यतिरेकिणी विचित्रैवाभिधा । p. 21.

· · ·

His date is somewhere between 925-1025 A D.

· · ·

[ Sutra (10) ]

Bhoja, the author of the Sarasvatikanthābharana. The Sarasvatikanthabharana with the commentary of Ratneśvara written at the instance of his patron Ramasimhadeva on the first three Paricchedas and of Jagaddhara on the fourth, but with no commentary on the fifth has been published by the Nirnayasagara Press in 1925.

· · ·

The Sarasvatikanthābharana is a voluminous work. But it is more in the nature of a compilation than of original contribution. It is divided into five Paricchedas and quotes over 1500 stanzas as illustrations. Bhoja was King of Dhara and reigned from 1005 to 1054 A. D.

· · ·

Followers of Mammaṭa

· · ·

[ Sutra (11) ]

Ruyyaka or Rucaka, the author of the Alamkārasarvasva. Ruyyaka's Alamkārasarvasva with the commentary of Jayaratha was published by the Nirṇayasāgara Press in 1893. It has also been published in the Trivandrum Sanskrit Series in 1915 with the Vṛtti of Samudrabandha.

· · ·

Ruyyaka is an an advocate of the Dhvani school of Ānanda:vardhana. His Alamkārasarvasva deals only with the figures of speech and is regarded as a standard work in that branch of Alamkāraśāstra. Later writers like Viśvanātha profusely draw upon it. Ruyyaka often quotes and sometimes criticizes Mammaṭa. His date is about 1150 A. D.

· · ·

[ Sutra (12) ]

Vidyādhara, the author of the Ekāvali. The Ekāvali, with the commentary, called Tarala, of Mallinātha, has been published in the Bombay Sanskrit aud Prakrit Series in 1903.

· · ·

The work consists of three parts vlz. the Kārikās, the Vṛtti and the examples. A peculiarity of this book is that all examples are composed by the author Vidyādhara and are in praise of his patron king Narasimha of Utkala (Orissa). It is divided into eight Chapters called Unmeṣas. Vidyādhara's date is about 1300 A. D.

· · ·

[ Sutra (13) ]

Vidyānātha, the author of the Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa. The Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa with the commentary, called Ratnapana of Kumārarsvāmin, son of Mallinātha, has been published in the Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series in 1909.

· · ·

[ Sutra 73 ]

Read 'एष विद्याधरस्तेष्टु कान्तासंमितलक्षणम् । करोति नरसिंहस्य चाटुश्लोकानुदाहरण ॥ ७ अन्तरेण नरसिंहभूपति नेतरोरसि तम्म वाड्मयोचितः । चन्द्रचूडमपहाय जाह्नवीवारी वोढुमपर: 118' एकावली उन्मेष 1

· · ·

प्रतापरुद्रदेवस्य गुणानाध्रिय नर्मितः । अलङ्कारप्रबन्धगोध्रये सन्तः करणोत्सवो-त्सवः ।। 9 क्रकतीयानरेन्द्रस्य यशो भूषयितुं कृतः । विश्वनाथकृतितिश्रेयं स्वयं तेन विरम्यते ।। 10

· · ·

अत्यर्धचित्रमीमांसां न सुते कस्य मांक्षा । अनुररिव ध्मांशोर्धेन्दुरिव धुर्यते: ।।

· · ·

and a poet, united in one, A characteristic of his writing is his supreme self-confidence, which more often than not is justified. His Rasagangādhara ranks in importance and authoritativeness next only to the Dhvanyāloka and the Kāvyaprakāśa. It is an incomplete work and breaks off in the midst of the figure Uttara. It consists of two parts called Ānanas. Figures of sense are treated in the second and number 70. The Citramīmāmsākhandana, as its name shows, contains the refutation of the views of Appaya Dīksita. Objections against these had already been raised in the Rasagaāgādhara. The Citramīmāmsākhaṇdana briefly recapitulates them. Jagannātha is so sure of the faults that he has urged against the Citramīmāmsā that he is prepared to grasp the feet of any one who would prove them to be otherwise. Jagannātha's literary activity fell between 1620 and 1660 A. D.

· · ·

IX FIVE SCHOOLS OF POETICS

· · ·

Perhaps the most important question which the Alamkāraśāstra discusses is 'What is the essence or soul of poetry ?' On the answer, which a rhetorician gives to this question, depends his definition of poetry.

· · ·

It is not possible to say which of these five schools Mammata follows. From his definition of poetry it would appear that he is an adherent of the Alamkāra, Rīti and Vakrokti schools. But the three-fold division of poetry that he gives is based on Dhvani as the essence of poetry. Then again, his definitions of defect (dosah), excellence (gunah) and figure (alamkāra) indicate that he is a follower of the Rasa school, because therein he refers to Rasa as the soul of poetry. It will be seen from this that Mammata is not the follower of any school to the exclusion of others, but that he depends upon them all in the treatment of the different topics in his book.

· · ·

The discussion regarding the essence of poetry gave rise to five schools in Sanskrit poetics. They are :- (1) The Rasa School

· · ·

76 Note 'रसगङाधरे चित्रमीमांसाया मयोदिता:। ये दोषास्तत्र संक्षिप्य कथ्यन्ते विदुषां मुदे ॥' चित्रमीमांसाखण्डन p. 1

· · ·

77 Read 'सूक्ष्म विभाव्य मयका समुदीरिताना मणप्पय्यदीक्षितैस्ताविह दूषणानाम् । निर्मन्त्सरो यदि समुद्रणं विदघ्यादस्त्याहमुज्ज्वलमतेशरणौ वहामि॥'चित्रमीमांसाखण्डन p. 1

· · ·

(2) The Alamkara School (3) The Riti School (4) The Vakrokti School (5) The Dhvani School.

· · ·

A brief note on each one of these may be useful.

· · ·

(1) The Rasa School :- The earliest exponent of this school is the नाट्य शास्त्र of भारत though speculations about रस are noticed earlier. According to this school, रस is the essence of poetry while गुणs and अलङ्कारs are subsidiary to it.

· · ·

(2) The Alamkara School :- The name of भामह, author of काव्यालङ्कार, is generally associated with this, What constitutes the essence of poetry is the presence of Alamkara therein. It is not that the protagonists of the school were unaware of the theory of Rasa but according to them, the Alamkara played a most important part in poetry and hence they relegated to Raga a subordinate position. उद्भट and रुद्रट were also the followers of this school.

· · ·

(3) The Riti School :- वामन who defined poetry as रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य विशिष्टा पदरचना रीति:1 is considered to be the foremost representative of this school. According to this school, it is the style or mode of expression that forms the essence of poetry. वामन makes a distinction between गुणs and अलङ्कारs and looked upon the former as the essence. This, it may be noticed, is an advance on the previous school.

· · ·

(4) The Vakrokti school : Vakrokti is a striking expression often based on श्लेष and obviously different from the common school. This is the essence of poetry. The name of Kuntala, author of vakrokti jivita is associated with this school.

· · ·

(5) The Dhvani School :- Exposition of this powerful and also popular school is found in ध्वन्यालोक and लोचन, a commentary on it by अभिनवगुप्त. In a manner of speaking, this school is an extention of the Rasa. Though this led to the foundation of ध्वनि school, the advocates of the school raised suggestion from the position of a mere revealer of Rasa in poetry to that of the soul of poetry.

· · ·

This school before it came to be generally accepted had to face fierce attacks at the hands of प्रतिहारेङ्दुराज, कुन्तल भट्टनायक and महिमभट्ट.

· · ·

मम्मटविरचितः

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

प्रथमद्वितीयतृतीयादशोल्लासः

· · ·

[ Sutra 1 ]

ग्रन्थारम्भे विद्नविघाताय समुचितेष्टदेवतां ग्रन्थकृत् परामृशति—नियतिकृतनियमरहितां ह्लादैकमयमनन्यपरतन्त्राम् । नवरसरुचिरां निर्मितिमदधतीं भारतीं कवेज्जयति ॥ १ ॥

· · ·

काव्यप्रयोजनानि

· · ·

इहाभिधेयं सप्रयोजनमिल्याह —

· · ·

[ Sutra २ ]

काव्यं यशसेर्थकृते व्यवहारविदे शिवेतरक्षतये । सद्धः परनिदृत्तये कान्तासंमिततयोपदेशयुजे ॥ २ ॥

· · ·

कालिदासादीनामिव यशः;, श्रीहर्षादेवाण्डिनामिव धनम्, राजादिगतौचित्य-चारपरिज्ञानम्, आदित्यादेर्मयूखादीनामिवार्थनिवारणम्, सकलप्रयोजनमौलिभूतं समनन्तरमेव रसास्वादानसमुद्भूतं विगलितवेदान्तरममानन्दम्, प्रभुसंमितशब्दप्रधान-वेदादिशाखेभ्यः सुहद्संमितार्थतया प्रवर्तितपुराणादितिहासेभ्यश्च शब्दार्थयोरगुणभवेन रसाढ्य भूतव्यापारप्रवणतया विलक्षणं यत् काव्ये लोकोत्तरवर्णनानिपुणकविकर्म, तत् कान्तेव सरसतापादनेनाभिमुखीकृत्य, रामादिवर्तिततयैव न रावणादिवदित्युपदेशं च यथायोगं कनः सहृदयस्य च करोतीति सर्वथा तत् यतनीयम् ।

· · ·

९ 'ध्वाकादीना०' इति पाठः प्रायः सर्वेषु मुद्रितपुस्तकेषु ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ३ ]

एवमस्य प्रयोजनमुक्त्वा कारणमाह — शक्तिनिपुणता लोकशास्त्रकाव्याद्यवेक्षणात् । काव्यज्ञशिक्षयाभ्यास इति हेतुस्तदद्वये ॥ ३ ॥

· · ·

एकमस्य कारणमुक्त्वा स्वरूपमाह —

· · ·

[ Sutra ४ ]

इदमुत्तममतिशायिनी व्यङ्ग्ये वाच्याद्, ध्वनिरिबुधैः कथितः ॥ ४ ॥ इदमिति काव्यम् । बुद्धैरेयकरणैः प्रधानभूतस्फोटरुपपद्यच्यञ्जकस्य शब्दस्य 'ध्वनिरिति व्यवहारः । कृतः । अतस्तन्मतानुसारिमिरन्यैरपि न्यग्भावितवाच्य- व्यङ्गव्यञ्जनक्षमस्य शब्दार्थयुगलस्य ।

· · ·

[ Sutra २ ]

निःशेषच्युतचन्दनं स्तनतटं निर्मृष्टरागो ऽधरो नेत्रे दूरमनञ्जने पुलकिता तन्वी तवेयं तनुः । mध्यावादिनि दूति वाङ्‌भवजनस्याञ्ज्ञातपीडागमे वार्पी स्नातुमितो गतासि न पुनस्तस्याधमस्यान्तिकम् ॥ २ ॥ अत्र तदन्तिकमेव स्न्तुं गतासोति प्राघान्येनाधमपदेन व्यज्यते ।

· · ·

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यापरनामकमध्यमकाव्यलक्षणम्

· · ·

अतादृशी गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यं व्यङ्ग्ये तु मध्यमम् ।

· · ·

अतादृशि वाच्यादनतिशयिनि । यथा—

· · ·

ग्रामस्तरणं तरुण्यो नववञ्जुलमञ्जरीसनाथकरम् ।

· · ·

पर्यस्य न्या भवति मुहुरन्तरालं मलिना मुखच्छाया ॥ ३ ॥

· · ·

अत्र वञ्जुलतागृहे दत्तसंकeta नागतेति व्यङ्गयं गुणीभूतम् । तदपेक्षया वाच्यस्यैव चमत्कारित्वात् ।

· · ·

अव्यङ्ग्यापरनामकाधमकाव्यलक्षणम्

· · ·

शब्दचित्रं वाच्यचित्रमव्यङ्गयं त्वरं स्फुटम् ॥ ५ ॥

· · ·

चित्रमिति गुणालङ्कारयुक्तम् । अव्यङ्ग्यमिति स्फुटप्रतीयमानार्थरहितम् । अवरम् अधमम् । यथा—

· · ·

But when the suggested sense is not of that kind it viz. the poem is mediocre the suggested sense being subordinate.

· · ·

'Not of that kind ' means 'not more charming than the expressed sense.' For example —

· · ·

The complexion of the face of the young girl becomes extremely darkened i.e. void of lustre, as she repeatedly looks at the village youth, whose hand was possessed of a cluster of fresh Vanjula i.e. Asoka flowers.

· · ·

Here, 'The young girl, who had given an appointment in the bower of creepers under the Vanjula tree, did not come there'—this suggested sense has become subordinate. Because in comparison with it, the expressed sense itself is more striking.

· · ·

But that poem, which is striking in the word or striking in the expressed sense, is known as the lowest. It is designated Avyangya i.e. a poem which is void of the suggested sense.

· · ·

The word citra means possessed of excellences and figures. Avyangya means void of a distinct suggested sense. Avara means lowest. For example —

· · ·

[ Sutra ४ ]

स्वच्छन्दोच्छलदच्छकच्छकुहरच्छातेतराम्बुच्छटा-मूर्छन्मोहमहर्षिर्हर्षविहितस्तनाहिकाहाय वः । शिवाद्वचदुदारदुर्दरी दीर्घोदारिदृदृदुम-द्रोहोद्रेकमहोमिमिदुरमदा मन्‍दाकिनी मन्‍दताम् ॥ ४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५ ]

विनिर्गतं मानदमातममन्दिराद् भवत्युपश्रुत्य यदच्छ्यापि यम् । ससंभ्रमेन्द्रद्रुतपातितर्गला-निमीलिताक्षीव भियामरावती ॥ ५ ॥

· · ·

इति काव्यप्रकाशे काव्यप्रयोजनकारणस्वरूपविशेषणनिर्णयो नाम प्रथम उल्लासः ॥ १ ॥

· · ·

ऋमेण शब्दार्थयोः स्वरुपमाह —

· · ·

त्रिविधः शब्दः

· · ·

स्याद् वाचको लक्षणिकः शब्दोऽत्र व्यञ्जकविधा ।

· · ·

अत्रोक्तं कार्यम् । एतत् स्वरुपं वक्ष्यते ।

· · ·

वाच्याद्यस्तदर्थाः स्युः

· · ·

वाच्यलक्षणलक्षित्या ।

· · ·

तात्पर्यार्थः

· · ·

[ Sutra 1 ]

तात्पर्यार्थोऽपि केचिचित् ॥ १ ॥

· · ·

आकाड्क्षा — योग्यता — सन्निधि — वशाद् वाक्यमाणस्वरुपाणां पदार्थानां समन्वये तात्पर्यों विशेषपुरपदार्थोऽपि वाक्यार्थः समुल्लसति — इत्यभिहितान्वयवादिनां मतम् । वाच्य एव वाक्यार्थे — इत्यन्विताभिधानवादिनः ।

· · ·

SECOND FLASH

· · ·

सर्वेषां प्रायशोऽर्थानां व्यञ्जकत्वमपीष्यते ।

· · ·

तत्र वाच्यस्य यथा —

· · ·

माए घरोवअरङ्ग अज्ज हु नत्थि त्ति साहिअं तुमए ।

· · ·

तह भणि किण करणिज्जं मेअह ण वासरो ठाइ ।। १ ।।

· · ·

[ मातृगृहोपकरणमद्य नास्तीति साधितं त्वया ।

· · ·

तद् भण किं करणीयमेव न वासरः स्थायी ।। ]

· · ·

अत्र स्वैरविहारार्थीनीति व्यज्यते ।

· · ·

लक्ष्यस्य यथा —

· · ·

साहेंती सहि सुहअं खणे खणे दूम्मिआसि मज्जकए ।

· · ·

सब्भावणेहकरणिज्जसरिस्सं दाण विरिअं तुमए ।। २ ।।

· · ·

[ साधयन्ती सखि सुभगं क्षणे क्षणे दूनासी मत्कुते ।

· · ·

सद्भावस्नेहकरणीयसदृशं तावद् विरचितं त्वया-।। ]

· · ·

अत्र मधुर्यं रमयत्वा तया शृङ्गारमाचरितमिति लक्ष्यम् । तेन च कामुक-विषयं सापराह्ल्यप्रकाशानं व्यज्ज्यतेम् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra २ ]

साक्षात् संकेतितं योडर्थमभिधत्ते स वाचकः ॥ २ ॥

· · ·

ईहागृहीतसंकेतस्य शब्दार्थप्रतीतेरंभभावात् संकेतसहाय एव शब्दोऽर्थविशेषं प्रतिपादयतीति यस्य यत्राव्यवधानेन संकेतों गृह्यते स तस्य वाचकः ।

· · ·

संकेतनिष्ठत्वमेवो जात्यादिज्ञानिरेव वा ।

· · ·

यद्वयप्यर्थक्रियाकारितया प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तियोग्या व्यक्तिरेव, तथापि आनन्यान्नाद् व्यमिचाराच तत्र संकेतः कर्तु न युज्यते इति, गौः शुक्लश्वादित्यः इत्यादीनां शब्दानां विषयविभागो न प्रामाणिक इति च, तदुपाधावेव संकेतः ।

· · ·

उपादिश्व द्विविधः-वस्तुधर्मो वक्तृयदच्छासंनिवेशितश्च । वस्तुधर्मोऽपि द्विविधः-सिद्धः साध्यश्च । सिद्धोऽपि द्विविधः-पदार्थस्य प्राणप्रदो विशेषाधानहेतुश्च ।

· · ·

तत्राद्यो जातिः । उक्तं हि वाक्यपदीये 'गौः स्वरूपेण न गौः, नापि अगौः,

· · ·

गोलाभिसंवन्धात् तु गौः' इति । द्वितीयो गुणः । शुकादिना हि लब्यसत्ताकं वस्तु विशेष्यते । साध्यः पूर्वपरिभूतावयवक्रियारूपः डित्थादिशब्दानामनल्यकबुद्धि-निग्रहः संहतक्रमं स्वरूपं वक्त्रा यदृच्छया डित्थादिशब्दूपाधिवेन संनिवेश्यते इति सोऽयं संज्ञारूपो यादृच्छात्मक इति । गौः शुकश्वलो डित्थः इत्यादौ 'चतुष्षयी शब्दानां प्रवृत्ति:' इति महाभाष्यकारः

· · ·

परमाण्वादीनां तु गुणकर्मपाठात् पारिभाषिकं गुणवम् । गुणक्रियायचछ्छानां वस्तुत एकरूपाणामप्याश्रयभेदात् भेद इव लक्ष्यते यथैकस्य सुखदुःखसुखरत-लाभालम्बनमेदात् ।

· · ·

९ 'गुणक्रियायदृच्छाशब्दानाम्' इत्यपि पाठः ।

· · ·

हिमपय:श्रद्धावाश्रययेषु परमार्थतो भिन्नेषु शुक्तादिषु यद्रूपेण शुकु: शुकु: इत्यादिभिन्नाभिधानप्रत्ययोत्पत्तिस्तत्त् शुकु्वादि सामान्यम्। गुडतण्डुलादिपाकादि- क्षेवमेव पाकत्वादि। बालवृद्धशुकुयुवीरितेषु डित्थादिशब्देषु च, प्रतिकक्षणं भिद्य- मानेषु डित्याद्यर्थेषु वा, डित्थत्वास्तिति सर्वेषां शब्दानां जातिरेव प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त- मित्यने। तद्वान् अपोहो वा शब्दार्थ: कैश्चिदुक्त: इति ग्रन्थगौरवभयात् प्रकृतानु- पयोगाच्च न दर्शितम्।

· · ·

[ Sutra १३ ]

स मुख्योऽर्थस्तत्र मुख्यो व्यापारोऽस्यामिधोच्च्यते ॥ ३ ॥ स इति साक्षात्संकेतित:। अस्येति शब्दस्य।

· · ·

लक्षणलक्षणम्

· · ·

[ Sutra ४ ]

मुख्यार्थबाधे तद्योगे रूढितोड्थ प्रयोजनात् । अन्योऽर्थो लक्ष्यते यत् सा लक्षणारोपिता क्रिया ॥ ४ ॥

· · ·

कर्मणि कुशलः' इत्यादौ धर्मप्रहणादियोगात् 'गङ्गायां घोषः' इत्यादौ च गङ्गादीनां घोषादिकरणत्वसंभवात् मुख्यार्थस्य बाधे, विवेचकत्वादौ सामीप्ये च संबंधे, रूढितः प्रसिद्धेः, तथा 'गङ्गातटे घोषः' इत्यादे: प्रयोगाद् येषां न तथा प्रतिपत्तिः तेषां शक्त्यपावनत्वादीनां धर्मीणां तथाप्रतिपादनात् प्रयोजनाच्च मुख्येन अमुख्योऽर्थो लक्ष्यते यत् स आरोपितः शब्दव्यापारः सान्तरार्थनिष्ठो लक्षणा ।

· · ·

शुद्धया: लक्षणाया: द्वौ भेदौ

· · ·

[ Sutra ५ ]

स्थिरिद्दये पराक्षेप: परार्थ स्वसमर्पणम् । उपादानं लक्षणं चेत्युक्ता शुद्धैव सा द्विधा ॥ ५ ॥

· · ·

When there is the incompatibility of the primary sense in cases like 'Skilful in business' on account of there being no connection of the grasping of grass and the like with business and in cases like 'A hamlet on the Gaṅgā' on account of the impossibility of the Gaṅgā and the like being the support or the site of a hamlet and the like; when there is the connexion viz. discrimination and the like [in the first case] and vicinity or nearness. [in the second]; through usage i. e. through well-known use [in the first case,] similarly through motive which consists in conveying in that way those properties of coolness, holiness and the like which would not be so comprehended from the use of the expression 'A hamlet on the bank of the Gaṅgā' [in the second] ; that process of a word by means of which (yat) a secondary sense is conveyed by the primary sense, which is superimposed on that word and which abides in the sense that occupies the interval (sāntara) [i. e. which abides in or really belongs to the expressed sense], [is] Indication.

· · ·

Implication of another i. e. secondary sense for the establishment of itself i.e. of the primary sense and the surrender of itself for the sake of another [respectively constitute] Inclusive Indication and Ex-

· · ·

'कुन्ताः प्रवेशान्ति' 'यष्ठयः प्रवेशान्ति' इत्यादौ कुन्तादिमिरात्मनः प्रवेशासिद्धचर्थे स्वसंयोगिनः पुरुषा आक्षिप्यन्ते, तत् उपादाननेयं लक्षणा । 'गौरववन्यः' इत्यादौ 'श्रुतिचोदितमनुबन्धनं कर्थ मे स्याद्' इति जाल्या व्यक्तिराक्षिप्यते, न तु शब्देनोच्यते 'विशेष्यं नामिधा गच्छेत् क्षीणशक्तिर्‌वि-शेषणे' इति न्यायाद्-इत्युपादानलक्षणा तु नोदाहर्तव्या । न ह्रात्र प्रयोजनमस्ति । न वा रूढिरियम् । व्यक्त्यविनाभावित्वात् तु जाल्या व्यक्तिराक्षिप्यते, यथा क्रियात्मित्यत्र कर्ता, कुवित्यत्र कर्म 'प्रविश्' 'पिण्डीम्' इत्यादौ 'गृहं', 'भक्ष्य' इत्यादि च ।

· · ·

'पीनी देवदत्तो दिवा न भुङ्क्ते' इत्यत्र च रात्रिभोजनं न लक्ष्यते । श्रुतार्थापत्तेर्‌थीपत्तेर्वा तस्य विषयत्वात् ।

· · ·

गङ्गायां घोष:' इत्यत्र तत्तस्य घोषाधिकारणत्वसिद्धये गङ्गाशब्द: स्वार्थमर्पयति इत्येवमदौ लक्षणैवैषा लक्षणा । उपचारूपा चेयं शुद्धा । उपचारेणामिश्रितत्वात् । अन्योभेदयोरलक्ष्यस्य लक्षणस्य च न मेदरुपं ताटस्थ्यम् । तटादीनां गङ्गादि-शब्दै: प्रतिपादने तत्वप्रतिपत्तौ हि प्रतिपिपादयिषितप्रयोजनसंप्रत्यय: । गङ्गा-संवन्धमात्रप्रतीतौ तु गङ्गातटे घोष इति मुख्यशब्दाभिधानालक्षणया: को मेद: । सारोपाया: लक्षणाया: लक्षणम्

· · ·

सारोपान्या तु यत्रौकौ विषयौ विषयस्थता । आरोप्यमाण: आरोपविषयश्च यत्रानुपहतमेदौ सामानाधिकरण्येन निर्दिश्येते सा लक्षणा सारोपा ।

· · ·

साध्यवसानिकाया: लक्षणाया: लक्षणम्

· · ·

[ Sutra ६ ]

विषयन्त:कृतेऽन्यासिमन् सा स्वात् साध्यवसानिका ।। ६ ।।

· · ·

[ Sutra 2 ]

विषयिणारोप्यमाणेनान्तःकृते निगीर्णेऽन्यस्मिन्नारोपविषये सति सा साध्यवसाना स्यात्‌ । इमौ भेदौ गौणौ शुद्धौ च भेदाविमौ च साध्र्यात्‌ संबन्धान्तरतस्तथा । गौणौ शुद्धौ च विज्ञेयौ इमावारोपाध्यवसानरूपौ साध्र्यहेतू भेदौ 'गौरीहीकः' इत्यत्र 'गौरयम्‌' इत्यत्र च ।

· · ·

उक्तं चान्यत्र — 'अभिधेयाविनाभूतप्रतीतिलक्षणोच्यते । लक्ष्यमाणगुण्ययोगाद् वतिरिच्या तु गौणता' इति । अविनाभावोऽत्र संबन्धमात्रं, न तु नान्तरीयकत्वम् । तच्वे हि 'मश्वाः क्रोशन्ति' इत्यादौ लक्षणा न स्यात् । अविनाभावे चाक्षेपेणैव सिद्धे लक्षणाया नोपयोग इत्युक्तम् ।

· · ·

‘आयुःपुष्टम्' 'आयुर्वेदम्' इत्यादौ साध्यसाध्यत्वात् कार्यकारणभावादिसम्बन्धान्तरम् एवंवादौ च कार्यकारणभावादिलक्षणपूर्वं आरोपाद्यव्यवसाने । अत्र गौणमेदयोरपि तादृश्यप्रतीति: सर्वथैवामेदावगमश्र प्रयोजनम् । शुद्धमेदयोरस्तु अन्यवैलक्षण्येन अव्यभिचारण च कार्यारित्वादि ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 7 ]

कचित् तादर्थ्यादुपचारः। यथा इन्द्रार्थी स्थूणा इन्द्रः। कचित् स्वस्वामिभावसं बन्धात्। यथा राजकीयः पुरुषो राजा। कचिद्वयववायवयविभावात्। यथा अग्रहुष्टः इत्यत्र अग्रमात्रेडवयवे हस्तः। कचित् तालकर्म्यत। यथा अतक्षातक्ष। लक्षणा तेन पृथक्॥७॥

· · ·

व्यञ्जयेन रहिता रूढौ, सहितातु प्रयोजने। प्रयोजनं हि व्यञ्जनाव्यापारगम्यमेव। तच गूढमगूढं वा तच्यते व्यञ्ज्यम्। गूढं यथा—

· · ·

मुखं विकासितस्मितं वशितवशक्रम प्रेक्षितं समुच्छलितविभ्रमा गतिरपास्ततस्त्या मति: । उरो मुकुलितस्तनं जघनमंसवन्धोद्वारं बतेंदुवदनातनौ तरुणिमोद्यमो मोदते ॥ ४ ॥

· · ·

अगूढं यथा—

· · ·

श्रीपरिचयाज्जडोऽपि भवन्त्यमिज्ञा विदग्धचरितानाम् । उपदिशति कामिनीनां यौवनमद् एव ललितानि ॥ ५ ॥

· · ·

अत्र 'उपदिशति' इत्यत्र अनायासेन शिक्षणं अभिधेयवत् स्फुटं प्रतीयते ।

· · ·

तदेषा कथिता त्रिधा ॥ ८ ॥

· · ·

अव्यङ्गया गूढव्यङ्गया अगूढव्यङ्गया चेति । लक्षणकराब्दलक्षणं तदूललक्षणिक: शब्द इति संबध्यते । तदूस्तदाश्रय: ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ९ ]

तत्र व्यापारो व्यञ्जनात्मकः । लक्षणामूलव्यञ्जनाया: लक्षणम् कुत इत्याह— यस्य प्रतीतिमाधातं लक्षणा समुपास्यते ॥ ९ ॥ फले शब्दैकगम्ये तत्र व्यञ्जनानुपरा क्रिया ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १० ]

नामिधा समयाभावात् गङ्गायां घोष: इत्यादौ ये पावनत्वादयो धर्मास्तटादौ प्रतीयन्ते न तत्र गङ्गादिशब्दा: संकेतिता: । हेत्वभावान्न लक्षणा ॥ १० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ११ ]

मूल्यार्थबाधित्रयं हेतुः । तथा च लक्षणं न मुख्यं, नापात्र बाधो, योगः फलैन नो । न प्रयोजनमेतस्मिन्, न च शब्दः स्वलक्ष्यतिः ॥ ११ ॥ यथा गङ्गाशब्दः श्रोतसि सबाध इति तटं लक्ष्यति, तद्वत् यदि तटेऽपि सबाधः स्यात् , तदा प्रयोजनं लक्ष्येत । न च तद् मुख्यार्थः । नापात्र बाधः । न च गङ्गाशब्दार्थस्य तटस्य पावनत्वादिलक्षणीयैः संबंधः । नापि प्रयोजने लक्ष्ये किंचित् प्रयोजनम् । नापि गङ्गाशब्दस्तटमिव प्रयोजनं प्रतिपादयितुमस्मर्थः । एवमप्यनवस्था स्याद् या मूललक्ष्यकारिणी । एवमपि प्रयोजनं चेद् लक्ष्यते, तत् प्रयोजनान्तरेण, तदपि प्रयोजनान्तरेण, इति प्रकृताप्रतीतिकृत अनवस्था भवेत् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १२ ]

प्रयोजनैः सहितं लक्षणं न युज्यते ॥ १२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १३ ]

ज्ञानस्य विषयो हन्याः फलमन्यदुदाहतम् । प्रत्यक्षादेनैलादिविषयः फलं तु प्रकटता संवित्तिर्या । विशिष्टे लक्षणा नैवम् निगदेनैव व्याख्यातम् ॥ विशेषः सुस्पष्ट लिख्यते ॥ १३ ॥

· · ·

तटादौ ये विशेषा: पावनत्वादयस्ते चाभिधातपर्य्येलक्षणाम्यो व्यापारान्तरेण गम्या:। तच्च व्यञ्जनशक्त्यनुग्राह्योत्पत्तिदिशब्दवाच्यमवश्यमेवितव्यम्। एवं लक्षणामूलं व्यञ्जकवमुक्तम्।

· · ·

सशाङ्खचक्रो हरिः, अशाङ्खचक्रो हरिरित्यच्युतेः । रामलक्ष्मणाभ्यां सहितौ दाशरथौ । रामाजुनगतिस्थयोरिति भार्गवकार्तवीर्योः । स्थाणुं भज भवच्छिदे इति हरेः । सर्व जानाति

देव इति युष्मदर्थे । कुपितो मकरध्वज इति कामे । देवस्य पुरारातेरिति लाङ्गलौ । मधुना मत्तः कोकिलः इति वसन्ते । पातु वो दधितामखमिति साम्नुख्ये । भास्यत परमेश्वरः इति राजधानीख्याद्देशाद्राजनि । चित्रभानुविभाति दिने रवौ, रात्रौ वह्नौ । मित्रं भाति इति सुहृदि, मित्रों भाति इति रवौ । इन्द्रशत्रुरित्यादौ वेद एव, न काव्ये स्वरोऽर्थविशेषप्रतीतिहेतुः ।

· · ·

आदिग्रहणात्

· · ·

व्यञ्जकराब्दलक्षणम्

· · ·

तद्युक्तो व्यञ्जकः शब्दः

· · ·

तद्युक्तो व्यञ्जनयुक्तः ।

· · ·

शब्दस्य व्यञ्जकत्वे अर्थस्य सहकारित्वम्

· · ·

यत् सोऽर्थान्तरयुक् तथा ।

· · ·

अर्थोऽपि व्यञ्जकस्तत्र सहकारितया मतः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 15 ]

तथेति व्यञ्जकः ॥ १५ ॥

· · ·

इति काव्यप्रकाशे शब्दार्थस्वरूपनिर्णयो नाम द्वितीय उल्लासः ।

· · ·

unimpeded [also punningly, whose gait is majestic, and] who wards off enemies [also punningly, who is a great elephant], always became lovely owing to the sprinkling of the water of gifts [also punningly, the water of ichor].

· · ·

A suggestive word is that which is possessed of that [viz. Suggestion].

· · ·

Possessed of that means possessed of suggestion.

· · ·

Since the word is so [i.e. suggestive], when accompanied by the other sense [i.e. the expressed sense], the other sense also is there considered to be suggestive on account of its co-operation [with that word in conveying the suggested sense].

· · ·

So means suggestive.

· · ·

Thus ends the Second Flash in the Light of Poetry, named the Determination of the Nature of Word and Sense.

· · ·

अर्थी: पोक्ता: पुरा तेषाम् अथी वाच्यलक्ष्यव्यङ्ग्यच्य:। तेषां वाचकलक्षणिकव्यङ्गकानाम् अर्थव्यङ्गकतैच्यते॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 1 ]

वाक्यक्रमोद्रव्यकाकूनां वाक्यवाच्यान्यसंनिधे:॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 2 ]

प्रस्तावदेशकालादेर्विशिष्टचात प्रतिबाजुषाम्। योडर्थस्यान्यार्थहीतुत्योपारो व्यक्तिरेव सा॥

· · ·

बोधक्य: प्रतिपाद्य: काकुह्यन्नेर्विकार:। प्रस्ताव: प्रकरणम्। अर्थस्य वाच्यलक्ष्यव्यङ्गच्यातनं: क्रमेणोदाहरणानि—

· · ·

[ Sutra १ ]

अइपिहुलं जलकुम्भं घेत्तण समागदहि सहि तुरीअम् । समसे असलिलणीसासणीसहा वीसमामि खणम् ॥ १ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २ ]

ओणिदं दोव्वलं चिता अल्सत्तणं सणीससिअम् । महं मंदभाइणिए केरं सहि तुहं वि अहह परिहवइ ॥ २ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३ ]

तथाभूतां दृष्ट्वा च्रपसदसि पास्वाल्तनयां वने व्याधैः सार्धं सुचिरमुपितं वल्कलधरैः । विराटस्यावासे स्थितमनुचितरमभानिश्रुतं गुरु: खेदं किन्ते मायि भजति नान्यापि कुरुषु ॥ ३ ॥

· · ·

अत्र मयि न योग्यः खेदः कुरुषु तु योग्य इति काकः प्रकाशयते। न च वाच्यसिद्धयर्थमत्र काकुरिति गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यत्वं शङ्ख्यम्‌। प्रकर्षमात्रेणापि काकोर्‌व-श्रान्ते:॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४ ]

तइआ मह गंडस्थलणिमिअं दिड़ि ण पेसि अणणत्तो। एहि सच्चेअ अहं ते अ कवोला ण सा दिड़ी॥ ४॥

· · ·

[ तदा मम गण्डस्थलनिम्नां दृष्टिर्न यस्याऽन्यत्र। इदानीं सैवाऽहं तु च कपोलौ न सा दृष्टि:॥ ]

· · ·

अत्र मत्वर्थीय जाता इल्यदो प्रच्छन्नकामुकत्वं ते इति व्यज्यते। उद्देशोऽयं सरसकदलीश्रेणीशोभातिशायी कुज्जोऽप्यकुरितरमणीविव्रमो नर्मदा:। किं चैतस्मिन् सुरतसुहृदरस्तञ्च ते वान्ति वातायेषामपे सरति कल्पितकाण्डकोपो मनोभू:॥ ५॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५ ]

अत्र मत्वर्थीय जाता इल्यदो प्रच्छन्नकामुकत्वं ते इति व्यज्यते। उद्देशोऽयं सरसकदलीश्रेणीशोभातिशायी कुज्जोऽप्यकुरितरमणीविव्रमो नर्मदा:। किं चैतस्मिन् सुरतसुहृदरस्तञ्च ते वान्ति वातायेषामपे सरति कल्पितकाण्डकोपो मनोभू:॥ ५॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ६ ]

अत्र रतार्थं प्रविशेति व्यङ्ग्यम् । णोहेह अणदमणा अत्ता मं घरभरम्मि सअलम्मि । खणमेतं जइ संझाइ होइ पण व होइ वीसामो ॥ ६ ॥ [ नुदयनार्द्रमनाः स्वश्र्यमो गृहभरे सकले । क्षणमात्रं यदि संध्यायां भवति न वा भवति विश्रामः ॥ ]

· · ·

[ Sutra ७ ]

अत्र संध्या संकेतकाल इति तटस्थं प्रति कयाचिद् ध्वोत्यते । सुव्वइ समागमिस्सादि तुज्झ पिओ अज्ज पहरमेत्तेण । एमेअ कित्ति चिअसि ता सही सजेसु करणिज्जम् ॥ ७ ॥ [ श्रूयते समागमिष्यति तव प्रियो डव प्रहरमात्रेण । एवंमेव किमिति तिष्ठसि तत्त सखि सजय करणीयम् ॥ ]

· · ·

[ Sutra ८ ]

अत्रोपपत्ति प्रत्यभिसर्तु प्रस्तुता न युक्तामिति कयाचिन्निवार्यते । अन्यत्र यूयं कुसुमावचायं कुरुच्चमत्रास्मि करोमि सख्यः । नाहं हि दूरं भ्रमितुं समर्थी प्रसिद्धतायं रचितोदञ्जलिः ॥ ८ ॥

· · ·

अत्र विविक्तो डयं देश इति प्रच्छन्नकामुकस्वया अभिसार्यतामित्याश्वस्तां प्रति कयाचिन्निवेद्यते ।

· · ·

गुरुणापरवस् पिअ किं भणामि तुह मंदभाइणी अहकं। अज्ज पवासं वचासि वच्च सहं जेव्व सुणासि करणिजं।। ९ ।।

· · ·

[ Sutra 3 ]

अर्थस्य व्यङ्ग्यत्वे शब्दस्य सहकारित्वं शब्दप्रमाणवेद्योर्थो न्यनक्त्यर्थान्तरं यतः । अर्थस्य व्यङ्ग्यत्वे तच्छब्दस्य सहकारिता ॥ ३ ॥ शब्देति । न हि प्रमाणान्तरवेदी डर्थो व्यङ्ग्यकः । इति काव्यप्रकाशे ऽर्थव्यङ्ग्यकतानिर्णयो नाम तृतीयोल्लासः ।

· · ·

अर्थालङ्कारानाह ( १ ) उपमा

· · ·

सादृश्यमुपमा मते

· · ·

उपमानोपमेययोरेव, न कार्यकारणादिकयोः; साधर्म्यं भवतीति तयोरेव समानेधर्मेण सम्बन्ध उपमा । भेदप्रहणमनन्वयव्यवच्छेदाय ।

· · ·

पूर्णा लुप्ता च

· · ·

उपमानोपमेयसाधारणधर्मोपमाप्रतिपादकानामुपादाने पूर्णा । एकस्य द्वयोर्याणां वा लोपे लुप्ता ।

· · ·

श्रुत्यर्थी च भवेद् वाक्ये समासे तद्धिते तथा । साग्रिमा ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १ ]

श्रुत्यर्थी च भवेद् वाक्ये समासे तद्धिते तथा ॥ १ ॥

· · ·

The author now treats of figures of sense.

· · ·

Comparison is similarity of attributes [between two things], when there is distinction between them.

· · ·

Similitude exists between a standard of comparison and an object of comparison only, but not between an effect and a cause and the like; hence the connection of those only with a common property becomes Comparison. The word ‘distinction’ is admitted [in the definition of Comparison] in order to exclude [the figure] Self-Comparison.

· · ·

It Comparison is Complete and Elliptical.

· · ·

When the standard of comparison, the object of comparison, the common property and the word conveying the comparison are mentioned, Comparison is Complete. When one, two or three of these are omitted, it is Elliptical.

· · ·

That first is Direct and Indirect and would occur in a sentence, in a compound and in a normal affix.

· · ·

First means Complete.

· · ·

यथैववदिशाब्दा यत्परास्तरैवोपमानाताप्रतीतिरिति यथाऽयुपमानविशेषणान्येते, तथापि शब्दशक्तिमहिम्ना श्रुत्यैव पृथग्वत् सम्बन्धे प्रतिपाद्यन्तीति तस्सदृशे श्रौती उपमा। तथैव “तत्र तस्येव” इत्यनेनैवार्थे विहितस्य वतेरुपादाने।

· · ·

‘तेन तुल्यं मुखम्’ - इत्यादिवुपमेये एव; ‘तत्तुल्यमस्य’ - इत्यादौ चोपमाने एव; ‘इदं च तत् तुल्यम्’ इत्युभयत्रापि तुल्यादिशब्दानां विश्रान्तिरिति साम्प्रपर्यालोचनया तुल्यताप्रतीतिरिति साधर्म्यस्यार्थवात् तुल्यादिपदोपादाने आर्थी। तद्वत् “तेन तुल्यं क्रियं चेद् वति:” इत्यनेन विहितस्य वते: स्थितौ।

· · ·

इवेन नित्यसमासो विभक्त्यलोप: पूर्वपदप्रकृतिस्वरं च” इति नित्यसमासे इवशब्दयोगे समासगा।

· · ·

क्रमेणोदाहरणम्‌ ।

· · ·

स्वमेडपि समरेपु लां विजयश्रीर्न मुञ्चति ।

· · ·

प्रभावप्रभृतं कान्तं स्वाधीनपतिका यथा ॥ १ ॥

· · ·

चकितहरणिलो ललोचना: ऋधि तरुणारुणतारहारिकान्ति ।

· · ·

सरसिजमिदममानं च तस्या: सममिति चेतसि संमदं विधत्ते ॥ २ ॥

· · ·

अत्यायतैर्निर्णायकैरिहिरुत्ततानां

· · ·

दिनयैः प्रभाभिरनुपाययैरुपायैः ।

· · ·

शौरिसुजेनेव चतुर्भिरद: सदा यो

· · ·

रक्ष्मीविलासभवनैरभूवृन्‍ वभार ॥ ३ ॥

· · ·

अवितथमनोरथपथप्रथनेपु प्रगुणगरिमगीतश्रीः ।

· · ·

सुरतरुसदृशः स भवानमिलषणीयः क्षितीश्वर न कस्य ॥ ४ ॥

· · ·

The following are the illustrations of these varieties of Comparison in order—

· · ·

The Glory of victory does not abandon you, who are the source of valour, in battles even in a dream, as a lady who has her husband in her power [does not forsake her] lover, who is the source of ardent love.

· · ·

He entertains exultation in his heart with the thought (iti) that this [red] lotus, which has a lustre brilliant and attractive like young dawn, and the face of that [girl], whose eyes are tremulous or unsteady like those of a frightened deer—[the face] which [also] develops a lustre brilliant and attractive like young dawn, when she is in anger are similar.

· · ·

[The king,] who always supported this world with the four expedients (upāyah), like Kṛṣṇa (Saurīḥ) with his four arms—[the expedients] which are far-reaching in their consequences [also punningly, which are extremely long,] which frame rules for arrogant people from among the subjects [also punningly, which restrain the impudent demons], which are excellent [also, divine], which are characterized by prowess [also, splendour], which are unfailing [also punningly, which are eternal] and which are the abodes of wealth and grace [also punningly, of the sports of Goddess Lakṣmī].

· · ·

For whom, O lord of the earth, are you there, who are similar to the tree of gods, not an object of longing—[you and also the tree] whose glory is sung owing to the greatness of excellent (pra) virtues in the matter of extending the paths of fruitful desires?

· · ·

[ Sutra ५ ]

गाम्भीर्यगगमि तस्य सत्यं गज्ञाभुजंगवत्। दुरालोकः स समरे निदाघाम्बररलनवत् ॥ ५ ॥

· · ·

Even though there is no strikingness (vaicitryam) in the statement [contained in the stanza] without some such 'suggested sense as 'As a lady, who has control over her husband and is yet devoted to her lover, becomes the source of extraordinary wonder, so does the Glory of victory by resorting to you', and strikingness is the very essence of a figure, yet the stanza should not be designated Dhvani and Guṇībhūta-vyaṅgya. Indeed, here the apprehension of charm does not arise from the reflection of the connection of the suggested sense [with the stanza], but only from the manifestation of the strikingness of the expressed sense. Sentiment etc., which form the suggested sense, and some other figure, are invariably present everywhere ; hence having left that out of account, figures have been illustrated. But if figures were to be illustrated by examples that are not possessed of that [sentiment and the like], they would produce insipidity. Therefore, it should not be urged against us that there is a contradiction between what was said before and what is said after.

· · ·

धर्मः साधारणः । तद्वित्ते कल्पवदौ लार्थ्येकः । तेन पञ्च ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ६ ]

धन्यस्यानन्यासामान्यसौजन्यो‌ल्कर्षशालिनः । करणीयं वचश्चेतः सत्यं तस्यामृतं यथा ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ७ ]

आकृष्टकरवालोड्डसी संपृत्ते पारित्रभ्रमणं । प्रत्यर्थिसेनया दृष्टः कृतान्तेन समः प्रभुः ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ८ ]

करवालइवाचारस्तस्य वाग्मृतोपमा । विषकल्पं मनो वेत्सि यदि जीवसि त्वं सखे ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २ ]

उपमानानुपादाने वाक्यगाथ समासगा ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ९ ]

सअलंकरणपवीणासिरिविअराणं ण सरसकव्वस्स । दीसइ अहव णिसम्मह सारिसं अंसंसित्तेण ॥

· · ·

[ सकलकरणपरविश्रामश्रीवितरणं न सरसकाव्यस्य । दृश्यतेऽथवा निशाम्यते सदृशमरंशांशमात्रेण ॥ ]

· · ·

कव्वस्सैयत्र कव्वसममिति, सारिसमिल्यत्र च णूणमिति पाठे ऐचैव समासगा ।

· · ·

वोदलोपी समासो वा कर्मोदारक्याच्च क्यचि ।

· · ·

कर्मक्तृोर्णमुलि

· · ·

वाराब्द: उपमायोतक: इति वादेरुपमाप्रतिपादकस्य लोके षट्समासेन, कर्मणोडधिकरणाच्चोत्पत्तेन क्यच, कर्तुः क्यडा, कर्मक्तृोरुपदयोर्णमुला च भवेत्।

· · ·

उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

ततः कुमुदनाथेन कामिनीगण्डपाण्डुन । नेत्रानन्देन चन्द्रेण माहेन्द्र दिगलंकृता ॥ १० ॥

· · ·

तथा

· · ·

तथा

· · ·

असितमुजगभीषणासिप्तो रुहरहिकाहितचिच्चर्णचारः । पुलविकतनुरुक्तपोल्कान्तिः प्रतिबटविक्रमदर्शिन्ड्यमासीत् ॥ ११ ॥

· · ·

पौरं शुतीयति जन्न समरान्तरेडसा- वन्तःपुरीयति विचित्रचरित्रचुल्चु । नारीयते समरसीक्षि कृपाणपाणे- रालोक्य तस्य चरितानि सपत्नसेना ॥ १२ ॥

· · ·

मृधे निदाघधर्मोगुदर्शी पस्यान्ति तं परे । स पुनः पार्थसंचारं संचरत्यवनिपतिः ॥ १३ ॥

· · ·

एतदृद्विलोपे किप्समासगा ॥ ३ ॥

· · ·

एतयोर्धर्मवाचोः । उदाहरणम्— सविता विधवति विधुरपि सवितरति तथा दिननिति यामिन्यः । यामिन्यन्ति दिनानि च सुखदुःखशीत्कते मनसी ॥ १४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १५ ]

परिपन्थिमनोराज्यरतैरपि दुराक्रमः । संपदायप्रवृत्तोद्सौ राजते राजकुजरः ॥ १५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १६ ]

धर्मोपमानयोल्पेपि दृष्ट्वौ वाक्ये च दृश्यते । टुट्टुणायमाने मरीहसि कणटकलिताइँ केतकीवनाइँ । मालइकुसुमसरीअँ भमर भमन्तो ण पाविहिसि ॥ १६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १७ ]

अरातिवृन्दमलोकविकस्वरविलोचनः । कृपाणोदग्रदोर्दण्डः स सहस्रायुधी ययाति ॥ १७ ॥

· · ·

अत्रात्मा उपमेयः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४ ]

त्रिलोे च समासगा ॥ ४ ॥

· · ·

त्रयाणां वाच्यधर्मोपमानानाम् । उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

तरुणिमनि कृतावलोकना ललितविलासवतीर्णविग्रहा । स्मरशरवशरातिचारुतरा मृगनयनया हरति मुनिमनः ॥ १८ ॥

· · ·

अत्र सप्तम्युपमानेयादिना यदा समासलोपौ भवतः तदेदमुदाहरणम् ।

· · ·

ऋतस्य आचारस्य अयःशूलतया अध्यवसायात, ‘अयःशूलेनान्विच्छति आयःशूलिकः’ इत्यतिशयोक्तिः न तु ऋताचरोपमेय-तैक्यन्यधर्मवदीनां लोेे त्रिलोेपयसुम्मा ।

· · ·

एवमेकोनविंशतिलङ्घत इति । पूर्णाभिः सह पञ्चविंशति ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १९ ]

अनयेनैव राज्यश्रीर्दैन्येनैव मनस्विता । मम्लौ साथं विषादेन प्रभिनीव हिमाम्बुसा ॥ १९ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २० ]

ज्योत्स्नेव नयनानन्दः सुरेव मदकारणम् । प्रसुतेव समाकृष्टसर्वलोकानितम्बिनी ॥ २० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २१ ]

एकस्यैव बहूपमानोपादाने मालोपमा । यथोत्तरमुपमेयस्योपमानत्वे पूर्ववद्भिन्नाभिन्नधर्मत्वे — अनवरतकनकवितरणजललवभृतकरतरङ्गितार्थितत: । भाणीतिरिव मतिमातिरिव चेष्टा चेष्टेव कीर्तिरोतिविमला ॥ २१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २२ ]

मतिरिव मूर्तिमंधुरा मूर्तिरिव सभा प्रभावचिता । तस्य समेव जयश्री: शाक्या जेतुं नृपस्य न परेषाम् ॥ २२ ॥ इत्यादिका रसानोपमा च — न लक्षणा । एवंविधवैचित्र्यसहस्रसंभवात् । उक्तमेदानतित्रमाच्च । ( २ ) अनन्वय: उपमानोपमेयत्वे एकस्यैवैकवाक्यगे । अनन्वय: उपमानान्तरसंनन्धाभावो डनन्वय: । उदाहरणम् — न केलं भाति नितान्तकान्तिनिर्नितम्भिनी सैव नितम्बिनीव । यावद् विलासायुधलास्यवासास्ते तद्विलासा इव तद्विलास: ॥ २३ ॥ ( ३ ) उपमेयोपमा विपर्य्योस उपमेयोपमा तयो:

· · ·

तयो: उपमानोपमेयो:; परिवृत्तौ अर्थात् वाक्यद्वये, इतरोपमानव्यवच्छेदपरा उपमेयेनोपमा इति उपमेयोपमा ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम् — कामलेव मर्तिमतीव कलया तनुवीव बिभा बिभ्रत तनु: । धरणीव धृतिधृत्तिरिव धरणी सततं विभाति बत यस्य ॥ २४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 8 ) ]

उत्प्रेक्षा संभावनमथोत्प्रेक्षा प्रकृतस्य समेन यत् । समेन उपमानेन ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम् — उन्मेष यो मम न सहते जातिवैररी निशाया- मिन्दौरीव कुसुमदलदृशा तस्या: सौन्दर्यदर्प: । नीत: शान्तिं प्रशमननया वक्त्रकान्त्येति हर्ष- लुब्धा मन्ये ललिततनु ते पादयो: पद्मलक्ष्मी: ॥ २५ ॥

· · ·

लिम्पतीव तमोड्ज्ञानं चरतिवाज्जनं नभः । असत्पुरुषसेवेव दृष्टिरविफलतां गता ॥ २६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ६ ]

संदेहहेतौ भेदोक्तौ तदयुक्तौ च संशयः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra २७ ]

अयं मार्तण्डः ? किं स खलु तुरगैः ? ससमभितः क्रान्तः ? कि सर्वतः प्रस्ररति दिशो नैष नियतम् । कृतान्तः ? किं साक्षान्महिषवहनोऽसाविति चिरं समालोक्ययाजौ त्वां विदघति विकल्पान् प्रतिभटा॥ २७ ॥

· · ·

मेदोक्ताविल्यनेन न केवलमयं निश्चयांगम्, यावन्निश्चयान्तोऽपि संदेहः स्वीकृतः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra २८ ]

इन्दुः किं क इष कलङ्कः सरसिजमेतत् किमम्बु कुतः गतम् । ललितसविलासवचनैर्मुखमिति हारिणाक्षि निश्चिन्तं परतः ॥ २८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २९ ]

अस्याः सर्गविधौ प्रजापतिरभूच्चन्द्रो नु कान्तिप्रदः श्रृङ्गारैकरसः स्वयं नु मदनो मासो नु पुष्पाकरः । वेदाभ्यासजडः कथम् नु विषयव्यावृत्तकौतूहलो निर्मातुं प्रभवेन् मनोहरमिदं रूपं पुराणो मुनिः ॥ २९ ॥

· · ·

तद् रूपकम् भेदो य उपमानोपमेययोः । अतिसाम्यात् अनपहुतभेदयोः अभेदः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ७ ]

समस्तवस्तुविषयं श्रौता आरोपिता यदा॥ ७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३० ]

ज्योत्स्नाभमश्च्चुरणधवलां विभ्रती तारकास्थीन्यन्तर्धानव्यसनरसिका रात्रिकापालिकीया‌म्‌ । दीपाद् दीपं भ्रमति दधती चन्द्रमुद्राकपालेन्यासतं सिद्धराजनपरिमिलं लाञ्छनस्य च्छलेन ॥ ३० ॥

· · ·

Metaphor is Universal or has all entities for its province, when the entities superimposed are mentioned by words, then the Metaphor becomes Universal, because it has all entities for its province. The plural in 'entities superimposed' is not significantly used.

· · ·

Here, fondness for the sport of disappearance is just a property of the entity superimposed [viz. the Kāpālikī]; thus there is a favourable circumstance for understanding metaphors in the first three quarters ; hence no suspicion of there being in this stanza the commixture of that Metaphor with Simile should be entertained.

· · ·

That Metaphor, in which those are some expressed and some implied, is Partial or resides in one region.

· · ·

[ Sutra ३१ ]

केचिदारोप्यमाणाः शब्दोपात्ताः केचिदर्थसामर्थ्यादवसेयाः-इत्येकदेशाविवर्तनात् एकदेशविवर्ति । यथा — जस्स रन्नतेउरए करे कुणतस्स मण्डलगलअम् । जस्स रससमुही वि सहसा परमुही होइ रिसेणा ॥ ३१ ॥

· · ·

यथा—

· · ·

कुत्रापि वाञ्छानि स्तिमितयति गीतध्वनिषु यत्

· · ·

सखीं कान्तोदन्तं श्रुतमपि पुनः प्रक्षयति यत्।

· · ·

अनिद्रं यचान्तः स्वपिति तदहो वेद्म्यभिनवां

· · ·

प्रहृष्टोऽस्याः सक्तु हृदय मनसिजः प्रेमलतिकाम्॥ ३२ ॥

· · ·

माला तु पूर्ववत् ॥ ८ ॥

· · ·

मालोपमायामिवैकस्मिन् बहव आरोपिताः ।

· · ·

यथा—

· · ·

सौन्दर्यस्य तरङ्गिणी तरुणिमोत्कर्षस्य हर्षोद्रमः

· · ·

कान्तेः कार्मणकर्म नरहरसामुज्झासनावासभूः ।

· · ·

विद्या वक्रोक्तिरां विधेरनवधिप्रविण्यसाक्षाक्रिया

· · ·

बाणाः पञ्चशिलोमुखस्य ललनाचूडामणेः सा प्रिया ॥ ३३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ९ ]

नियतारोपणोपायः स्यादारोपः परस्य यः । तत् परंपरितं शिष्टे वाचके भेदभाजि वा ॥ ९ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३४ ]

विद्यामानसहंस वैकल्यकलिकोचदोद्युतेः दुर्गामर्गणनीललोहित समित्स्विकारवैश्वानर । सत्यप्रीतिविधानदक्ष विजयग्राभावभीम प्रभो साम्राज्यं वरवीर वत्सरशतं वैरिष्णुमुर्ध्वैः क्रिया: ॥ ३४ ॥

· · ·

यद्यपि शब्दार्थालङ्कारोऽयमयुक्तःम, वक्ष्यते च, तथापि प्रसिद्धानुरोधादुक्तः । एकदेशाविवर्ति हीदमन्यैरभिधीयते । तद्भदभाजि यथा —

· · ·

[ Sutra ३५ ]

आलानं जयकुञ्जरस्य दृशदां सेतुर्विपद्वारिवे: पूर्वोद्र: कवलाल्चणडमहसा लीलापधाने श्रिय: । सङ्ग्रामामृतसागरप्रमथनक्रिडाविधौ मन्दरो राजन् राजति वीरवैरिकनितावैऱ्यवदस्ते सुजः ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३६ ]

अत्र जयादेरिमाशब्दवाच्यस्य कुञ्जरत्वादौपे मुजसत्य आलानत्ववारोपो युज्यते । अलौकिकमहालोकप्रकाशितजगतय: । स्तूयते देव सद्दर्शामुक्तारलं न कैर्ववान् ॥

· · ·

निरवधि च निराश्रयं च यस्य स्थितमनिवर्तितकौतुकप्रपञ्चम् । प्रथम इह भवान् से कूर्ममूर्तिंर्जयति चतुर्दशालोकवल्लिकन्दः ॥ ३७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३८ ]

किसलयकैरैलितानां करकमलैः कामिनां मनो जयति । नलिनीनां कमलमुखेन मुखनुभियौषिता मदनः ॥ ३८ ॥

· · ·

प्रकृतं यत्रिषिद्यान्यत साध्यते सा त्वपहुति: । उपमेयम् असत्यं कृतोपमानं सत्यतया यत् स्थाप्यते सा तु अपहुति: ।

· · ·

अवाप्तः प्रागलभ्यं परिणतिरुचः शैलतनये कलङ्को नैवायं विलस्तति शशाङ्कस्य वपुषि ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 39 ]

अमुष्येयं मन्ये विगलदमृतस्पन्दशिशिरे रतिश्रान्ता शेते रजनिरमणी गाढमुरसि ॥ ३९ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 40 ]

बत सखि कियदेतत् पश्य वैरिं स्मरस्यक्रियविरहकृशेऽस्मिन् रागिलोके तथा हि । उपवनसहकारो द्वासिभृङ्गच्छलेन प्रतिबिशिखमनेनेङ्कितं तद्विदं कालकूटम् ॥ ४० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 41 ]

अमुष्मिन्निहावण्यामृतसरसि नूतने मृगदृशाम् स्मरः शर्वपलाशः पृथुजघनभागे निपतितः । यदङ्काज्जाराणां प्रशमपिशुना नामिकुभरे शिक्षां धूमस्येयं परिणमति रोमावलिपुः ॥ ४१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra (८) श्लेष: ]

श्लेषः से वाक्ये एकस्मिन्न् यत्रानेकार्थता भवेत् ॥ १० ॥ एकार्थप्रतिपादकानामेव शब्दानां यत्रानेकोऽर्थः स श्लेषः ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम् — उदयमयते दिड्मलिन्यं निराकुरुतेऽतरां नयति निधनं निद्रामुद्रां प्रवर्त्यति क्रिया: । रचयतितरां स्वैराचारप्रवर्तनकर्त्तनं बत बत लसतेजःपुञ्जो विभाति विभाकरः ॥ ४२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra (९) समासोक्ति: ]

परोक्तिंबेदकैः श्लिष्टैः समासोक्तिः प्रकृतार्थप्रतिपादकैः शब्दैः श्लिष्टविशेषणमाहात्मन्, नेह विलक्षणसामर्थ्योदपि, यत् अपकृतस्यानिधानं, सा समासेन संक्षेपणार्थद्वयकथनात् समासोक्तिः ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम् —

· · ·

लहिऊण तुज्झ बाहुफंसं जिए स को विउल्लासो । जइलच्छी तुह विरहे ण हूज्जला दुब्बला ण सा ॥ ४३ ॥

· · ·

निदर्शना

· · ·

क सूर्यप्रभवो वंश: क चालविषया मति: । नितीर्थदृष्टिस्तु तं मोहादुडुपेनैव सागरम् ॥ ४४ ॥

· · ·

यथा वा—

· · ·

[ Sutra ४५ ]

उदयति चिततोद्यरश्मिरजावहिमरुचौ हिमधाम्नि याति चास्तम् वहति गिरियं विलम्बिनिघण्टाद्रयपरिवारितवारणेन्द्रलीलाम् ॥ ४५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४६ ]

दोर्म्यां तितीर्षति तरङ्गवतीभुजङ्ग- मादातुमिच्छति करे हरिणाङ्कविम्बम् । मेर्नुं लिलङ्घयिषति ध्रुवमेष देव यस्ते गुणानू गदितुमममादधाति ॥ ४६ ॥

· · ·

अत्र, कथमन्यस्य लीलामन्यो वहत इति तत्सादृश्यमिल्युपमायां पर्यवसानम् । इत्यादौ मालारूपायेषा दृष्टव्या । स्वहेतुहेतुमयोक्तिः क्रियैव च सापरा । क्रिययैव स्वस्वरूप-स्वकारणयोः सम्बन्धो यदवगम्यते, सा अपरा निदर्शना ।

· · ·

उन्नतं पदमवाप्य यो लघुर्हेलयैव स पतदिति बूवन् । शैलशिखरगतो हषटकणश्वासरुमातुरधुतः पतत्यघः ॥ ४७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ११ ]

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा या सा सैव प्रस्तुताथ्रया ॥ १२ ॥

· · ·

कार्ये निमित्ते सामान्ये विशेषे प्रस्तुते सति । तदन्यस्य वचस्तुल्ये तय्यस्येति च पञ्चधा ॥ १३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४८ ]

याता: कि न मिलन्ति सुन्दरि पुनश्चिन्ता लया मल्कूते नो कार्यां नितरां कृशासि कथयतयैव श्वाष्पे मयि । लज्जामन्यतरार्केण निपतत्पीताश्रुणा चक्षुषा दृष्टा मां हसितेन भाविमरणोल्साहस्तया सूचित: ॥ ४८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४९ ]

राजन् राजसुता न पाठयति मां देव्योडपि तृण्णीं स्थिता: कुब्जे भोजय मां कुमारसचिवैर् नोऽपि किं भुज्यते । इत्यं नाथ शुक्तस्तवारिभवने मुक्तोडड्गवै: पञ्जरा- चित्रस्थानेवलोक्य शृण्वल्भावेकैकमाभाषते ॥ ४९ ॥

· · ·

एतत् तस्य मुखात् कियत् कमलिनीपात्रे कर्णं वारिणो यन्सक्तामणिरिल्यमस्ति स जुड: शण्‌वन्यदस्मादपि ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 50 ]

अङ्गुल्यग्रलक्षणुक्रियाप्रविलयिन्यादीयमाने शनैः करोति नो नृत्यं कुनोदीय गतौ ममेत्यनुदिनं निद्राति नान्तःशुचा ॥ ५० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 51 ]

स एव पूष्यः स पुरुषः स नीतिमान् सुजीवितं तस्य स भाजनं श्रियः ॥ ५१ ॥

· · ·

तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिधाने त्रयः प्रकाराः- श्लेषः, समासोक्ति;, साधर्म्यमात्रं वा, तुल्यात् तुल्यस्य व्याक्षेपा हेतुः । पुंस्त्वादपि प्रविश्लेदः यदि यघोऽपि नाशं गच्छेत् । यायाद् यदि प्रणयने न महानपि स्यात् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५२ ]

अभ्युद्यरत तदपि विश्वमतीदृशीयं केनापि दिक् प्रकटिता पुरुषोत्तमेन । येनासभ्युदितेन चन्द्र गमितः शान्तिं रौ तत्र ते युज्येत प्रतिकर्तुमेव न पुनस्तयैव पादग्रहः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५३ ]

क्षीणेनैतदनु दृष्टिं यदि ततः किं लज्जसे नो मनागस्वैव जडधामता तु भवतो यद् व्योक्त्रि विस्कूर्जसे । आदाय वारि परितः सरितां मुखेभ्यः किं तावदर्जितमनेन दुरण्विन क्षारीकृतं च वडवाधन हुतं च पातालकुक्षिकुहरे विनिवेशितं च ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५४ ]

इयं च कचिद् वाच्य प्रतीममानर्थानच्यारोपेणापि भवति । यथा-अन्धकारसभःस्थामितमवना मग्नौ पातालबुदे: पोतोपाया इह हि बहवो लघ्नेडपि क्षमन्ते ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 55 ]

आहो रिक्तः कथमपि भवेदेश दैवात् तदानीं को नाम स्यादवटकुहरालोकने उपस्य कल्पः । कचिदच्यारोपणैव । यथा — कस्यं भोः कथयामि दैवहतकं मां विद्धि शाखोटकं वैराग्यादिव वक्ति साधु विदितं कुस्मातिदैनं कथ्यते । वामेनात्र वटस्तमचगजनः सर्वात्मना सेवते न छायापि परोपकारकरणे मार्गस्थितस्पापि मे ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 56 ]

कचिद्वेश्यच्यारोपणम् । यथा — सोऽपूर्व रसनाविपर्ययविधिस्तत् करणयोः श्रापलं दृष्टिः सा मदविस्मृतस्वपरदृक् किं भूयसोक्तेन वा । सर्वं विस्मृतवानसि भ्रमर हे यद् वारणो ड्वायसा-वन्तःशून्यकरो निषेव्यत इति भ्रातः क एष ग्रहः ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १२ ]

अत्र रसनाविपर्य्यास: शून्यकरलं च भ्रमरस्य असेवने न हेतु:, कर्णचापलं तु हेतु:, मद: प्रत्युत सेवने निमित्तम्‌ ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १४ ]

निगीर्णाध्यवसानं तु प्रकृतस्य परेण यत्‌ । प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्यत्वं यद्यर्थोक्तौ च कल्पनम्‌ ॥ १४ ॥

· · ·

कार्यकारणयोरैश्व पौरवीपर्विपर्यय: ।विज्ञेयातिशयोक्ति: सा उपमानेनान्तर्निगीर्णस्योपमेयस्य यदध्यवसानं सैका । यथा — कमलमनम्बसि कमले च-ङुवळये तानी कनकलतिकायाम्‌ सा च सुकुमारसुभगे!युतपातपरम्परा केयम्‌ ॥ ५८ ॥

· · ·

अत्र मुखादि कमलादिरुपतयाsध्यवसितम्‌ । यच्च तद्वान्यथनाध्यवसायात, सा अपरा । यथा—

· · ·

अण्णं लड्डहट्ठणं अण्णा वि क वि वत्तणच्छाया । सामा सामरणपआवडणो रेह चिअ ण होइ ॥ ५९ ॥ [ अन्यत् सौकुमार्यमन्यैव च कापि वर्तनिच्छाया । श्यामा सामान्यप्रजापते: रेखैव च न भवति ॥ ]

· · ·

यदर्थस्य यदि सव्वदे चेच्छव्वदे ण वि उक्ख यत् कल्पनं, अर्थात असंभविनोऽर्थस्य, सा तृतीया । यथा राकायामकलङ्के चेदस्मतां शोम्भवेद् वपुः । तस्या मुखं तदा साम्यपराभववग्नानुयात( ॥ ६० ॥

· · ·

कारणस्य शीघ्रकारितां वक्तुं कार्यस्य पूर्वमुत्कृत्य चतुर्थी । यथा— हृदयमधिष्ठितमदौ मालल्या: कुसुमचापवाणेन । चरमं रमणीवरहृदयं लोचनविषयं त्वया भजता ॥ ६१ ॥

· · ·

(१३) प्रतिवस्तूपमा

· · ·

प्रतिवस्तूपमा तु सा ॥ १५ ॥

· · ·

सामान्यस्य द्विरेकस्य यत्र वाक्यद्वये स्थितिः । साधारणो धर्मः उपमेयवाक्ये उपमानवाक्ये च, कियत्पदत्वस्य साधारणो धर्मः उपमेयवाक्ये उपमानवाक्ये च । दुष्टतयाभिहितत्वात्, शब्दमेदेन यत् उपादीयते, सा वस्तुनो वाक्यार्थस्योपमानत्वात् प्रतिवस्तूपमा । यथा— कथं वा भार्यापदवीं गमिता परिवारपदं कथम् । न खलु परिभोगयोग्ये दैवतारुपाङ्गितं रत्नम् ॥ ६२ ॥ यदि दहन्यनलोऽत्र किमद्भुतं यदि च गौरवमदृश्यते किं ततः । लवणमम्भु सदैव महोदधेः प्रकृतिरेव सतामविषादिता ॥ ६३ ॥ इत्यादिका मालाप्रतिवस्तूपमा द्रष्टव्या । एवमन्यत्राप्यनुसर्तव्यम् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १६ ]

( १४ ) दृष्टान्तः हृष्टान्तः पुनरेतेषां सर्वेषां प्रतिबिम्बनम् ॥ १६ ॥ एतेषां साधारणधर्मीदीनांम् हृष्टोऽन्तः : निश्चयो यत्र स हृष्टान्तः । यथा—

· · ·

[ Sutra ६४ ]

लयि दृश्य एव तस्या निर्वाति मनो मनोभवज्वालितम् । आलोके हि हिमांशोरिव सतति कुसुमं कुसुद्रुल्या: ॥ ६४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ६५ ]

तथाहवे साहसकर्मशर्माण: करं कृपाणितमानिनिष्ठत: भ्रया: परेशां विरसार्हतमनुदर्शयत्वात् स्थिरतां हि पांसन: ॥ ६५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १७ ]

सकृद् वृत्तिसु धर्मस्य प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनाम् । सैव क्रिया सु बहुषु कारकस्येति दीपकम् ॥ १७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ६६ ]

किवणाणं घणं णआणं फणमणी केराराईँ सीहाणं । कुलवइआणं थणआ कुत्तो छिप्पण्ति अमुआणं ॥ ६६ ॥

· · ·

[ कृपणानां धनं नागानां फणमणि: केसर: सिंहानाम् । कुलवधूनां स्तना: कुत: स्पृश्यन्तेऽमृतानाम् ॥ ] कारकस्य च बहिषु क्रियासु सकृद् वृत्तिदीपकम् । यथा — स्विच्छति कूणति वेप्‍ल्रति विच्चलति निमिषति विलोकयति तियक् अन्‍तरन्‍दति चुम्बितुमिच्छति नवपरिणया वधू: शयन इति ॥ ६७ ॥

· · ·

मालादीपकमध्यं चेद् यथोत्तरगुणावहम् । पूर्वेण पूर्वेण वस्तुना उत्तमुत्तरं चेदुपक्रियते, तत् मालादीपकम्

· · ·

यथा — संग्रामाङ्गणमार्गेन भवता चापे समारोपिते देवाकर्णय येन येन सहसा यत् यत् समासादितम् । कोदण्डेन शरैरशिरास्तेनापि भूमण्डलं तेन ल्वं भवता च कीर्तितुला कीर्त्या च लोकत्रयम् ॥ ६८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १८ ]

( १७ ) तुल्ययोगिता कारक तुल्यपरिणामहत् । नितान्तां सकृद् धर्मः सा पुनस्तुल्ययोगिता ॥ १८ ॥ नितान्तां प्रकरणिकानामेव अप्रकरणिकानामेव वा । ऋमेणोदाहरणम् — पाण्डु क्षामं वदनं हृदयं सरसं त्वत्सं च वपुः । आवेदयति नितान्तं क्षेत्रियरोगं सखि हृदतः ॥ ६९ ॥ कुमुदकमलनीलनीरजालिलिलितविलासजुषोर्दशोः पुरः का । अमृतममृतरसम्रम्बुजन्म प्रतिहतमेकपदे तवाननस्य ॥ ७० ॥

· · ·

( १८ ) व्यतिरेकः उपमानाद् यदन्यस्य व्यतिरेकः स एव सः । अन्यस्योपमेयस्य, व्यतिरेक आधिक्यम् । क्षीणः क्षीणोऽपि शशी भूयो भूयोऽभिवर्धते नियम् । विरम प्रसाद सुन्दरी यौवनमनिवर्त्ती यातं तु ॥ ७१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १९ ]

इत्यादावुपमानस्योपमेयादाधिक्यमिति यत् केनचिदुक्तम् । तदयुक्तम् । अत्र यौवनगतास्यैषीक्यं हि विवक्षितम् । हेलोरुक्तावुक्तीनां त्रये साम्ये निवेदिते ॥ १९ ॥ शब्दार्थोभयान्वयादिति लेशेऽत्र वदन त्रिरष्ट तत् । व्यतिरेकस्य हेतुः उपमियगतसुल्कर्षनिमित्तम् उपमानगतमपकर्षकारणम् तयोर्द्वैयोरुक्तिः । एकतरस्य द्वयोर्या अनुक्तिर्यनुक्तिर्यम् । एतद्वेदचतुष्टयस्मुपमानो-पमेयभावे शब्देन प्रतिपादिते । आर्थेन च क्रमेणोक्ताश्वार एव भेदाः । आक्षेपे चोभये तावन्त एव । एवं द्वादश । एते श्रेष्ठेऽपि भवन्तीति चतुर्विंशतिभेदाः । क्रमेणोदाहरणम् —

· · ·

[ Sutra ७२ ]

असिमात्रसहायस्य प्रभूतारिपरिरामवे । अन्यतुच्छजनस्येव न स्मयोडस्य महाधृते: ॥ ७२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ७३ ]

अत्रैव तुच्छेति महाधृतैरियनयो: पर्य्येण युगपद्रानुपादाने ड्यतं भेदत्रयम् । एवम्‍येष्वापि दृश्य्यम् । अत्र इवशब्दस्य सदृशावाच्छब्दमौपम्यम् । असिमात्रसहायो डपि प्रभूतारिपरिरामवे । नैवान्‍यतुच्छजनवत् सर्गोऽडय महाधृति: ॥ ७३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ७५ ]

अत्रैवादि-तुल्यादि-पदविरह आक्शितैवोपमा । जितेन्द्रियतया सद्‌गुरुवृद्धान् निषेवण: । अतिगाढगुणस्यास्य नाब्जवद् भजुरा गुणा: ॥ ७५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ७६ ]

अत्रैवार्थे वति:, गुणवाच: श्लिष्ट:, शब्दमौपम्यम् । अखण्डमण्डल: श्रीमान् पृथ्वीश्वरपतिप्रियैष पृथिवीपतिः । न निशाकरवजातु कलाैकल्यमागतः ॥ ७६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ७७ ]

अत्र तुल्यार्थे वति:, कलाशब्द: श्लिष्ट:, अर्थमौपम्यम् । मालाप्रतिवस्तूपमावत् मालाव्यतिरेकोऽपि संभवति । तस्यापि मेदा एवमूह्या: । दिक्षु अत्रं चोदाहियते यथा — हरवन्न विषमदृशिरिविन्न विभो विधूतविततश्रृङः । रविवन्न चातिदु:सहकर्तापितभू: कदाचिदसी ॥ ७७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ७८ ]

अत्र तुल्यार्थे वति:, विषमादयश्शब्दा: श्लिष्टा: । अर्थमौपम्यम् । नित्योदितप्रतापेन त्रियामीलितप्रभः । भास्वताननेन भूपेन भाष्वानेष विनिर्जितः ॥ ७८ ॥

· · ·

अत्र व्याक्षिसैवोपमा । भाष्यतेति लिष्टः । यथा वा —

· · ·

[ Sutra ७९ ]

स्वच्छात्मतागुणसमुल्लसितेन्दुविम्बं विम्बप्रभापरमरक्तिमहृदयगन्धम् । यूनामतीव पिवतां रजनिषु यत्र तृणानि जहात मदhu नो नयनसङ्गतानाम् ॥ ७९ ॥

· · ·

अत्रैवादीनां तुल्यादीनां च पदनामभावे डपि व्लिष्टविशेषणैरेवाक्षिसोपमा प्रतীয়ते । एवंजातीयका: व्लिष्टोक्तियोग्यस्य पदस्य पृथगुपादाने डन्ये डपि मेता: संभव्न्ति । तेऽपि अनयैव दिशा द्रष्टव्या: ।

· · ·

[ Sutra २० ]

निषेधो वक्तुमिष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया ।। २० ।। वक्ष्यमाणोक्तविषय: स आक्षेपो द्विधा मतः ।

· · ·

विवक्षितस्य प्रकारणिकल्वादनुपसर्जनीकार्यस्य अशक्यवक्तव्यल्मतिप्रसिद्धत्वं वा विशेषं वक्तुं निषेधो, निषेध एव, यः स वक्ष्यमाणविषय उत्कविषयश्रेति द्विधा आक्षेपः । क्रमेणोदाहरणम् —

· · ·

[ Sutra ८० ]

ए एहि किंपि कीएवि कुण निक्किव भणामि अल्महु वा । अविआरिअकजारम्मआरिणी मरउ ण भणिस्सं ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ८१ ]

ज्योत्स्ना मौक्तिकदाम चन्दनरसः शीतांशुकान्तद्रवः कर्प्पूरं कदली मृणालवलयानम्भोजिनीपल्लवा: । अन्तर्मानसमास्वाद्या प्रभवता तस्या: स्कुलिङ्घोचकार-व्यापाराय भवन्ति हन्त किमनेनोक्तेन न ब्रूमहे ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २१ ]

क्रियाया: प्रतिषेधेऽपि फलनयक्तिविंभावना ।

· · ·

The denial i. e. an apparent denial of a thing intended to be said, which owing to its relevancy is unfit to be relegated to a subordinate position in order to express a special meaning [such as] the impossibility of expressing it or its being too well-known—that is two-fold Paralipsis, as it refers to what is about to be said and as it refers to what has been said. Illustrations in order—

· · ·

हेतुरुपक्रियाया: निषेधे डपि तत्फलप्रकाशनं विभावना । यथा — कुसुमितलताभिरतान्यधत्त रजमलिनुल्लेद्रागपि । परिवर्तते स्म नालीनलहरीभिरिलो लितापाङ्गूर्णिता सा ॥ ८२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २१ ]

(२१) विशेषोक्ति: विशेषोक्तिरवक्षण्डयतु कारणेऽपि फलावच: मिलते ऽपि कारणे कार्यस्याकथनं विशेषोक्ति: । अनुक्तनिमित्ता, उक्तनिमित्ता, अचिन्त्यानिमित्ता च । ऋमेणोदाहरणम्— निद्रानिवृत्तावुदिते धुरत्ने सखीजनैर्द्वारपदं परासे । शथीरीकृतालसेशरसे भुजंगो चचाल नालिड्नतो डङ्गना सा ॥ ८३ ॥

· · ·

कर्पूर इव दग्धोऽपि शक्तिमान् यो जने जने । नमोऽस्त्ववार्यवीर्यीय तस्मै मकरकेतवे ॥ ८४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ८५ ]

स एकबीणि जयति जगन्ति कुसुमायुध: । हरतापि तनुं यस्य शंभुना न हतं बलम् ॥ ८५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३३ ]

यथासंख्यं क्रमेणौव कामिकानां समन्वय: ॥ ३३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ८६ ]

एकसिधा वसति चेतसि चित्रमत्र देव द्विषां च विदुषां च मृगिदृशां च । तापं च संमदरसं च रतिं च पुष्णन् शौर्योस्मणा च विनयेन च लीलया च ॥ ८६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २३ ]

सामान्यं वा विशेषो वा तदनन्तेन समर्थ्यते । यत्र सोऽर्थान्तरन्यास: साधर्म्येणैतरेण वा ॥ २३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 87 ]

निजदोषाऽऽत्मनसाम्यतिसुन्दरमेव भाति विपरीतम् । परस्यति पित्तोपहतः शशिशुभ्रेऽपि शङ्खमपि पीतम् ॥ ८७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 88 ]

सुचितवसनालङ्कारायां कदाचन कौमुदी - महासि सुदृशि स्वैरं यान्त्यां गतोऽस्तमभूद् विधुः । तदन्तु भवतः कीर्ति: केनाप्यगीयत, येन सा प्रियगृहमगान्मुक्तराधा, क नासीत् शुभप्रदः ॥ ८८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 89 ]

गुणानामेव दुरात्म्याद् धुरि धुर्यो नियुज्यते । असज्जातकिणस्येव सुवर्य स्वपिति गौर्गलि: ॥ ८९ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 90 ]

अहो हि मे बहुपराद्मायुषा यदप्रियं वाच्यमिदं मयेदृशम् । त एव धन्याः सुहृदः पराभवं जगत्यदृष्ट्वैव हि ये क्षयं गताः ॥ ९० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 24 ]

विरोधः सङविरोधेऽपि विरुद्धत्वेन यद् वचः । वस्तुवृत्यन्वयविरोधेऽपि विरुद्धयोरिव यदभिधानं स विरोधः । जातिश्रुतितद्भिज्ञात्याद्यैर्विरुद्धा स्वाद् गुणक्रियाभिः ॥ २४ ॥ क्रिया द्वाभ्यामथ द्रव्यं द्रव्येणैवेति ते दश ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ९१ ]

अभिनवनालीनिकिसलयमृणालवलयादि दवदहनराशि:। सुभग कुरङ्गदृशो डस्या विधिवशतस्वदृगयोगपविपाते ॥ ९१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ९२ ]

गिरयोडडयनुरक्तपतयुग्मा मरुद्वयेन चलेलो डस्या ड्यनुरागभीः । विश्वंभरा डयतिलघुनर्ननाथ तवान्तिके नियतम ॥ ९२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ९३ ]

येषां कण्ठपरिग्रहप्रणयितां संग्राम्य धाराधर- स्त्रीक्षण: सो ड्यनुरक्तये च कमपि स्नेहं परामोति च । तेषां संगरसज्जसक्तमनसां राज्ञां त्वया भूपते पांसूनां पटलै: प्रसाधनविधिनिर्वर्यंते कौतुकम ॥ ९३ ॥

· · ·

That is Contradiction, which represents a statement of [two things being] as though contradictory, even when in reality there is no contradiction between them. A genus may be incongruous with the four viz. a generality and others [viz. a quality, an action and a substance]; a quality with three viz. a quality, an action and a substance; an action also with two viz. an action and a substance; and a substance with a substance only—thus those ten.

· · ·

[ Sutra ९४ ]

सृजति च जगदिसंवति च संहरति च हेलयैव यो नियतम् । अवसरवशात् शफरो जनार्दनः सोऽपि चित्रमिदम् ॥ ९४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ९५ ]

सततं मुसलासक्ता बहुतरगृहकर्मघटनया तृप्ते । द्विजपल्नीनां कठिना: सति भवति करा: सरोजसुकुमारा: ॥ ९५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ९७ ]

क्रौञ्चाद्रिदृढमघददूषडोऽसौ यन्मार्गणाननर्गलितशातपाते । अभूतवाम्भोजदलभजातः स भागीव सत्यमपूर्ववर्सी: ॥ ९७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ९८ ]

परिच्छेदातीत: सकलवचनानामविष्य: पुनर्जन्मनस्यस्मिननुभवपर्थ यो न गतवान् । विवेकप्रभासादुपचितमहामोहगहनो विकार: कोऽयन्तर्जडयति च तापं च कुरुत ॥ ९८ ॥

· · ·

९ 'सुतत्वो' इत्यपि पाठ: ।

· · ·

अयं वारामेको निल्येति रत्नाकर इति श्रितोऽस्माभिस्तृणातरलितमनोभिर्‌जलनिधिः । क एवं जानोते निजकरपुटीकोटरगतं क्षणादेनं ताम्यतिमिमकरमपश्यति मुनीन्‌ ॥ ९९ ॥

· · ·

समदमतङ्गजमदजलनिस्यन्दतरङ्गिणीपरीषद्य्यात । क्षितितिलक त्वयि तत्क्षणि शंकरचूडामणापि कालिन्दी ॥ १०० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २५ ]

( २५ ) स्वभावोक्ति:

· · ·

स्वभावोक्तिस्तु डिम्बादेः स्वक्रियारूपवर्णनम् ॥ २५ ॥

· · ·

स्वयोस्‍तदेकाश्रययोः । रूपं वर्णः संस्थानं च । उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

पश्चादड्‌ङ्घ्री प्रसार्य त्रिकलतिविततं द्राघयित्वासुचै- रसृज्याम्‍सुग्रकर्णतां मुखसुधास्रटं स्फोट धूलिधूस्रीं विधूय ।

· · ·

घासग्रासाभिलाषादनवरतचलव्योऽतुण्डैः स्थलैः श्वासोच्छ्वासविलासदुर्ललितया शय्याद्रुतिं क्षामां खुरैः ॥ १०१ ॥ मन्दं शब्दायमानो विलिखति शयनादुत्थितः क्ष्मां खुरेण ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २६ ]

व्याजस्तुतिः

· · ·

व्याजस्तुतिर्‍मुखे निन्दा स्तुतिर् वा रुदिरन्या । व्याजरुपा वा स्तुतिः । ऋमेणोदाहरणम्- हित्वा लामुपरोधवन्‍यमनसां मन्ये न मौलिः परो लज्जावर्जनमन्त्रणं न रमामान्यत्र संशयते । यस्यां तनुतरां मुखश्रिततरेरायाश्रितया श्रियः प्राप्य त्यागकृतावमाननमपि लभ्येव यस्या स्थितिः ॥ १०२ ॥

· · ·

हे हेलाजितबोधिसत्त्व वचसां किं विस्तरैरस्त्योधयेक नास्ति वत्सदृशः परः परहिताधाने गुहीतव्रतः । तृष्यतां जन्तुनोपकारघटनावैमुख्यलब्धयशो- भारप्रोद्भने करोति कृपया साहायकं यन्मरः ॥ १०३ ॥

· · ·

९ 'व्याजरुपा व्याजेन वा' इति प्रायः सर्वेषु मुद्रित पुस्तकेषु पाठः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra २७ ]

सा सहोक्तिः सहार्थस्य वलादेकं द्विवाचकम् ॥ २६ ॥

· · ·

सह दिवसाणिशिभिः दीहरा सासदण्डा सह माणिक्यवेहिं वप्पधारा गलन्ति । तुहु सुहअ विओए तिअ उव्विगिरिअए सह अ तणुलदाए दुव्वला जीवितासा ॥ १०४ ॥

· · ·

विनोक्तिः सा विनान्येन यत्रान्यः सन्न नेतरः ।

· · ·

काचिदशोभनः, काचिच्छोभनः । ऋमेणोदाहरणम् —

· · ·

[ Sutra १०५ ]

अरुचिर्निशया विना राशी राशिना वापि विना महत् तमः । उभयेन विना मनोभवस्फुरितं नैव चकास्ति कामिनोः ॥ १०५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १०६ ]

मृगालोचनया विना विचित्रव्यवहारप्रतिभाप्रभाप्रगलबः । अमृतयुतसरसाशयैडय सुहृदा तं विना नरेंद्रसुतः ॥ १०६ ॥

· · ·

(२९) परिवृत्ति:

· · ·

[ Sutra २७ ]

परिवृत्तिरविनिमयो योद्धॄणां स्यात् समासमैः । २७ ।

· · ·

परिवृत्तिरलंकारः । उदाहरणम् —

· · ·

[ Sutra १०७ ]

लतानामेतासामुदितकुसुमानां मरुदयं मतं लास्यं दत्वा श्रयति भृशामोदमसम्मम् । लतास्ववचव्यनानामहह दशमादाय सहसा ददत्याधि च्याभिरुदितमोहव्यतिकरम् ॥ १०७ ॥

· · ·

अत्र प्रथमडर्धे समं समस्स, द्वितीये उत्तमेन न्यूनस्य ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १०८ ]

नानाविधप्रहरैर्‌निप संग्रहारे स्वीकृत्य दारुणनिनादवत: प्रहारान् । त्सारिवीरविसरण वसुंधरेयं निर्विंप्रमथमपारेरिम्भविर्धर्त्तीर्णा ॥ १०८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३० ]

प्रत्यक्षा इव यद् भाव: क्रियन्ते भूतभाविन: । तद् भाविकम् सूत्राक्ष भाविन्श्वेति द्वन्द्व: । भाव: कवेरमिप्रायो डत्रास्तीति भाविकम् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १०९ ]

आसीदक्जनमत्रोति पश्यामि तव लोचने । भाविभूषणसंभारां साक्षात्कुर्ये तवाकृतिम् ॥ १०९ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २८ ]

काव्यलिङ्ं हेतोर्‌वाक्यपदार्थता ॥ २८ ॥

· · ·

वाक्यार्थता यथा—

· · ·

वपु:प्रादुर्भावदनुमितमिंदे जन्मनि पुरा

· · ·

पुरारे न प्राय: क्वचिदपि भवन्तं प्रणतवान् ।

· · ·

नमनमुक्त: संप्रत्यहमतुरगे ड्यनतिभाकू

· · ·

महेश क्षन्तव्यं तदिदमपराधद्वयमपि ॥ ११० ॥

· · ·

अनेकपदार्थता यथा—

· · ·

प्रणविसृक्सलिललीलपरिहाससाधिगतै:

· · ·

ललितशिरीषपुष्पह्नननैरपि ताम्यति यत् ।

· · ·

वपुषि वध्याय तत्र तव शस्त्रमुपक्षिपत:

· · ·

पत्तु शिरस्यकाoण्डयमदण्ड इवैष भुज: ॥ १११ ॥

· · ·

एकपदार्थता यथा—

· · ·

भस्मोद्धूलन भद्रमस्तु भवते रुद्राक्षमाले शुभं

· · ·

हा सोपानपरम्परां गिरिसुताकान्त! त्यालंकृतिम् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 110 ]

In the following a reason is represented as being the sense of a sentence—

· · ·

[ Sutra 111 ]

In the following a reason is represented as being the sense of many words—

· · ·

In the following a reason is represented as being the sense of one word—

· · ·

[ Sutra ११२ ]

अद्याराधनतोषितेन विष्णुना युष्मत्सपर्यासुखा लोकोच्छेदिनि मोक्षनान्नि महामोहे निधीयामहे ॥ ११२ ॥

· · ·

(३२) पर्यायोक्तम्

· · ·

पर्यायोक्तं विना वाच्यवाचकत्वेन यद् वचः । वाच्यवाचकभावव्यतिरिक्तेनावगमनव्यापारेण यत् प्रतिपादनम्, तत् पर्यीयेण मध्यान्तरेग कथनात पर्यायोक्तम् । उदाहरणम्— यं श्रेक्स्य चिररूढापि निवासप्रीतिरुज्झता । मदनेरावणमुखे मानेन हृदये हरे: ॥ ११३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ११३ ]

यं श्रेक्स्य चिररूढापि निवासप्रीतिरुज्झता । मदनेरावणमुखे मानेन हृदये हरे: ॥ ११३ ॥

· · ·

दष्टे 'गौ: शुचुश्र्वलति' इति विकल्प:। यदेव दष्टं तदेव विकल्पयति, न तु यथा दष्टं तथा। यतोऽभिन्नावसंस्थौलेन दष्टं भेदसंसरागोभ्यां विकल्पयति।

· · ·

[ Sutra २९ ]

(३३) उदात्तं वस्तुनः संपत्, महत्वं चोपलक्षणम् ॥ २९ ॥

· · ·

संपत् समृद्धिर्यथा— मुक्ता: कैलिसुस्र्रुतहारगलिता: संमार्जनीभिर्हिता: प्राप्त: प्राङ्गणसीमनि मथरचलद्वालाट्टालिलाक्षारणा: । दूराद् दाडिमबीजशड्क्रितिभि: कर्बन्ति कैलिसुकाः यदू विह्ह्रद्वनेषु भोजनपतेस्त्यागलीलायितम् ॥ ११४ ॥

· · ·

उपलक्षणमद्धभाव:, अथादुपलक्षणीये डयं । उदाहरणम-- तदिदमरयं यस्मिन् दशरथवचनानुपालनव्यसनी । निवसन् बाहुसहायश्शकार रक्ष:क्षयं राम: ॥ ११५ ॥

· · ·

दशम उल्लासः

· · ·

न चात्र वीरो रसः, तस्येहाङ्गत्वात् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ३४ ]

( ३४ ) समुच्चयः

· · ·

तत्सिद्धिहेतावेकस्मिन् यत्रान्यत् तत्करं भवेत् ।

· · ·

समुच्चयोऽत्र

· · ·

तस्य प्रस्तुतस्य कार्यस्य एकस्मिन् साधके सति ये तत्र साधकान्तराणि यत्र संभवन्ति, स समुच्चयः ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम्--

· · ·

दुर्वीरा: स्मरमर्गणा: प्रियतmo दूरेऽपि मनोंत्पत्सुकं

· · ·

गाढं प्रेम नवं वयोऽतिकठिनाः प्राणाः कुलं निर्मलम् ।

· · ·

क्षीणं धैर्यविरोधि मनःसुहृद्कालः कृतान्तोऽक्षमो

· · ·

नो सख्यश्वतुरा: कथं नु विरहः सोढव्य इष्यं शठः ॥ ११६ ॥

· · ·

अत्र विरहमहकं स्मरमार्गणं चैव कृतान्तः ।

· · ·

तदुपरि प्रियतमदूरस्थित्यादि उपात्तम् ।

· · ·

एष एव समुच्चयः सयोगेऽस्योगे सदसद्योगे च पर्यवस्यतीति न पृथक् लक्ष्यते। तथाहि--

· · ·

कुलमालिन्यं भद्रा मूर्तिमती श्रुतशालिनी भुजवलमलं स्फीता लक्ष्मीः प्रभुत्वमरंडिततमा। प्रकृतिसुभगा होते भावा अमीभिरयं जनो व्रजति सुतरां दर्प राजेष्ट एवं तवाडकुशः॥ ११७ ॥

· · ·

अत्र सर्तां योगः। उदाहरणे त्वस्तां योगः। शश्वी दिवसधूसरो गलितयौवना कामिनी सरो विगतवारिजं मुखमनक्षरं स्वाकृतेः। प्रभुधननिपायणः सततदुःगतः सजनो नृपाज्ञागतः खलो मनसी सम शल्यानी मे॥ ११८ ॥

· · ·

अत्र शाशिनि धूसरे शल्ये शल्यान्तराणीति शोभनाशोभनयोगः। स त्वन्यो युगपद् या गुणक्रिया: ॥ ३० ॥

· · ·

गुणौ च क्रिये च गुणक्रिये च गुणक्रिया: | क्रमेणोदाहरणम्-- विदद्लितसकलारिकुलं तव बलमिदमभवदाशु विमलं च । प्रखलमुखानि नराधिप मालिनानि च तानि जातानि ॥ ११९ ॥ अयमेकपदे तयावियोग: प्रियया चोपनत: सुदु:सहो मे | नववारिररोदयादहोभिर्वितव्यं च निरातपत्रवर्म्यै: ॥ १२० ॥ कल्याणं च तवाहितेषकस्मात् सितपङ्केरुहसोदरश्री चक्षु: | पतितं च महीपतीन्द्र तेषां वपुषि प्रस्कुटमापदां कटाक्षै: ॥ १२१ ॥ 'धुनोति चार्सि तनुते च कीर्तिम्'-इत्यादे:, 'कृपाणपाणिश्च भवान् रणक्षितौ ससाधुवादाश्र सु: सुरालये'-इत्यादेश दर्शनात्, 'व्यधिकारणे' इति 'एकस्मिन् देशे' इति च न वाच्यम् ।

· · ·

One thing successively in many places gives rise to the figure Succession.

· · ·

एकं वस्तु ऋमेणाने कस्मिन् भवति क्रियते वा, स पर्यायः । ऋमेणोदाहरणम्—

· · ·

नवाश्रयस्थितिरियं तव कालकूट केनोत्तरोटरविशिष्टपदोपदिष्टा । प्राणान्तकृत हृदये वृषलक्षणोऽपि कण्ठेऽघुना वसासि वाचि पुनः खलानाम् ॥ १२२ ॥

· · ·

यथा वा— विम्बोष्ठ एव रागस्ते तावत् पूर्वमदृश्यत । अधुना हृदयेऽप्येष मृगशावाक्षि लक्ष्यते ॥ १२३ ॥

· · ·

रागस्य वस्तुतो भेदेऽप्यकृतयाऽव्यससितलादेव कथमविरुद्धम् । तं ताण सिरिसहोअररअणाहरणम्मि हिअअमेकरसम्म । विम्वाहरे पिअणं णिवेसिअं कुसुमबाणेण ॥ १२४ ॥

· · ·

[ तत् तेषां श्रीसहोदरल्लाभरणे हृदयमेकरसम् । बिस्वाधरे प्रियाणां निवेशितं कुषुमवाणेन ॥ ]

· · ·

अन्यस्ततोऽन्यथा ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १२५ ]

अनेकेमेकस्मिन् ऋमेण भवति क्रियते वा, सोऽन्यः । ऋमेणोदाहरणम् — मधुरिमरुचिर्वचः खलानाममृतमहो प्रथमं पृथु व्यनक्ति । अथ कथयति मोहहेतुमन्तर्गतमिव हालहलं विषं तदेव ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १२६ ]

तद् गेहं नतमित्ति मन्दिरमिदं लब्धावकाशं दिवः सा घेनुर्जरती नदन्ति करिणामेता घनाभा घटाः । स शूद्रो मुसलहस्तिः कलमिन्दं संगीतंकं योषिताम् आश्रर्य दिवसैद्रिजोऽप्यमियर्तां भूमिं समारोपितः ॥

· · ·

अत्र एकस्यैव हानोपादानयोरविवक्षितत्वात् न परिक्रितः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ३१ ]

अनुमानं तदुक्तं यत् साध्यसाधनयोरवचः ॥

· · ·

पक्षधर्मान्वयव्यतिरेकिलेन त्रिरुपो हेतुः साधनम् । धर्मिणि अयोगव्यवच्छेदो व्याप्तिकस्य साध्यम् । यथा—

· · ·

यत्रैता लहरीचलाचलदशो व्याप्रायन्ति शुरवं यत् तत् तत्रैव पतन्ति सततममी मर्मसृप्रूशो

मार्गणाः । तच्चक्षुकोरकपोतवेश्मतिरपक्षैः शिथिलप्रहृत्कृतः शोकावलयप्रत एव शासनधरः सत्यं सदासां स्मरः ॥ १२७ ॥

· · ·

साध्यसाधनयोः पौर्वापर्यविकल्पे न किचिद् वैचित्र्यमिति न तथा दर्शितम् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ३७ ]

( ३७ ) परिकरः

· · ·

विशेषणैर्यात् साकृतैरुक्तिः परिकरस्तु सः । अर्थाद् विशेष्यस्य । उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

A reason, which has three characteristics in its capacity of being the attribute of the thing in connection with which something is being proved ( pakṣadharmaḥ ), of being present in a place ascertained to possess the thing to be proved ( aniayaḥ ) and of absent from a place ascertained not to possess the thing to be proved ( iyatirekaḥ ), becomes a proving mark, The absence of the cessation of connection of the more extensive with the thing which possesses the property [ of being connected with the reason ] is conclusion. For example—

· · ·

Since these vital-touching arrows always fall there only, where these ladies, whose eyes are tremulous like waves, direct their eye-brow, therefore, angry Cupid, obedient to, their command, always runs just in front of them, with his hand moving amongst arrows fixed on the bow turned into a circle.

· · ·

There is no strikingness whatsoever in the inversion ( vikalpah ) of the regular order of the conclusion and the reason. Hence an Inference of that kind ( tathā ) has not been shown.

· · ·

But when there is a statement with adjectives that are possessed of significance, that is the Significant.

· · ·

The statement of course of the substantive. Here is an illustration—

· · ·

[ Sutra १२८ ]

महौजसो मानधना धनार्चिता धनुर्मृते: संयति वध्यकीर्तय: । न संहतास्तस्य न भेदवृत्तय: प्रियाणि वाच्छलन्यसुमि: समीहितुम् ॥ १२८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३२ ]

व्याजोक्तिरच्छन्नोद्दिरिवस्तुरूपनिगृहनम् ॥ ३२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १२९ ]

हा शैल्यं तुहिनाचलस्य करयोरिल्योचिवान् सामितं शैलेन्द्रैः परमात्ममण्डलगणैडष्टे ड्वतादृक् वः शिवः ॥ १२९ ॥ अत्र पुलकत्वेपथू साच्चिकारूपतया प्रसृतौ शैत्यकारणतया प्रकाशितत्वादप-लपितस्वरूपौ व्याजोक्तिं प्रयोजयतः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ३३ ]

किंचित् पृष्ठमपृष्ठं वा कथितं यत् प्रकल्पते । तद्गन्वयवपोहाय परिसंख्या तु सा स्मृता ॥ ३३ ॥

· · ·

प्रमाणान्तरावगतं वपि वस्तु शब्देन प्रतिपादितं प्रयोजनान्तराभावात् सदृशव-स्त्वन्तरव्यच्छेदाय यत् पर्यवस्यति, सा भवेत् परिसंख्या । अत्र च कथनं प्रश्कपूर्वकं तदन्यथा च परिदृश्यते । तथा उभयत्र व्यपोहमात्रस्य प्रतीममानता वाच्यत्वं चोति चत्वारो भेदाः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १३० ]

किमासेव्यं पुंसां सुविधमनवयं धुसरितः किमेकान्ते ध्येयं चरणयुगलं कौस्तुभभृतः । किमाराध्यं पुण्ये किमभिलषणीयं च करुणा यदासक्या चेतो निरवधिविमुक्त्यै प्रभवति ॥ १३० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १३१ ]

किं भूषणं सुचदमत्र यशो न रत्ने किं कार्यमार्यचरिते सुकृतं न दोषः । किं चक्षुःप्रतिहतं घिषणा न नेत्रं जानाति कस्यदपरः सदसद्विवेकम् ॥ १३१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १३२ ]

कौटिल्यं कचनिचये करचरणाधरदलेपु रागस्ते । काठिन्यं कुचयुगले तरलत्वं नयनयोरवसतति ॥ १३२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १३३ ]

भक्तिरभवे न विभवे व्यसनं शाखे न युवतिकामाखे । चिन्ता यशसि न च पुष्टि प्रायः परिदृश्यते महताम् ॥ १३३ ॥

· · ·

( १० ) कारणमाला

· · ·

यथोत्तरं चेत् पूर्वस्य पूर्वस्यार्थस्य हेतुता ।

· · ·

तदा कारणमाला स्यात्

· · ·

उत्तरसूत्रं प्रति यथोत्तरम् ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम्-

· · ·

जितेन्द्रियत्वं विनयस्य कारणं गुणप्रकर्षो विनयाद्‌वाव्यत ।

· · ·

गुणप्रकर्षेण जनो डनुरज्यते जनानुरागप्रभवा हि संपदः ।। १३४ ।।

· · ·

'हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानममेदतो हेतुः'

· · ·

इति हेत्वलङ्कारोदत्र न लक्षितः ।

· · ·

आयुघृतमित्यादिरुपो होष न भूपणतां

· · ·

कदाचिदहीति, वैचित्र्याभावात् ।

· · ·

अविरलकमलविकासः सकल्लोलिमदश्र् कोकिलानन्दः ।

· · ·

रम्यो डयमेति संप्रति लोकोक्ठाकः कालः ।। १३५ ।।

· · ·

इतत्र काव्यरूपतां कोमलानुप्रासमहिहैव सामास्रसिघुः, न तु हेत्वलङ्कार-

· · ·

कल्पनया- इति पूर्वोक्तः काव्यलिङ्गमेव हेतुः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४१ ]

अन्योन्यम् क्रियया तु परस्परम् ॥ ३४ ॥

· · ·

( ४२ ) उत्त्रम् उत्तरश्रुतिमात्रः ।

· · ·

प्रक्षस्योत्तरं यत्र क्रियते, तत्र वा सति ॥ ३५ ॥ असकृद् यदसंभाव्यमुत्तरं स्यात् तदुत्त्रम् ।

· · ·

प्रतिवचनोपलम्भादेव पूर्ववाक्यं यत्र कल्प्यते, तदकं तावदुत्तरम् ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

वाणिअ हत्यिदन्ता कुतो अम्हाण वग्घकित्ती अ । जाव लुलिआलअमुही घरम्मि परिसक्कऐ सोहा ॥ १३७ ॥

· · ·

[ वाणिजक हस्तिदन्ताः कुतोऽस्माकं व्याघ्रकृत्तयश्व । यावत् लुलितालकसुभ्रू गृहे परिसंक्रमति स्नुषा ॥ ]

· · ·

हस्तिदन्तव्याघ्रकृत्तीनामहर्मी, ताः मून्येन प्रयच्छेति क्रेतृवचनम् असुना वाक्येन समुन्रीयते

· · ·

न चैतत् काव्यलिङ्गम् । उत्तरस्य तादृग्यालुपपत्तेः । न हि प्रकृतस्य प्रति-वचनं जनको हेतुः । नापीदनुमानम् । एकधर्मिनिष्ठतया साध्यसाधनयोरनिदेशाद्

· · ·

-इत्यलङ्कारान्तरेवोत्तरं साधीयः ।

· · ·

प्रश्नादनन्तरं लोकातिक्रान्तगोचरतया यत् असंभाव्यरूपं प्रतिवचनं स्यात्, तत् अपरसूत्रम् । अनयोक्ष सकृदुपादाने न चारुताप्रतीतिरित्यसकृदियुक्तम् ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम्

· · ·

का विसमा देवर्गई कि दुल्कहं जं जणो गुणम्गाही । किं सोक्खं सुकलंतं कि दुक्खं जं खलो लोओ ॥ १३८ ॥ [ का विषमा दैवगतिः कि दुर्लभं यजनो गुणग्राही । कि सौख्यं सुकलत्रे कि दुःखं यत् खलो लोकः ॥ ]

· · ·

[ Sutra ४३ ]

कुतोडपि लक्षितः सूक्ष्मोऽर्थोऽन्यस्मै प्रकाश्यते ॥ ३६ ॥ धर्मेण केनचिद् यत्र तत् सूक्ष्मं परिचक्षते । कुतोडपि आकारादिदृष्टितादृक् । सूक्ष्मस्तीक्ष्णमतीसंवेदः । उदाहरणम्— वक्रोक्तिन्द्रियवेदबिन्दुप्रकृतंचै— दृष्ट्वा मित्रे कुरुकुलेऽपि कण्ठे । पुंसत्वं तन्व्या व्यजयन्ती वयस्या स्मित्वा पाणौ खड्गलेवां लिलेख ॥ १३९ ॥

· · ·

अत्र आकृतिमालोक्य कयापि वितर्कितं पुरुषायितम् असिलतालेखनेन वैदग्याद्‌भिव्यक्तिसुपनतम्। पुंसामेव कृपाणपाणिता, योग्यल्वात्। यथा वा— संकेतकालमनसं विटं ज्ञात्वा विदग्धया । हस्तनेत्रार्पिताकूतं लीलापदं निमीहितम्॥ १४० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३७ ]

उत्तरोटरमुत्कर्षो भवेत् सारः परावधिः ।। ३७ ।। पर: पर्यन्तभाग: अवधिरियस्य, धाराधिरोहितया ततैवोल्कर्षस्य विश्रान्ते: ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम्— राज्ये सारं वसुधा वसुधायां पुरं पुरे सौधम्। सौधे तल्पं तल्पे वराङ्गनाऽ‌ऽनङ्गसरस्वसम्॥ १४१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४५ ]

असंगतिः

· · ·

मिन्नदेशतयात्यन्तं कार्यकारणभूतयोः।

· · ·

युगपद् धर्मयोश्चेत् ह्यायातिः सा स्यादसंगतिः॥ ३८॥

· · ·

इह यद्देशं कारणम्, तद्देशमेव कार्यमुपपद्यमानं दृष्टम्, यथा धूमादि

· · ·

यत्र तु हेतुफललहरूपयोरपि धर्मयोः केनाप्यतिशयेन नानादेशतया युगपददर्शनम्,

· · ·

सा तयोः स्वभावोत्पन्नपरस्परसंगतित्यागात् असंगतिः। उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

जस्सेअ वणो तस्सेअ वेअणा भणइ तं जणो अलिअं।

· · ·

दंतक्खअं कवोले कहूए वेअणा सवत्तिअं॥ १४२॥

· · ·

[ यस्मै ऋणस्तस्यैव वेदना भणति तजनोडलोकम्।

· · ·

दंतक्षतं कपोले वधा वेदना सपल्नीना॥ ]

· · ·

एषा च विरोधवाधिनी न विरोधः। मिन्नाधारतयैव द्वयोरिह विरोधिताया:

· · ·

प्रतिभासात्। विरोधे तु विरोधिलं एकाश्रयणि स्थितमनुक्तमपि पर्यवसितम्।

· · ·

आपातविषयपरिहारेणोत्तरस्य व्यवस्थतः। तथा चैवं निदर्शितम्।

· · ·

Where two properties, that are related to each other as effect and cause, are represented as simultaneously residing in totally different places, that would be Incongruity.

· · ·

Here the effect is seen to be produced in that very region where-in the cause exists, as smoke and the like. But where two properties, though of. the form of cause and effect, simultaneously become manifest as residing in different places owing to some peculiar excellence that is Incongruity, so called owing to the abandonment of their mutual association created by nature. To illustrate—

· · ·

People say, ‘He, who alone has a wound, himself feels the pain’ — that is false. A wound with a tooth is seen on the cheek of a lady and the pain is observed in the case of co-wives.

· · ·

And this is an exception to Contradiction, not Contradiction itself; for contradiction between two [ properties known to reside in one place ] appears here only on account of their residing in different supports. But in Contradiction the contradiction which gives rise to the figure arises from the one abode of two things, which are known to reside in different places. This particular characteristic of contradiction viz. belonging to one suppport, which is necessary for the figure Virodha, though not stated ultimately follows. For, a general rule finds its scope by avoiding the province of the exception. And so in that way illustrations are quoted for the figure Virodha.

· · ·

( ४६ ) समाधिः

· · ·

समाधिः सुकरं कार्य कारणान्तरयोगतः ।

· · ·

साधनान्तरोपकृततें कर्त्तरी यद् अक्लेशेन कार्यमारब्धमाधीयते, स

· · ·

समाधिनोऽम् । उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

मानमस्या निराकऱ्ठुं पादयोर् मे पतिष्यतः ।

· · ·

उपकाराय दृष्टेगेदं सुरीर्णं घनगर्जितम् ॥ १४३ ॥

· · ·

( ४७ ) सम्म

· · ·

समं योग्यतथा योगो यदि संभावितः कचित् ॥ ३९ ॥

· · ·

इदमनयोः श्रद्धाव्यमिति योग्यतया संबन्धस्य नियतविषयमध्यवसानं चेत्,

· · ·

तदा समम् । तत् सद्योगे डसद्योगे च । उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

धातुः शिल्पातिशयिनिकषस्थानेपष सुगाक्षी

· · ·

रूपे देवो डप्यममनुपमां दत्तपत्रः स्मरस्य ।

· · ·

Facilitation [ occurs when ] an effect becomes easy to accomplish owing to the association of another cause.

· · ·

39 ab

· · ·

When the work begun is well carried out without trouble by the agent, who is helped by another means, that is named Facilitation.

· · ·

Here is an illustration—

· · ·

To help me, who am about to fall at her feet in order to remove her pride, this thunder of clouds has fortunately arisen.

· · ·

143

· · ·

If a union found somewhere is considered [ by people ] as appropriate or fit, that is the Equal.

· · ·

39 cd

· · ·

If there is an ascertainment of a connection as being appropriate with reference to objects under description ( niyataviṣaya ) in the form ` This union of these two is commendable ', then there is the figure Equal. That occurs when there is a union of good things and a union of bad things. The following are illustrations—

· · ·

This deer-eyed lady is the place of the test of the pre-eminent skill of the creator. This king also, who is matchless in beauty, has given a testimonial [ in point of beauty ] to Cupid. When through

· · ·

[ Sutra १४४ ]

जातं दैवात् सदृशमनयोः संगतं यत् तदेतत् शृङ्गारस्योपनतमधुना राज्यमेकातपत्रम् ॥ १४४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १४५ ]

चित्रं चित्रं वत वल महाचित्रमेतद् विचित्रं जाजो दैवादुचितरचनासंविधाता विधाता । यत्निम्वानां परिणतफलस्प्रीतिरस्वादनीय यचैतस्याः कवलनकलाकोविंद: काकलोकः ॥ १४५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४०-४१ ]

कचित् यदतिवैधर्म्येन श्रेषो घटनामियात् । कर्तुः क्रियाफलवैषम्येनवारनर्थक यद् भवेत् ॥ ४० ॥ गुणक्रियाभ्यां कार्यस्य कारणस्य गुणक्रिये । ऋमेण च विरुद्धे यत् सु एष विषमो मतः ॥ ४१ ॥

· · ·

द्योरलन्तविलक्षणतया यत् अनुपपद्यमानतयैव योगः प्रतीयते, यच्च किञ्चिदारभमाणः कर्ता क्रियाया: प्रणाशात् न केवलमभीष्टं यत् तत् फलं न लभेत,

· · ·

यावदप्रार्थितमर्थनार्थं विषयमासादयेत्, तथा सत्यपि कार्यस्य कारणरूपानुकारे, यत् तयोर्गुणौ क्रियते च परस्परविरुद्धतां ब्रजत्:, स समस्तिर्य्यात्मा चतूरूपो विषमः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १४६ ]

शिरीषादपि मृदुढ़्यै कैमायमतलोचना । अयं कं च ककूस्थिरकेशो मदनानलः ॥ १४६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १४७ ]

सिंहिकासुतसंत्रस्तः शशः शीतांशुमाश्रितः । जगप्रे साश्रयस्तत्र तमन्यः सिंहिकासुतः ॥ १४७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १४८ ]

सद्यः करस्पर्शमवाप्य चित्रं रणे रणे यस्य कृपाणलेखा । तमालनीलाङ्ग शरादिन्दुपाण्डु यशः शशिलोक्याभरणं प्रसूते ॥ १४८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १४९ ]

आनन्दममन्दमिमं कुवलयदललोचने तदासि त्वम् । विरहस्खेदयैव जनितस्तापयितरां शरीरं मे ॥ १४९ ॥

· · ·

अत्रानन्ददानं शरीतापेन विरुध्यते । एवम्—

· · ·

[ Sutra १५० ]

विपुलेन सगरशायस्य कुक्षिणा भुवनानि यस्य पपिरे युगक्षये । मदविभ्रमासकलया पपे पुनः स पुरुषीयैकतमयैकया दशा ॥ १५० ॥ इत्यादावपि विषमत्वं यथायोगमकथनीयम् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४२ ]

महतोर्यन्महीयांसावश्रिताथाश्रितययोः ऋमात् । आश्रयाश्रियिणौ स्यातां तनुत्वेऽप्यधिकं तु तत् ॥ ४२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १५१ ]

अहो विशाले भूपाल भुवनत्रितयोदरम् । माति मातुमशक्योऽपि यशोराशियदत्र ते ॥ १५१ ॥

· · ·

युगान्तकालप्रतिसंहतात्मनो जगन्ति यस्यां सविकाशमासत । तनौ ममुस्तत्र न कैतभद्विप्रपोधनास्यागमसंभवा मुदः ॥ १५२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५० ]

प्रत्यनीकम् । प्रतिपक्षमहक्नं प्रतिकर्तुं तिरस्क्रिया । या तदीयस्य तत्तत्स्यै प्रत्यनीकं तदच्यते ॥ ४३ ॥

· · ·

न्यकृतिपरमपि विपक्षं साक्षाद्विरसितुमशक्नन् केनापि यत् तमेव प्रतिपक्षसुल्कर्षयितुं तदाश्रितस्य तिरस्करणमू, तत् अनीकप्रति निधितुल्यल्वात् प्रत्यनीकमिधीयते । यथानीके अभियोज्ये तयत्रतिनिधीभूतपरं मूढतया केनचिदभियुज्यते, तथेह प्रतियोगिनि विजेये तदीयोऽन्यो विजीयते इत्यर्थः । उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

तं विनिर्जितमनोभववरः: सा च सुन्दर भवत्यनुरक्ता । पञ्चभिरियुगपदेव शरैरस्तां तापयत्यनुरागादेव कामः ॥ १५३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १५४ ]

यथा वा— यस्य किंचिदपकृतिमक्षमः कायनिग्रहगृहीतविग्रहः । कान्तवक्त्रसदृशाकृतिः कृतो राहुरिन्दुमधुनापि बाधते ॥ १५४ ॥ इन्दोरत्र तदीयता सम्बन्धिधिमुखसंवन्ध्यात् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 44 ]

( ५१ ) मीlitam् समेन लक्षणा वस्तु वस्तुना यत्रिगृह्यते । निजेनागन्तुना वापि तन्मीलितमिति स्मृतम् ॥ ४४ ॥ सहजम् आगन्तुकं वा किमपि साधारणं यत् लक्षणम्, तद्वारेण यत् किंचित् केनचित् वस्तुस्थित्यैव बलीयस्तया तिरोधीयते, तत् मीlitamिति द्विधा स्मरन्ति । क्रमेणोदाहरणम् —

· · ·

[ Sutra १५५ ]

अपाङ्गतरले दृशौ मधुरवककर्णा गिरो विलासभरमथुरा गतिरितीवा कान्तं मुखम् । इति स्फुरितमुखके मृगदृशां स्वतो लीलया तदत्र न मदोदय: कृतपदोऽपि संलक्ष्यते ॥ १५५ ॥

· · ·

अत्र हृत्तरलतादिकमड्‌डस्य लिङ्गं स्वाभाविकं, साधारणं च मदोदयेन, तत्रायेतस्य दर्शनेनात्‌।

· · ·

ये कन्दरासु निवसन्ति सदा हिमाद्रि-स्वापातशङ्कितधियो विवशा द्विपत्ते

· · ·

अर्धाङ्गमुद्रितमुखद्रदयता सकम्पं

· · ·

तेषामहो वत भियाम् न बुधे ड्यामिनिः॥ १५६ ॥

· · ·

अत्र तु सामर्थ्योदवसितस्य शैयस्य आगन्तुकत्वात्‌ तत्रभवयः

· · ·

कम्पपुलकयोरपि तादृश्यं समानता च, भयेष्वपि तयोरुपलक्षितत्वात्‌।

· · ·

(५२) एकावली

· · ·

स्थाय्यतेऽपोदयते वापि यथापूर्वं परं परम्‌।

· · ·

विशेषणतया यत्र वस्तु सैकावली द्विधा॥ ४५ ॥

· · ·

पर्व पूर्व प्रति यत्रोत्तरस्य वस्तुनो वृत्तिः, वृत्त्या विशेषाभावेन स्थानं

· · ·

निषेधो वा भवति, सा द्विधा बुद्धयैकावली भण्यते।

· · ·

क्रमेणोदाहरणम्‌—

· · ·

Here the tremulousness of the eye etc. form the natural characteristic of the body and are common to the rise of intoxication, there also these are seen.

· · ·

Your enemies who, helpless and with minds apprehensive of your attack, always live in the caves of the snow-mountain—even a wise man does not know their fears, though they possess a body, horripilated and trembling.

· · ·

But here, since coolness, which is understood from the power [ of the stanza ] is adventitious, tremor and horripilation also, which spring from that coolness, are similar in nature and are common, because they are observed in fears also.

· · ·

Where each succeeding thing is affirmed or even denied as an attribute of each preceding thing, there we have the two-fold Necklace. 45

· · ·

Where there occurs repeatedly the establishment or denial of each succeeding thing as a qualification for each preceding, that is termed two-fold Necklace by the wise. Illustrations in order—

· · ·

पुराणि यस्यां सवराझ्नानि वराझ्नानि रूपपुरस्कृताझ्झयः । रूपं समुन्मीलितसद्विलासमयं विलासा: कुषुमायुधस्य ॥ १५७ ॥

· · ·

न तज्जलं यन्न सुचारुपद्मजं न पद्मजं तद् यदलीनपटपद्म । न षट्पदोऽसौ कलगुञ्जितो न यो न गुज्जितं तन्न जहार यन्मनः ॥ १५८ ॥

· · ·

पूर्वत्र पुराणां वराझ्नानः, तासामद्भिविशेषणमुखेन रूपम्, तस्य विलासा:, तेषामप्यन्वयम्-इत्यमुना क्रमेण विशेषणं विधीयते। उत्तरत्र प्रतिषेधेडप्येनं योज्यम्।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५३ ]

यथानुभवमरथस्य दृष्टे तत्सदृशे स्मृति: । अनुभूते स्मरणम्

· · ·

यः पदार्थ: केनचिदाकारेण नियतः यदाकदाचित् अनुभूतोऽद्भूत स कालान्तरे स्मृतिप्रतिबोधाध्यान तत्समान वपुषा दृष्टे स्मृति, यत् तथैव स्मर्यते, तत् भवेत् स्मरणम् । उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

निम्नामिकुहरेषु यदम्मः प्रावितं चलदंशां लहरोभिः । तद्वदैः कुहरेतैः सुरनार्यः स्मारिताः सुरतकण्ठरुतानाम् ॥ १५९ ॥

· · ·

यथा वा — कज्जुगहिअजसोआह्णणमुहविनिवेसिआहरपुडस्स । संभरीअपञ्जणणास्स णमह कण्हस्स रोमण्णह ॥ १६० ॥ [ कलुगृहगृहीतयशोदास्तनमुखविनिवेशिताधरपुटस्य । संवृतपञ्चजनणस्य नमत कृष्णस्य रोमाञ्चम्।]

· · ·

[ Sutra ४६ ]

भ्रान्तिमाननयसंवित् ततुल्यदर्शने ॥ ४६ ॥ तदिति अन्यत् अप्राकरणिकं निर्दिष्ट्यते । तेन समानम् अर्थोदिह प्राकरणिकम् आश्रीयते । तस्य तथाविधस्य दृष्टौ सत्यां, यत् अप्राकरणिकतया संवेदनम्, स भ्रान्तिमान् । न चैष रूपकं प्रथममातिशयोक्तिःवा । तत् वस्तुतो भ्रमस्याभावात् । इह च अध्यवसायेन संशयोः प्रवृत्तः; तस्य स्पष्टीभवत् प्रतिपक्षभावात् ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम् — कपाले मार्जारः पय इति करोऽलिङ्गति शशिन- स्तरुच्छिदप्रोतान् विसमिति करी संकल्यति । रतान्ते तल्पस्थानं हरति वनिताऽन्याश्चक्रमिति प्रभामत्तशशन्द्रो जगदिदमहो विभ्रमयति ॥ १६१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५५ ]

( ५५ ) प्रतीपम् आक्षेप उपमानस्य प्रतीपमुपमेयता । तस्यैव यदि वा कल्प्या तिरस्कारनिबन्धना ॥ ४७ ॥ अस्य धुरं सुतरामुपमेयेन वोढुं प्रौढमिति कैमर्थ्येन यत् उपमानमाक्षिप्यते, यदि तस्यैवोपमानतया प्रसिद्धस्य उपमानान्तरविवक्ष्याणादारार्थसुपमेयभावः कल्प्यते, तत् उपमेयस्योपमानप्रतिकूलवातात् उभयरूपं प्रतीपम् ऋमणीयतमम्—

· · ·

[ Sutra १६२ ]

लावण्यौकसि सप्रतापगरिमण्यग्रेसेरे त्यागिनां देव लव्यवनीभरक्ष्ममुजे निष्पादिते वेधसा । इन्दु: कि घटित: किमेष विहित: सूर्या किसुल्पादितं चिन्तारत्नमहो मुयैव किममी सृष्टा: कुलक्ष्मामृत: ॥ १६२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १६३ ]

ए ऎहि दाव सुन्दरि करणं दाऊण सुणसु वअणिज्जम् । तुज्झ मुहेण किसोअरि चंदो उअमिजइ जणेण ॥ १६३ ॥

· · ·

अत्र मुखेनोपमीयमानस्य शशिन: स्वल्पतरगुणत्वाद् उपमित्यनिष्पत्या 'वअणिज्जम्'-इति वचनोयपदाविर्य्यथास्तरस्कार: । कचित् तु निष्पन्नैवोपमितिक्रिया अनादरनिबन्धनम् । यथा —

· · ·

[ Sutra १६४ ]

गव्मसंवाहिमिमं लोचनयुगलेन किं वहिसि मुग्वे । सल्वीहश्रेणि दिट्ठि दिसासु सर:हु नत्थि जिहण्णिअत्ति ॥ १६४ ॥

· · ·

इहोपमेयीकरणमेवोल्प्लानामनादरः। अनयैव रीत्या यत् असमान्यगुणयोगात् नोपमानभावमपि अनुमूतपूर्वं, तस्य तत्कल्पनायामपि भवति प्रतीपमिति प्रत्येतव्यम् । यथा — अहमेव गुरुः सुदारुणानामिति हालाहल मा स्म तात हृश्यः । ननु सन्ति भवादृशानि भूयांसि भुवनेऽस्मिन् वचनानि दुर्जनानाम् ॥ १६५ ॥

· · ·

Here the turning into an object of comparison itself is the censure of lotuses. In this same manner when that object which, owing to the possession of uncommon qualities, did never before experience even the state of being the standard of comparison, is also imagined to have that viz. the state of being a standard of comparison, the Converse occurs—this should be understood. As— ‘I alone am the best of the very dreadful’ — with this thought ( iti ) be not proud, [O] dear deadly poison. Indeed, in this world there are the words of the wicked people in plenty, which are like you.

· · ·

म्ल्लयजरसविलिसितनवो नवहारलताविमृशिता: सिततरदन्तपत्रकृतत्कत्रुचो रुचिरामलांयुकाः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १६६ ]

शशामृति विततधाम्नि धवलयति धरामविभाव्यतां गताः प्रियवसर्ति प्रयान्ति सुखमेव निरस्तभियोऽभिसारिकाः ॥ १६६ ॥

· · ·

अत्र प्रसक्ततदनव्यतिरेकैक्यानुपातरक्तत्वाद् भेदं भवत्यनुपमादताहुः । अत एव पृथग्भावेन न तयोरुपलक्षणम्‌।

· · ·

[ Sutra १६७ ]

यथा वा — वेत्रवचा तुल्यरुचां वधूनां कर्णाप्रतो गण्डतलागतानि । भ्रूभ्राः सहेहं यदि नापतिष्यन् को डवेदविष्यन्नवचम्पकानि ॥

· · ·

अत्र निमित्तान्तरजनितापि नानाल्यप्रतीति: प्रथमप्रतिपन्नमभेदं न व्युदासितुम्सहते, प्रतीतत्वात्तस्य । प्रतीतेश्व बाधायोगात ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५७ ]

विना प्रसिद्धमाधारमाधेयस्य व्यवस्थितिः । एकात्मा युगपद् शृङ्खितरेकस्यानेकगोचरा ॥ ४९ ॥ अन्यत् प्रकुर्वतः कायमशक्यस्यान्यवस्तुनः । तथैव करणं चोति विशेषोऽत्रिविधः स्मृतः ॥ ५० ॥ प्रसिद्धाधारपरिहारे यत् आधेयस्य विशेषा स्थितिरमिधीयते, स प्रथमा विशेषः । उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

सा वसइ तुज्झ हिअए सा चिअ अच्छीसु सा अ वचणेसु । अह्मादशीनां सुन्दर अवकाशः कुत् पापाणं ॥ १६९ ॥

· · ·

When also, a person, commencing to do something with vehemence, commences another work, though impossible with that same effort, that is another variety of Special. An illustration —

· · ·

यदपि किंचिद्रभसेन आरभमाणस्तेनैव यलेनाशक्यमपि कार्योत्तरमारभते, सोऽप्यो विशेषः । उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

सुरद्विषद्रुरुपमुप्रतापज्चलं त्वां सुजतनववद्विविधम् । विधिना सरुजे नवो मनोभूषुविच सत्पं सविता बृहस्पतिश्व ॥१७०॥

· · ·

यथा वा— गृहिणी सचिवः सखी मिथः प्रियशिष्या ललिते कलाविधौ । करुणाविमुखेन मृत्युना हरता त्वां कद् कि न मे हतम् ॥१७१॥

· · ·

सर्वत्र एतविधविषये उत्किशयोकिरेव प्राणलेनावतिष्ठते, तां बिना प्रायेणालङ्कारत्ययोगात् । अत एवोक्तम्—

· · ·

सैषा सर्वैव [ v. l. सर्वत्र ] वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थी विभाव्यते । यल्नोऽस्यां कविमिः कार्यः कोडनेकडोऽन्या विना ॥ इति ।

· · ·

( ५८ ) तदुणः :

· · ·

स्वमुत्सृज्य गुणं योगादत्युज्ज्वलगुणस्य यत् । वस्तु तदुणतामेति भण्यते स तु तदुणः ॥ ५१ ॥

· · ·

वस्तु तिरस्कृतनिजरूपं केनापि समीपगतेन प्रगुणतया स्वगुणसंप्रदोपरोप्तं तत्प्रतिभासमेव यत् समासादयति, स तद्गुणः, तस्याप्रकृतस्य गुणोऽत्रास्तीति ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम् — विमिवर्णा गरुडाग्रजेन सूर्यस्य रध्याः परितः सुपर्णन्या । रत्नैः पुनर्यत्र रुचा रुचं स्वामिनिन्यरे वंशकरीनटीहः ॥ १७२ ॥ अत्र रविचुरगापेक्षया गरुडाग्रजस्य, तदपेक्षया च हरिन्मणीनां प्रगुणवर्णता ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 59 ]

( 59 ) अतद्गुणः तदूपानुहार्यदेशस्य तत् स्यातद्गुणः । यदि तु तदीयं वर्णं संभवन्त्यामपि योग्यतायाम् इदं न्यूनगुणं न गृह्यीात्, तदा भवेतद्गुणो नाम ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम् — घवलोसि जाह वि सुन्दर तह वि तुए मज्झ रक्खिअं हिअअम् । रअअभीरु वि हिअअ महुअर् णिहित्तो ण रत्तो सि ॥ १७३ ॥

· · ·

[ धवलोडसि यद्यपि सुन्दर तथापि त्वया मम रक्षितं हृदयम्‌ । रागभरितेडपि हृदये सुभग निहितो न रक्तोडसि ॥ ] अत्रातिरक्तेनापि मनसा संयुक्तो न रक्ततामुपगत इत्यतद्रुणः । विक्र च तदिति अप्रकृतम्‌ अस्येति च प्रकृतमत निर्देश्यते । तेन यत्‌ आप्तवस्त्रि कां यकृतेऽपि कुलटाडपि निमित्तात्‌ नाभिलष्यते, शोभतेsपि प्रतिपत्तव्यम्‌ ।

· · ·

गाङ्गमम्भु सितमम्भु यामुनं कज्जलाभमुभयत्र मज्जताम्‌ । राजहंस तव सैव शुत्रता चीयते न च न चापचीयते ॥ १७४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ६० ]

व्याघातः

· · ·

यद्‌ यथा साधितं केनाप्यपरेण तदन्यथा ॥ ५२ ॥ तथैव यद्‌ विधीयेत स व्याघात इति स्मृतः । येनोपायेन यत्‌ एकेनोपकल्पितम्‌, तस्यैन जिगीषुतया तदुपायकमेव यत्‌ अन्यथाकरणम्‌, स साधितवस्त्र्याहतिहेतुत्वात्‌ व्याघातः । उदाहरणम्‌—

· · ·

[ Sutra १७५ ]

दशा दग्धे मनसिजं जीवयन्ति दशौ या: । विरुपाक्षस्य जयिनीसताः स्तुवे वामलोचना: ॥ १७५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५३ ]

सेष्टा संसृष्टिरेतेपां भेदेन यदिह स्थिति: ॥ ५३ ॥

· · ·

एतेषां समनन्तरमवक्ष्यमाणालङ्काराणां यथासंभवमन्योन्यनिरपेक्षतया यत् एकत्र, शब्दभागे एव, अर्थविषये एव, उभयत्रापि वा, अवस्थानम्, सा एकार्थसमवायस्वभावा संसृष्टि: ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १७६ ]

वदनसौरभभ्रमरपरिमर्दनम्रससंध्रससंभृतशोभया । चलितया विदधे कलमेखलाकलकलो डलकलोलदशानन्या ॥ १७६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १७७ ]

लिम्पतीव तमोड्ज्ञानी वर्षतीवाञ्जनं नभः । असत्पुरुषसेवेव दृष्टिरिफलता गता ॥ १७७ ॥

· · ·

पूर्वत्र परस्परनिरपेक्षौ यमकानुप्रासौ संसृष्टि प्रयोजयतः। उत्तत्र तु तथाविधे उपमोत्रेक्षे ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ६२ ]

अविश्रान्तिरुजामात्मन्यञ्ज्ञिव तु संकरः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १७९ ]

आत्ते सीमन्तरत्न मरकतिनि हते हेमताटङ्कपत्रे लुप्तायां मेखलायां झटिति मणितुलाकोटियुग्मे गृहीते । शोणं बिम्बोष्ठकान्त्या वदनरुगदशामिल्वरेणामरण्ये राजन् गुञ्जाफलानां स्रज इति शबरा नैव हारं हरन्ति ॥ १७९ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १८० ]

जटाभाभिरभिमि: कृतकलङ्काक्षवलयो वियोगिव्यापत्तेरिव कलितवैराग्यविशद: । परिप्रेढद्युतारापरिवारकपालाढ्ढिततले राशी भस्मापाण्डु: पितृवन इव व्योम्नि चरति ॥ १८० ॥

· · ·

कलङ्क एवाक्षवलयमिति रूपकपरिप्रहे करभृतत्वमेव साधकप्रमाणतां प्रतिपद्यते । अस्य हि रूपकत्वे तिरोहितकलङ्करूपम् अक्षवलयमिति मुख्यतयावगम्यते । तस्यैव च करग्रहणयोग्यतायां सार्वत्रिकी प्रसिद्धिः । ' शेषच्छायया तु कलङ्कस्य करधारणम् असदेव प्रत्यासत्त्या उपचारं योज्यते । शरणैरैन केवलं कलङ्कस्य मूर्त्त्यैव उद्भहनात् । कलङ्कोऽक्षवलयमिवेति तु उपचार्यां कलङ्कस्य उत्कटतया प्रतिपत्तिः । न चास्य करभृतत्वं तत्त्वतोऽस्तीति मुख्ये उपचार एव शरणं स्वात् । एवंरूपे्व संकरः शब्दालङ्कारयोरपि परिदृश्यते । यथा —

· · ·

राजति तट्टीयमहित-दानव-रासातिपाति-साराव-नदा । गजता च यूथमविरत-दान-वरा सातिपाति सारा वनदा ॥ १८१ ॥

· · ·

अत्र यमकमनुलोमप्रतिलोमश्व चित्रमेदः पादद्वयगते परस्परोपेक्षे ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५४ ]

एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावादनिश्चयः ॥ ५४ ॥ द्रयोर्विहूनां वा अलङ्काराणामेकत्र समावेशेऽपि विरोधात् न यत्र युगपदवस्थानम्, न चैकतरस्य परिग्रहे साधकम्, तदितरस्य वा परिहारे बाधकमस्ति, येनैकर एव परिगृहीत, स निश्चयाभावरूपो द्वितीयः संकरः । समुच्चयेन संकरस्यैवाक्षेपात् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १८३ ]

नयनानन्ददायीनन्दोरुविभ्रममतत् प्रसादति । अधुनापि निरुद्धाश्रामविशीर्णमिदं तमः ॥ १८३ ॥ अत्र किं कामस्योद्दीपकः कालो वर्तते इति भ्राज्यनतरेणाभिधानात् पर्यायोक्तम्, उत 'वदनस्येन्दुविम्बतया' अध्यवसानात् अतिशयोक्तिः, किं वा एतदिति वक्तुं निःश्रित्य तद्भरोपचयात् रूपकम्, अथवा तयोः समुच्चयविवक्षायां दीपकम्, अथवा तुल्ययोगिता, किंु प्रदोषसमये विशेषणसाम्यादाननस्यावगतौ समासोक्तिः, आहोस्वित् 'मुखनेैर्मल्यप्रस्तावात्' अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा इति बहूनां संदेहादयमेव संकरः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra १८४ ]

यत्र तु न्यायदोषयोरन्यतरस्यावातरः, तत्र एकतरस्य निश्चयात् न संशयः । न्यायस्थ माधकल्वम् अनुकूलता वा, दोषोडपि बाधकत्वं प्रतिकूलता वा । तत्र सौभाग्यं वितनोति वक्त्रशशिनो ज्योत्स्नेव हास्यतिः ॥ १८४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १८५ ]

इत्यत्र मुस्लयतया अवगम्यमाना हासध्वनिरिवक्त्रे एवानुकूल्यं भजते इत्युपमायाः साधकम्, शशिनि तु न तथा प्रतिकूलत इति रूपकं प्रति तस्या: अबाधकता । वक्त्रेन्दौ तव सत्यं यदपरः शीतांशुरस्म्युद्यत: इत्यापरलम्दोरहगुणं न तु वक्त्रस्य प्रतिकूलमिति रूपकस्य साधकतां प्रतिपादते, न त्वामया बाधकता । राजनारायणं लक्ष्मीस्वामालिङ्गित्ति निर्भरम् ॥ १८६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १८६ ]

इत्यत् पुनरालिङ्गनमुपमां निरस्यति, सदृशं प्रति परङ्गेयसीप्रयुक्तस्यालिङ्गन- स्यैतद्वात् । पादाम्बुजं भवतु नो विजयाय मञ्जु-मञ्जीररशि्जितमनोहरम्निकाया: ॥ १८७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १८७ ]

इत्यत् मञ्जीररशि्जितम् अम्बुजे प्रतिकूलम् असंभवादिति रूपकस्य बाधकम्, न तु पादेऽनुकूलमित्युपमायाः साधकमभिधीयते । विष्णुपमर्दिनो बाधकस्य तद्पे- क्ष्योत्कटत्वेन प्रतिपत्ते: एवमन्यत्रापि सुधीभिः परीक्षणम् ।

· · ·

स्फुटमेकत्र विषये शब्दार्थोलङ्कृतिद्रयम् ।

· · ·

व्यवस्थितं च

· · ·

अभिधाने एव पदे स्फुटतया यत् उभावपि शब्दार्थोलङ्कारौ व्यवस्थां समासदयतः सोऽप्यपरः संकरः ।

· · ·

उदाहरणम्—

· · ·

स्पष्टोल्लङ्किरणकेसरसुर्यविम्बविस्तीर्णकार्णिकमथो दिवसारविन्दम् ।

· · ·

श्लिष्टाष्टदिग्दलकलापमुखावतारबद्धान्यकारमधुपावलि संचुकोच ॥ १८८ ॥

· · ·

अत्र एकपदानुप्रविष्टे रूपकानुप्रासौ ।

· · ·

तेनासौ त्रिरूपः परिकीतितः ॥ ५५ ॥

· · ·

तदपमुत्थानुप्राहकतया संदेहेन एकपदप्रतिपाद्यतया च व्यवस्थितत्वात् त्रिप्रकार एक संकरो व्याकृतः ।

· · ·

प्रकारान्तरेण तु न शक्यो व्याकर्तुम्, आनन्त्यात् तत्रभेदानाम् ।

· · ·

इति प्रतिपादिता: शब्दार्थोभयगतवेन त्रैविध्ययुषोडलङ्कारा: । अलङ्काराणां त्रिविधविभागस्य अन्वयव्यतिरेकहेतुत्वम कुत: पुनरेष नियमो यदेतेषां तुल्येऽपि काव्यशोभातिशायहेतुत्वे काश्रिदलङ्कार: शब्दस्य, काश्रिदर्थस्य, काश्रिदुभयस्येति चेत् । उत्तमत्' यथा काव्ये दोषगुणा-लङ्काराणां' शब्दार्थोभयगतवेन ल्यवस्थायामन्वयव्यतिरेकावेव प्रभवत:, निमित्तान्तर-स्यभावात् । ततश्व योऽलङ्कारो यदीयान्वयव्यतिरेकावनविधत्ते, स तदलङ्कारो व्यवस्थाप्यते इति ।

· · ·

एवं च यथा पुनरुक्तवदाभास: परम्परितरूपकं चोभयोभयभावभावानविधायितया उभयालङ्कारौ, तथा शब्दहेतुकार्थान्तरस्याप्रभुत्वयोऽपि दृश्यौ: अर्थस्य तु तत्र वैचित्र्यम् उक्तटया प्रतिभासते इति वाच्यालङ्कारमध्ये वस्तुस्थितिमनपेक्ष्यैव लक्षणित: । योऽलङ्कारो यदाश्रित: स तदलङ्कार इत्यपि कल्पनायाम् अन्वयव्यतिरेकावेव समाश्रयितव्यौ, तदाश्रयणमन्तरेरण विशिष्टस्याश्रयाश्रयिभावस्याभावात् । इत्यलङ्काराणां यथोक्तनिमित्त एव परस्परव्यतिरेकौ ज्यायान् ।

· · ·

अलङ्कारदोषाणामुक्तदोषेषु अन्तर्भावः

· · ·

एषां दोषा यथायोगं संभवतोऽपि केचन ।

· · ·

उक्तेष्वन्तर्भवन्तीति न पृथक् प्रतिपादिता: ॥ ५६ ॥

· · ·

अनुप्रासदोषा:

· · ·

तथा हि । अनुप्रासस्य प्रसिद्धयभावो वैफल्ये वृत्तिविरोध इति ये त्रयो दोषा:,

· · ·

ते प्रसिद्धिविरुद्धतां अपुष्टार्थत्वं प्रतिकल्वरर्णतां च यथाक्रमं न व्यतिक्रामन्ति,

· · ·

तत्वभावलत्। क्रमेणोदाहरणम्—

· · ·

चत्त्री चकारपृथी हरिरपि च हरेः, धुरंटिघृणीजाग्रान्

· · ·

अक्षं नक्षत्रनाथोडुणरुणमपि वरुणः कूबराम् कुबेरः ।

· · ·

रंहः संघः सुराणां जगदुपकृतये निल्ययुक्तस्य यस्य

· · ·

स्तौति प्रीतिप्रसन्नोडन्वहमहिमरुचे: सोऽवतत सन्दनो वः ॥ १८९ ॥

· · ·

presence and absence themselves would have to be resorted to for determining the division of figures; because as specialized relation of the support and the supported does not exist without resort to those [ viz. presence and absence ]. Hence mutual distinction of figures as caused in the manner stated above, is better.

· · ·

Some defects of these figures, though possible, are not separately treated, because they are included, according to special circumstances, in those defects which have already been stated.

· · ·

To explain the same : Thus, those three defects of Alliteration [viz.] absence of usage, fruitlessness and opposition to style are not respectively different from Opposition to Usage, because they are identical in name with them. These are illustrations in order—

· · ·

May that chariot of the hot-rayed [sun] protect you—the chariot whose row of the wheel-spokes the Possessor of the discus viz. Visnu praises; whose horses Indra also [praises]; whose yoke and banner-tops S'iva praises; whose axle the lord of the stars viz. the moon praises; whose charioteer Aruṇa also Varuṇa praises; whose yoke-end Kubera praises; whose speed, as it is ever yoked for the benefit of the world a multitude of gods, pleased witl joy, every day praises.

· · ·

[ Sutra १९० ]

अत्र कर्तृकर्मप्रतिनियमेन स्तुतिः अनुप्रासानुरोधेनैव कृता, न पुराणेतिहासादिषु तथा प्रतीतेति प्रसिद्धिविरोधः । भण तरुणी रमणमन्दिरमन्दानन्दसुन्दरनेन्दुमुखि । यदि सङ्गीभोल्लापिनी गच्छसि, तत् किं त्वदीयं मे ॥ १९० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १९१ ]

अनणुरणन्मणिमेखलम्वरतशिञ्जिनीजन्मञ्जुमञ्जीरम् । परिसरणमरुणचरणे रणरणकमकारणं कुरुतेऽत्र वाच्यस्य विचिन्त्यमानं न किंचिदपि चारुलं प्रतीये इलय पुष्टार्थतैवानुप्रासस्य वैफल्यम् ॥ १९१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १९२ ]

अकुण्ठोलकण्ठ्या पूरिमाकण्ठं कलकण्ठ माम् । कम्बुकण्ठ्या: क्षणं कण्ठे kuru कण्ठार्तिमुद्रर ॥ १९२ ॥ अत्र शृङ्गारे पुरुषवर्णीटम्वरः पूर्वोक्तरीत्या विरुद्धते इति पुरुषानुप्रासोऽत्र प्रतिकूलवर्णतैव वृत्तिविरोधः ।

· · ·

यमकदोषः

· · ·

[ Sutra १९३ ]

यमकस्य पादत्रयगतव्वेन यमनमप्रयुक्तत्वं दोषः । यथा— भुजंगमस्येव मणिः सदम्भा ग्राहावकीर्णेव नदी सदम्भा: । दुरस्ततां निर्णयतोडपि जन्तोः कर्षन्ति चेतः प्रसभं सदम्भाः ॥ १९३ ॥

· · ·

उपमादोषः

· · ·

[ Sutra १९४ ]

उपमायाम् उपमानस्य जातिप्रमाणगतन्यूनत्वम् अधिकता वा तादृशी अनुचितार्थत्वं दोषः । धर्माश्रये तु न्यूनाधिकत्वे यथाक्रमं हीनपदत्वमधिकपदत्वं च न व्यभिचरत: । उदाहरणम्— चण्डालैरिव युष्माभिः साहसं परमं कृतम् । वह्निस्फुलिङ्ग इव भानुरयं चकास्ति ॥ १९५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १९६ ]

अयं पद्मासनासीनश्वकवाको विराजते । युगादौ भगवान् वेधा विनिर्मित्सुरिव प्रजा: ॥ १९६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १९७ ]

पातालमिव नाभिस्ते स्तनौ द्वितिधरोपमौ । वेणीदान्ड: पुनर्यं कालिन्दीपातसंनिभ: ॥ १९७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १९८ ]

स मुनिलोच्छतो मौञ्ज्या कृष्णाजिनपटं वहन् । व्यराजत्नीलजीमूतभागाक्षित इवांशुमान् ॥ १९८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १९९ ]

स पीतवासा: प्रगृहीतशार्ङ्गो मनोज्ञभीमं वपुराप कृष्ण: । शतशदेनद्रायुघवान् निशायां संसृज्यमान: शशिनेव मेघ: ॥ १९९ ॥

· · ·

लिङ्गवचनभेदोऽपि उपमानोपमेययोः साधारणं चेत् धर्ममन्यरूपं कुर्यात्, तदा एकतरस्यैव तद्रूपस्मन्वयावगते: सविशेषणस्यैव तस्योपमानत्वसुपमेयत्वं वा प्रतीयमानेन धर्मेण प्रतीयते इति प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य स्फुटमनिवार्हादस्य भ्रमप्रक्रमस्य हल्पम् । यथा —

· · ·

[ Sutra २०० ]

चिन्तारल्नमिव च्युतोडसि करतो धिङ्नन्दनाग्यस्य मे ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २०१ ]

सक्तवो भक्षितो देव शुद्धा: कुलवधूरिव ॥

· · ·

यत्र तु नानालिङ्गेऽपि लिङ्गवचनयो: साम्यानुविधायि पदं स्वरूपमेदं नापवते, न तत्रैतदूषणावतारः । उभयथापि अस्य अनुगमकत्वस्वभावत्वात् । यथा—

· · ·

[ Sutra २०२ ]

गुणैरर्नै: प्रथितो रलैरिव महार्णव: ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २०३ ]

तद्रेषोडसदृशोदन्याामि: क्षोभिर्मिमधुरताम्रत: । दधते स्म परां शोभा तदीया विभमा इव ॥

· · ·

कालपुरुषविषयादिमेदपि न तथा प्रतीतिरस्वच्छतरूपतया विश्रान्तिमासादयतीयसावपि भ्रमप्रकृततैव व्यासः। यथा—

· · ·

[ Sutra २०४ ]

अतिथि नाम काकुत्स्थात् पुत्रमाप कुमुद्वती। पक्षिमाद् यामिनीयाामात प्रसादमिव चेतना॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २०५ ]

प्रत्यग्रमजननविशेषविविक्तमूर्ति: कौसुम्भरागचिरस्मुरदंशुकान्ता। विभ्राजसे मकरकेतनमर्चयन्ती वालप्रवालविटपप्रभवा लतैव॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २०६ ]

गङ्गेव प्रवहतु ते सदैव कीर्तिः ॥ २०६ ॥ इत्यादौ च गङ्गा प्रवहति न तु प्रवहतु इति अप्रवृत्तप्रवर्तनातमनो विधेः। एवंजातीयकस्य चान्यस्यार्थस्य उपमानगतस्यासंभवाद् विषयादिमेदः ।

· · ·

असादृश्यासंभवावण्युपमायाम् अनुचितार्थतायामेव पर्यवस्यत: । यथा -

· · ·

[ Sutra २०७ ]

ग्रश्नामि काव्यशशिनं विततार्थरश्मिम् ॥ २०७ ॥ अत्र काव्यस्य शशिना अर्थानां च रश्मिभि:, साधर्म्ये कुत्रापि न प्रतीतिमित्यनुचितार्थत्वम् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra २०८ ]

निपेतुरस्यादिव तस्य दीसा: शरा धनुरमण्डलमध्यमाज: । जाज्वल्यमाना इव वारिधारा दिनार्थमाज: परिवेषिणोSर्कात् ॥ २०८ ॥ अत्रापि ज्वलन्न्योSमुधार: सूर्यमण्डलात् निष्पतन्त्यो न संभवन्त्य- उपनिबध्यमानो डर्थोSनौचित्यमेव पुष्णाति ।

· · ·

उत्प्रेक्षायामपि संभावनं ध्रुववादय एव शब्दा वक्तुं सहन्ते, न यथाशब्दोSपि । केवलस्यास्तु साधर्म्यमेव प्रतिपादयितुं पर्याप्तत्वात् । तस्य चास्यामविवक्षितत्वादिति तत्राशक्तिरस्याविष्कृतं दोष:; यथा -

· · ·

उदयौ दीर्घिकागर्भमुखुलं मेचकोत्पलम् । नारी लोचनचारुतरशङ्कासङ्कुचितं यथा ॥ २०९ ॥

· · ·

उपेक्षितमपि तात्विकेन रूपेण परिवर्जितत्वात् निरुपप्लव्यप्रस्तुतं तत्समर्थनाय यत् अर्थान्तरन्यासोपादानं तत् आलेख्यमिव गगनतले डय्न्तमस्समीचीनमिति निर्विषयल्मेतस्य अनुचितार्थतैव दोषः । यथा—

· · ·

दिवाकराद् रक्षति यो गुहासु लीना दिवाभीतिमवान् धकारम् । शुद्धेऽपि नूनं शरणं प्रपन्ने ममत्वमुचैः शिरसि सा मति ॥ २१० ॥

· · ·

अत्राचेतनस्य तमसो दिवाकरात् त्रास एव न संभाव्यतीति कुतः एव तत्प्रयोज्य- तमद्रिणा परिबर्हणम् । संभावितेन तु रूपेण प्रतिभासमानस्यास्य न काचिदनुप- तिरवतरतीति व्यर्थ एव तत्समर्थनाय यत्नः।

· · ·

समासोक्तिदोष:

· · ·

साधारणविशेषणवशादेव समासोक्तिरनुक्तमपि उपमानविशेषं प्रकाशयतीति तस्यात्र पुनरुपादाने प्रयोजनाभावात् अनुपादेयता यत्, तत् अपुष्ठर्थत्वं पुनरुक्तता वा दोष: । यथा—

· · ·

स्पृशति तिमिरुचौ ककुभ: करैरदयितयैव विजृम्भिततापया । अतनुमानपरिग्रहया स्थितं रुचिरया चिरयापि दिनेश्रया ।। २११ ।।

· · ·

अत्र तिमिरुचे: ककुभां च यथा सादृश्यविशेषणवशेन व्यक्तिविशेषपरिग्रहेण च नायकतया नाथिकालेन च व्यक्तिक:, तथा ग्रीष्मदिवसाश्रियोऽपि प्रतिनाथिकात्वेन भविष्यतीति किं दयितयेत्य स्वशब्दोपादानेन ।

· · ·

श्लेषोपमायास्तु स विषय:, यत्रोपमानस्योपादानमनन्तरेण साधारणेऽपि विशेषणषु न तथा प्रतीति: । यथा—

· · ·

इयं च पह्व्वाताम्भास्वल्करविराजिनी । प्रभातसंध्येवास्वापफललुब्धेहितप्रदा ॥ २१२ ॥

· · ·

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसादोष:

· · ·

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामपि उपमेयम् अनन्यद् रीयते प्रतितं न पुनः प्रयोज्यनेयम् । यथा —

· · ·

आहूतेषु विहंगमेषु मशाको नायान् पुरो वार्यते मध्येऽवारिधिर्वा वसस्तृणमणिर्धत्ते मणीनां रुचम् । खद्योतोडपि न कम्पते प्रचलितुं मध्येsपि तेजस्विनां धिक्सामान्यमचेतनं प्रभुमिवानामृष्टतत्त्वान्तरम् ॥ २१३ ॥

· · ·

अत्र अचेतनस्य प्रभोरप्रस्तुतविवक्षितसामान्याद्वारेणाभिव्यक्तेरयुक्तमेव पुनः कथनम् ।

· · ·

तददते ऽलङ्कारदोषा: यथासंभविनोड्यन्ते ऽड्येवंजातीयका: पूर्वोक्त्यैव दोषजात्या अन्तर्भाविता: न पृथक् प्रतिपादनमर्हन्ति ।

· · ·

इति संपूर्णमिदं काव्यलक्षणम् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 214 ]

इत्यर्षे मार्गे विदुषां वीक्ष्योदीर्यतेऽनुरूपः प्रतिभासते यत् । न तदू विचित्रं यदस्मृत सम्यग्विनिर्मिता संघटनैव हेतुः ॥ २१४ ॥

· · ·

इति काव्यप्रकाशोऽलङ्कारनिर्णयो नाम दशम उल्लासः ।

· · ·

समाप्तश्वायं काव्यप्रकाशः ।

· · ·

NOTES

· · ·

FIRST FLASH

· · ·

Page 1

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाश: (काव्यस्य प्रकाश:) means the light of poetry. This word contains in it a suppressed metaphor, which, when expressed, would be काव्यमेव चन्द्र: तस्य प्रकाश: काव्यचन्द्रप्रकाश:. उल्लास: (from लस् लसति to shine) or flash, the name by which the chapters of this work are known, continues the metaphor contained in काव्यप्रकाश:.

· · ·

Following the 'traditional custom of Sanskrit writers to begin their works with a Salutation or benediction, मम्मट opens his work with a मङ्गलश्लोक. The मङ्गल is generally credited with the power of removing obstacles and leading to safe conclusion the work undertaken. This is as much useful to authors as to the readers thereof. c. f. वात्स्यायन's न्यायभाष्य page 147. Also अभिनवगुप्त's लोचन on ध्वन्यालोक p.'1; It is a pity that in spite of the salutation मम्मट had to leave his work unfinished. May be the obstacles were too many to be removed by the मङ्गल.

· · ·

ग्रन्थ means काव्यप्रकाश with the कारिकास or the stanzas which contain the various topics, वृत्ति, the explanatory prose gloss and the उदाहरणानि. The कारिका's and the वृत्ति upto and including figure परिकर are the work of मम्मट. The remaining portion is composed by अलङ्क. It is but appropriate that मम्मट glorifies भारती i. e. the Goddess of speech in his मङ्गल.

· · ·

ग्रन्थकृत् - मम्मट speaks of himself in the third person, here according to the practice of Sanskrit writers, particularly those who write a gloss on their work c. f., कुल्लूकभट्ट on मनुस्मृति 1. 4., 'प्रायेण ग्रन्थकारा: स्मृतिं परोपदेशेन श्रुते, मेधातिथि on the same. This reference to the third person to the author of the कारिका 's should not be used as is done by some, as an argument to contend that मम्मट was not the author of the कारिका's. It is also worthwhile to note that many writers on अलङ्कारशास्त्र refer to themselves in the third person though they alone are the authors of both the कारिका's and the वृत्ति.

· · ·

परामृशति means touches in a physical sense. Then the word metaphorically denotes touches mentally i. e. thinks of or praises.

· · ·

Kārikā 1—In this Kārikā Mammata glorifies Sarasvatī or the Goddess of Speech. Sarasvatī, who is lauded here, is not directly

· · ·

कवेः भारती

· · ·

The Poet's Speech or poetry unfolds a creation known as poetical creation, which consists of the various things and situations that the poet presents to us in his work. The rest of the stanza describes this poetical creation and the description is given by means of such adjectives as suggest the superiority of the creation of the poet over that of Brahman or the Creator.

· · ·

It will be noticed that in his Vṛtti on this Kārikā Mammaṭa does not paraphrase or explain the words occurring therein. Here he describes the creation of Brahman and tells us in the end that the creation of poetry is dissimilar to it ( एतद्विलक्षणा-एतस्याः ब्रह्मणो निमिते: विसदृशी ). Thus, in understanding the adjectives of the creation of poetry in the Kārikā we must read them along with the corresponding passages in the Vṛtti, which describe the creation of Brahman so that the superiority of the former over the latter would be clearly grasped.

· · ·

नियति-नियलया कृतौ ये नियमाः तैः रहिताम्

· · ·

हृदैकमयीम्

· · ·

दुःखमोहस्वभावा ).

· · ·

अनन्यपरतन्त्राम्.—Explain this as अनन्यस्य कविभारतीभिन्नस्य कस्यचित् परतन्त्रा अधीना अन्यपरतन्त्रा, न अन्यपरतन्त्रा अनन्यपरतन्त्रा, ताम्�

· · ·

असमवायिकारण of a घट and तन्तुसंयोग or the conjunction of threads the असमवायिकारण of a पट्. Similary, when a bird sits on a tree and पक्षिवृक्षसंयोग is effected, पक्षिगत कर्म or पक्षिगत क्रिया is the असमवायिकारण of this पक्षिवृक्षसंयोग. A निमित्त कारण or सहकारी कारण ( an instrumental or auxiliary cause ) includes all other causes that are necessary for the production of an effect. Thus, a potter, a wheel,a staff and the like ( कुलालचक्रदण्डादि )

· · ·

are the instrumental causes of a jar and a weaver, a shuttle, a loom and the like ( कुविन्दतुरोरवेमादि ) those of a piece of cloth. Then again, there are certain instrumental causes, which are common to all products viz. God's will ( ईश्वरेच्छा ), the actions of individual souls ( कर्मेअदृष्ट धर्मोघमों वा ) and space, time and the like ( दिकालादिकम् ). Out of these three causes the असमवायिकारण is admitted in the Nyāya-Vaiśeṣika system only. The followers of this system believe in what is known as असत्कार्यवाद or the doctrine that the effect, which was non-existent before, is produced anew by the operation of the causes and that it is thus totally different from its material cause. They have, therefore, to postulate something which would connect the effect with its material cause and this, according to them, is done by the असमवायिकारण. Vedānta and other systems admit only two causes viz. समवायिकारण or उपादानकारण and निमित्तकारण or सहकारिकारण.

· · ·

Now Brahman's creation is परमाण्वाद्युपादान-करमोदीसहकारी-कारणपरतन्त्रा. In this compound the part कारणपरतन्त्रा is to be construed with both परमाण्वाद्युपादान and कर्मोदीसहकारी. Thus, the compound means that Brahman's creation is परमाण्वाद्युपादानकारणपरतन्त्रा and कर्मोदीसहकारिकारणपरतन्त्रा. In creating the world Brahman requires the material out of which it is to be created. Secondly, Brahman has to pay due regard to the actions ( कर्मे ) of individual souls, in whose interest and for whose enjoyment the world is to be created. Thus, in the matter of his creation Brahman is dependent on two external things viz. the material out of which the world is made and the actions of individual souls according to which it is made. But the poet's speech is not dependent on anything else in the matter of its creation. So poetical creation is superior to Brahman's

creation.

· · ·

In the case of this adjective viz. परमाण्वा...परतन्त्रा also we have to note that it is primarily applicable to Brahman, who is dependent on these two causes. It is made to qualify ब्राङणो निमित्तिः only secondarily.

· · ·

उपादानम् means the material out of which an effect is produced and उपादानकारणम् is the same as समवायिकारणम्. The expression परमाण्वाद्युपादान has reference to the atomic theory of creation advocated by the Vaiśeṣikas and the Naiyāyikas. According to them the substances पृथिवी, आप्

· · ·

तेजस् and वायु are ultimately produced from their respective atoms, which represent the smallest units of these elements and mark the lowest limit of divison into minuter parts.

· · ·

कर्मोदिसहकारिकारण — Here कर्मे means the action of individual souls, which impels Brahman to create the world. It is the same as अदृष्ट or धर्माधर्मौ. The theory is that the world is created in order to enable individual souls to reap the fruit of their actions. Some theorists believe that it is this कर्म of individual souls that causes motion or activity in the atoms. Thus, Brahman has to depend upon this karman for his creation, of which it is auxiliary cause. The idea here is the same that we met before viz. that Brahman is bound by the restrictions of niyati in his creation. The word आदि in कर्मोदिसहकारी includes such common instrumental causes as space and time.

· · ·

It will be noticed that in the adjective परमाण्वादयु...परतन्त्रा Mammata speaks of only two causes viz. उपादानकारण or समवायिकारण and सहकारिकारण or निमित्तकारण. Thus, here he seems to follow the Vedāntins and others, who do not admit the असमवायिकारण.

· · ·

नवरसहचिराम् — Explain this as नव रसाः यस्यां सा नवरसा (बहुव्रीहि:), नवरसा च असौ रचिरा च नवरसचिरा (विशेषणपदकर्मधारयः), ताम्. This compound as well as मम्मट, दृक्ति on it mention two points in which poetical creation excels that of Brahman. The former has nine रसS as against six found in the latter. Secondly poetical creation is always charming which certainly cannot be said of the creation of Brahman.

· · ·

The six rasas in the world are मधुर or sweet, आम्ल or sour, लवण or saline, कटु or pungent, कपाय or astringent and तिक्त or bitter. Read 'रसग्राह्यो गुणो रसः' स च मधुराम्ललवणकटुकषायतिक्तभेदात् षड्विधि ' तर्कसंग्रह Section 20

· · ·

The nine rasas or sentiments in poetry are enumerated in गृरागद्वेषकरुणोदात्तवीरभयानकाः. बीभत्साद्भुतसंज्ञौ चैत्यग्रो नाव्यो रसाः स्मृताः. ॥ 29...निबन्ध-स्थायिभावोऽपि नवमो रसः... 1...35' काव्यप्रकाश iii; It may be noted that Bharata admits the first eight sentiments only. Vide नाट्यशास्त्र'6. 15. Mammata and Viśvanātha add the ninth viz. शान्त somewhat grudgingly.

· · ·

रस is one of the most important topics in the Alamkaraśāstra and it would not be amiss if we try to know a little more about it at this place. The development of a रस is thus described: ' विभावेनानुभावेन व्यक्तः संचारिरण तथा । रसतात्प्रति रत्यादिः स्थायिभावः सचेतसाम् ॥' साहित्यदर्पण iii. 1. There are in our hearts certain permanent moods or latent emotions, called स्थायिभावs which, when excited and made manifest by विभावs,

· · ·

का. १०

· · ·

अनुभावड and संचारिभावड, attain to the position of a rasa or sentiment.

· · ·

इह = अस्मिन् ग्रन्थे । अभिधेयम् means विषय: the subject-matter viz. काव्यम् ।

· · ·

Mammaṭa shows great practical wisdom and knowledge of human nature when he lays down these six as purposes of poetry. For, they are as true and applicable in modern days as they were in the time of Mammaṭa. कृत्, विद् and युज् are verbal derivatives (कृदन्ती:) from the roots कृ, विद् and युज् ।

· · ·

Mammaṭa tells us that these six purposes accrue to the poet and the appreciative reader (सहृदय:) according to capability (यथायोग्यताऽनुरूपमित्यर्थ: )।

· · ·

Mammaṭa illustrates the second purpose by quoting the example of Bāṇa, who was patronized by Emperor Harṣa of Thanesar. Harṣa was born in 590 A. D. and ruled over the whole of Northern India from 606 A. D. to 647 A. D. Bāṇa himself tells us that he obtained vast amounts of money from his patron. Read 'अस्य [ बाणस्य ]... पृथिवीपतेः [ श्रीहर्ष: ] प्रसादवान्, अभूत् । अविश्र्वच [ बाण: ] पुनराप नरपतिभवनम् । स्वल्पैरपि चाहोभिः परमप्रीतेन प्रसादजननो मानस्य प्रेम्णो विद्वन्मत्स्य द्रविणस्य नम्रेण: प्रभावस्य च पारं कोटिमानीयत नरेन्द्रेण ।' हर्षचरित द्वितीय उच्छ्वास ।

· · ·

literature. On the other hand the association of Bāṇa with Sriharṣa is well known.

· · ·

The corrupt reading धावकादीनाम् is responsible for bringing into existence a poet of that name and attributing to him the authorship of रत्नावली which is supposed to have allowed to be published under श्रीहर्ष's name for money. For a different tradition in this connection c. f. क्षेमेन्द्र. P. 7.

· · ·

आदित्योदये: — अनर्थनिवारणम्. As an illustration of how शिवeterakṣati is achieved by poetry, सम्मट in his वृत्ति refers to the story of मयूर. This poet flourished at हर्षवर्धन's court in the 7th century and was according to one tradition the father-in-law of बाणभट्. As a result of a curse pronounced on him by Bāṇa's wife, he was stricken with leprosy. He then composed a poem called सूर्यशतक and thus securing the favour of Sun he got rid of leprosy.

· · ·

Though generally शिवeterakṣati is regarded as a purpose peculiar to the poet, it may also be applicable to the readers. This is why countless people recite every day मङ्गलवद्य; गुरुपत्नी; शान्तिमङ्गलय etc.

· · ·

सत्यःपरिनिष्ठिति is the fifth purpose of poetry, which has rightly been designated by Mammata as the chief or principal of all purposes ( सकलप्रयोजनमौलिभूत ). This joy of poetry arises from our relishing or appreciation of the flavours or sentiments therein ( रसास्वादनसमुद्भूत ). It is such an overpowering joy that all other consciousness drops off at the time of its experience ( विगलिते नष्टे चेतान्तरे स्वातिरिक्तविषयान्तरे यत्र ). What is meant is that when we appreciate the various sentiments in poetry, we feel such supreme delight that we forget everything else at that time.

· · ·

उपदेशयुज् = उपदेशयोगः is that sixth purpose. This expression literally means association of advice. It is capable of signifying (1) 'derivation or obtaining of advice ( उपदेशालम्भः उपदेशप्रहणं वा )' by the reader from perusal of poetry, or (2) 'the conveyance of advice ( उपदेशदानम् )' to the reader by the poet. With first interpretation उपदेशयुज् is applicable to the reader only. For, it is he, and not the poet, who obtains advice from poetry. With the second interpretation उपदेशयुज् becomes a purpose peculiar to the poet. For, it is the poet who conveys advice to the reader. Mammaṭa's Vṛtti shows that he intends the first interpretation. For, his words 'काव्ये...उपदेशे...करोति' fit in with सहृदयस्य and not with कवे: . On the other hand कान्तासंमिततया of the Kārikā indicates that the second interpretation is meant. For, a beloved, like poetry

· · ·

वर्णनं, तस्यां निपुणः कुशलः यः कविः तस्य कवेः the compositon of a poet skilled in [ giving ] extraordinary or striking description.

· · ·

अस्य = काव्यस्य. प्रयोजनम्—This should really be प्रयोजनानि.

· · ·

Karika 3—This Kārikā gives us the cause of poetry i. e. the qualities which go to make a poet.

· · ·

शक्ति: is the same as प्रतिभा i. e. the poetic genius.

· · ·

निपुणता which is the second requisite, arises from the close study of the world, the various Sciences, poetical compositions of previous writers and historical books like Mahābhārata.

· · ·

अभिधानकोश represents lexicons such as that of अमर-कला

· · ·

In the expression महाकविनिबन्धानाम् मम्मट does not necessarily restrict himself to the five famous महाकाव्य’s but intends to include poetic compositions of great poets.

· · ·

मम्मट emphatically adds in the end that the three together and not separately form the cause of poetry.

· · ·

In spite of above we believe that मम्मट is inclined to the view that a poet is born, not made.

· · ·

काव्यशास्त्रव्यास:

· · ·

१५२

· · ·

sense, Mammata suggests that those word and sanse are possessed of rasa, then we reply that he should have said सरसौ शब्दार्थौ and dropped all reference to excellences. For, excellences are not of the essence of poetry. They merely heighten the beauty thereof. Fourthly, प्राय: सालंकारत्व is also not essential to poetry. Figures may heighten the beauty of poetry, but they do not form its essence. A lady usually puts on ornaments and appears more charming with them. But nobody would ever think of including प्राय: सालंकारत्व as part of the defintion of a woman.

· · ·

It will thus be seen that Mammata's definition of poetry is unscientific, inaccurate and inconsistent. In a scientific definition we expect to find the essentials of the thing defined. Mammata's definition does not give the essentials of poetry. Therefore, it is unscientific. It is inaccurate, because सगुण, which can properly be applied to रस, is here made to qualify word and sense and also because it includes non-essentials such as अदोषत्व, सगुणत्व and प्राय: सालंकारत्व. The definition is open to the fault of inconsistency, because though Mammata knew that the principal thing in poetry is rasa, he did not include it in his definition.

· · ·

On behalf of Mammata it is pointed out that his definition has the merit of being simple and easy to. understand. It is easy to know what a defect, an excellence and a figure are. But it is by no means so easy to get a clear idea of what a rasa is. That is perhaps why Mammata avoided a reference to rasa in his definition.

· · ·

It must be noted that this defence of Mammata is very lame and unconvincing. The merit that Mammata's definition is supposed to possess is really no merit at all. Mammata is writing a scientific work. We, therefore, expect him to give us a scientific definition of the main topic of his book. This he has failed to do. If, as is supposed, Mammata did not make a reference to rasa, because he feared that beginners would not understand what rasa is, why did he then use the expression नवरसचिराम् in the very first Kārikā ? Then again he speaks of रसाभिव्यक्त्यापार on p. 3 and रसस्य प्राधान्यम् on p. 5 How could he expect the beginners to understand these passages, if we were to suppose that he avoided a reference to rasa in his definition through solicitude for the poor intelligence of his readers ? In the fourth Ullasa Mammata gives a full explanation of rasa. What about the difficulty of understanding it there ? Altogether the defence of Mammata appears to us to be unsound and his definition of poetry deserves to be condemned, as it rightly is.

· · ·

मुख्यार्थहतिलोपौ रसक्षतौ मुख्यस्तद्वाध्रयाद् वाच्य: उभयो- पयोगिन: स्तु: शब्दार्थास्तेन तेऽपि सः ।

· · ·

ये रसस्याङ्गिनो धर्माः शौर्यादय इवात्मनः । उत्कर्षहेतवस्ते स्युरचतलस्थितयो गुणाः ।

· · ·

उपकुर्यात्ते सन्ति [ रसे ] येऽङ्गद्वारेग जतुचित् । द्वारादिदवदङ्कारास्तेऽनुप्रासोपमादयः ।

· · ·

कावीत्यनेत्...ह्यनि:

· · ·

य: कौमारहर: etc.

· · ·

विमावना

· · ·

tive particle, which would have shown that the result has not followed.

· · ·

These two figures in an indistinct form are possible in this stanza. As we cannot say definitely which one of these is the figure of the stanza, the proper 'figure' is असकुटविभावनाविशेषोक्तिमूल: संदेहसङ्कर:.

· · ·

अस्फुटत्वं हि प्राधान्येन नालंकरता।

· · ·

प्राधान्येन यत्र वाक्यार्थो यत्नस्तु रसादयः । काव्ये तरिमन्नलङ्कारो रसादिरिलित मे मतिः ॥

· · ·

ध्वन्यालोक ii. 5 ).

· · ·

नाभ्यूजघनस्पर्शी नीवीविव्हलशासनः करः ॥

· · ·

Here the principal sentiment is करुण to which श्रृङ्गार is subordinate.

· · ·

In 'यः कौमारहरः' the sentiment is विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार.

· · ·

Consequently, this stanza cannot be an instance of रसवदलङ्कार.

· · ·

So there is प्रसादगुण in it.

· · ·

Thus, as word and sense in ' यः कौमारहरः: etc.' are अदोष, प्रसादगुणयुत and असकुटविभावनाविशेषोक्तिमूलसंदेहसङ्करालङ्कारयुत,

· · ·

This is the view of Mammata as regards 'यः कौमारहरः etc.'

· · ·

it contains प्रसादगुण and has two indistinct figures,

· · ·

One may further add that we call this Verse a काव्य not only because it satisfies the conditions laid down by Mammata

· · ·

The स्फोट theory arose out of the discussion as to how meaning is conveyed by words.

· · ·

It is obvious that the letters क, म, ल cannot give us the meaning, either separately or jointly.

· · ·

They also cannot do it in conjunction because the letters have a momentary existence and hence cannot combine.

· · ·

For there is no guarantee that the impressions of the

· · ·

previous letters will be recollected in exactly the same order. The grammarians, therefore, believed that a शब्द has two forms viz. 1 ) The non-eternal i. e. the letters 2 ) The eternal i. e. the स्फोट. This latter is principal and is revealed by the non-eternal form i. e. the letters. This स्फोट is responsible for conveying the meaning. The grammarians apply the term ध्वनि to this non-eternal form of the word, because it is suggestive of the suggested sense in the form of स्फोट.

· · ·

Then again, we have to note that Mammata does not admit the figure रसवत्. Therefore, his remark ‘रसस्य हि प्राधान्यात्रोल्क्कारता’ must be understood as having been directed against writers like Bhatti Bhamaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Anandavardhana, who among Mammata's predecessors admit this figure. Ruyyaka, Viśvanath and Appyya Diksita from among his successors admit it.

· · ·

All instances of रसवदलङ्कार would according to Mammata be cases of ध्वनि and गुणीभूतव्यङ्गच ( which we shall presently meet ) or of गुणीभूत-व्यङ्गच्य ध्वनि काव्य from the point of view of व्यङ्गच्य. Thus ‘अर्थे or रसनोत्कर्षी ध्वनि काव्य from that of शृङ्गार करुणरस and गुणीभूतव्यङ्गच्य काव्य from that of शृङ्गार.

· · ·

तत्रेदानीं = काव्यभेदान्. Mammata now gives us three divisions of काव्य viz. उत्तम, मध्यम and अधम. These divisions are based on the relative position which the suggested sense ( ध्वनि, व्यङ्गच्यार्थ: or प्रतীয়मानार्थ: ) occupies therein with regard to the expressed sense. Thus, if the suggested sense ( व्यङ्गच्यम्) is more charming, striking or prominent ( अतिशायिन् ) than the expressed sense ( वाच्यम् ), that is उत्तम काव्य. If the suggested sense is not like that ( अतादृशं ). i. e. is not more charming than the expressed sense i. e. is less charming than the expressed sense, that is मध्यम काव्य. When a काव्य is striking ( चित्त्र ) in the word or in the expressed sense only and does not possess any distinct suggested sense, it is अधम.

· · ·

These three kinds of poetry are otherwise known as ध्वनि ( सव्यङ्गच्य ), गुणीभूतव्यङ्गच्य and अव्यङ्गच्य ( स्कुटव्यङ्गच्यरहित i. e. अस्फुटव्यङ्गच्यसहित respectively ). The three terms are significant and show that every kind of poetry must have a suggested sense, whether distinct as in उत्तम and मध्यम, or indistinct as in अधम. That even in अधम काव्य some kind of suggested sense is necessary is once more stated by Mammata in the 10th Ullasa. Vide p. 37.

· · ·

It will thus be seen that while in giving the definition of poetry Mammata seems to follow the Alamkāra, Riti and Vakrokti schools,

· · ·

इदमुतमम्

· · ·

बुचः ध्वनिकारणैः

· · ·

निःशेषच्युतचन्दनम्

· · ·

विश्वनाथ

· · ·

अतादृशि । — Construe : व्यङ्ग्यचे तु अतादृशि (वाच्यादनतिशयकारिणि) [सति इदं काव्य] मध्ये [भवति] । [तद्, बुधै: ] गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यं [कथितम्] ।

· · ·

शब्दचित्रं ० — Construe : शब्दचित्रं वाच्यचित्रं तु [ काव्यम् ] अवरं स्मृतम् ।

· · ·

स्वच्छन्दोच्छलदलदल्‍लच्‍छ । — The principal clause is मन्दाकिनी वः मन्तदतां मियात

· · ·

rising up ) येषाम्, एवंविधा: महोर्मयः महातरङ्गाः ( great waves ) तैः मेदुरः निविडः अतिशयुत्तः ( intense ) मदो गवां: यस्याः सा. Tall and richly endowed trees fell into the stream, as the banks on which they stood were washed away by the forcible current. Their fall made the water rise up in the form of huge waves of which the river felt intensely proud.

· · ·

word conveys these three senses it is respectively known as वाचक or expressive, लाक्षणिक or indicative and व्यञ्जक or suggestive.

· · ·

The power of a word is generally called वृत्ति or function. It is also sometimes known as व्यापार or process.

· · ·

तात्पर्यार्थीङ्गपि केषुचित् —After केषुचित् supply मतेषु i. e. according to the views of some. केषुचित् may also be taken as equal to केषुचिद्दर्शनेषु i. e. in some systems.

· · ·

Some hold that besides the three powers or functions, mentioned above, there is a fourth function (वृत्ति) called तात्पर्य or purport. This function belongs, not to individual words; as अभिधा, लक्षणा and व्यञ्जना belong, but to the sentence as a whole. Its purpose is to convey the connection between the meanings of the different words in a sentence. This connected meaning is known as तात्पर्यार्थ.

· · ·

तात्पर्यान्वयः ( तात्पर्य ) वृत्तिमाहु' | तात्पर्यार्थस्तदर्थ च वाक्यं तद्वोधकं परे ||

· · ·

अभिहितान्वयवादिनः—

· · ·

The people who admit this fourth वृत्ति i. e. तात्पर्य are called as अभिहितान्वयवादिनः ( अभिहितानां स्वस्वग्र्यः पदैः प्रतिपादितानाम् अर्थानाम् अन्यैः इति ये वदन्ति ते ). They are so called because they maintain that in a sentence, first the words convey their own individual meaning and then a connection between them arises, giving rise to the sense of a sentence as a whole.

· · ·

According to them every word has a generic meaning which it expresses independently. This may be called वाच्यार्थ (This meaning is learnt either from elderly persons or dictionaries and the like).

· · ·

When several words are combined to form a sentence, the generic senses are modified in some way or other to accommodate others. These together give rise to a sense which is the sense of the sentence as a whole. This is done by the वृत्ति तात्पर्ये which operates owing to the force of आकाङ्क्षा, योग्यता and सन्निधि.

· · ·

These include the followers of न्याय and वैशेषिक schools and the followers of the great मीमांसक, कुमारिलभट्ट.

· · ·

अन्विताभिधानवादिनः —

· · ·

Opposed to this view of the अभिहितान्वयवादिनः is the view of the अन्विताभिधानवादिनः ( अन्वितस्य अर्थेन्तरसंबन्धस्य अर्थस्य अभिधानं प्रतिपादनं शब्देन क्रियते इति वादिनः ) or those who maintain that a word expresses a connected meaning and there is no need to suppose a generic sense for every word.

· · ·

These are the followers of Guru or प्रभाकर, a famous मीमांसक, who was a pupil of कुमारिलभट्ट, and are known as प्राभाकर मीमांसक.

· · ·

[ Sutra १६६ ]

काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

According to the view of the अन्विताभिधानवादिनः the meaning of words is apprehended from वृद्धव्यवहार or the dealings of elderly people. A child hears the sentences used for carrying out this व्यवहार and by a process of unconscious ratiocination understands the meanings of words in those sentences owing to their presence and absence therein. Thus, when Devadatta orders Yajñadatta ' गामानय ', Yajñadatta brings a bull. Devadatta then says ' गां बधान ' and Yajñadatta binds the bull. A child hears these two sentences and observes that two actions have taken place in connection with one entity viz. the bull. Finding that the word गाम् is common to both the sentences the child jumps to the conclusion that the bull, which was the common object for both the actions, must be the meaning of the word गाम्. Then again, on hearing the sentences ' गाम् आनय ' and ' अश्वम् आनय ' the child observes that a bull and a horse are brought. Here one action viz. bringing takes place with reference to two objects and one word viz. आनय is common to the two sentences. The child, therefore, concludes that bringing must be the meaning of आनय.

· · ·

It will thus be seen that in this process of understanding the meaning of words, the meaning is always apprehended as being connected either with some action or object or something else. Thus, in गामानय the child understands from गाम् the sense of the bull connected with the action of bringing as its object and from आनय the sense of bringing connected with the bull as its object. Hence, as the meaning we understand from words is always a connected ( अन्वित ) meaning, no function such as तात्पर्य is necessary to denote the connection between the meanings of words in sentences. Such is the view of the अन्विताभिधानवादिनः.

· · ·

आकांक्षायोग्यतासन्निधिवशाद् — The function तात्पर्य belongs to a sentence and a sentence is a collection of words, which are possessed of आकांक्षा, योग्यता and सन्निधि or आसत्ति.

· · ·

आकांक्षा means expectancy. It is the inability of a word to convey a connected meaning in the absence of the other. Words are said to be सकांक्श when they satisfy one another's आकांक्षा. Thus in देवदत्तः गच्छति, देवदत्त the substantive has an आकांक्षा for क्रिया satisfied by गच्छति. The verb also has an expectancy for देवदत्त.

· · ·

योग्यता is compatibility. It is defined as अर्थाविरोधः or the absence of contradiction between the meanings. " Thus in आम्रफलं पिबति the आम्रफलं has no योग्यता for पानक्रिया and hence the two words do not form a sentence proper.

· · ·

सन्निधि:

· · ·

वाच्यमाणस्वरूपाणि पदार्थानाम्

· · ·

अन्विताभिधानवादिन:

· · ·

सर्वेषा...व्यञ्जकत्वमपीष्यते—

· · ·

प्रायण:

· · ·

१६८

· · ·

it is not व्यञ्जक. Moreover a limitation implied by प्रायेणः is necessary. Otherwise the series will have no end.

· · ·

This stanza is quoted as an example, where वाच्यार्थे is Suggestive. Here the suggested sense is that the girl is desirous of wanton sport and wants :to go out for that purpose under the pretext of bringing provisions. It should be noted that this suggested sense becomes possible owing to the speciality of the speaker (वक्तृवैशिष्ट्यम्) viz. the स्वैरिणीत्व of the girl. If on the other hand, this stanza had been uttered by an innocent girl, who honestly wanted to go out for bringing provision, the वाच्यार्थे would not have been further suggestive.

· · ·

साध्यन्ती०—साध्यन्ती = गच्छन्ती. The causal of साधू-साधोति is usually used in the sense of ' to go.' शुभगम् the fortunate one. This word has a special sense in Sanskrit erotic poetry. It means a ladies' man, a man after whom ladies hanker. Read 'स खलु शुभगो यमज्ना: कामयन्ते' मधुनाथ on 'सौभाग्ये ते शुभग विरहावस्थया व्यजयन्ती' मेघदूत. 29

· · ·

This stanza has been quoted as an illustration where the indicated sense is further suggestive. The context is the same as :that of 'निःशेष-च्युतचन्दने' etc.' p. 5. As the messenger has grievously wronged the nāyikā by sporting with her lover and has thus behaved like her enemy, the वाच्यार्थे of 'सखि मृदुलं शुभगं साधयन्ती दूयासि | सद्दावस्नेहकरणीयसदृशी त्वया विरचितम्'

· · ·

resorted to and this विपरीतलक्षणा indicates the sense 'स्वैरिणि, सृक्कते शुभगं साधयन्ती हुष्टासि | असद्वाराश्रुतकरणीयसदृशी सद्दावस्नेहकरणीयविसदृशं वा त्वया विरचितम् |

· · ·

Now, this लक्ष्यार्थे becomes further suggestive and reveals that in this matter the guilt really belongs to the lover, who succumbed to the fascinations of the messenger.

· · ·

It should be noted that here the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ, and for the matter of that the लक्ष्यार्थ also, arises on account of बोद्धृवैशिष्ट्य or the speciality of the person addressed. When the messenger returned, the nāyikā observed that there were indications of संभोग or dalliance on her body-

· · ·

These constituted her वैशिष्ट्य from which the nāyikā knew what had happened and spoke to her in the manner stated in the stanza.

· · ·

It will be seen that this stanza contains all the three senses viz-वाच्यार्थ, लक्ष्यार्थ and व्यङ्ग्यार्थ. Out of these the वाच्यार्थ is बाधित and is consequently superseded by the लक्ष्यार्थ. Then, when the लक्ष्यार्थ further suggests the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ, that व्यङ्ग्यार्थ does not set aside the लक्ष्यार्थ, but is understood in addition to it.

· · ·

पश्य निष्पल निष्पन्दा।

· · ·

Here note that the word उच्चयते is incorrect.

· · ·

According to the second context we suppose that the lovers had already made an appointment to meet at the place.

· · ·

साक्षात् संकेतितं योडर्थमभिधत्ते स वाचकः।

· · ·

f. इदं पदम्‌सुमर्थं बोधयतु इति अस्मात् पदादयमर्थो बोद्धव्य इति तत्त्वचिन्तामणि

· · ·

साक्षात् संकेतितम्

· · ·

अभिधत्ते

· · ·

इह अभिधीतसंकेतस्य

· · ·

सकेतितस्तु मेदो

· · ·

These are the Saugatas or Bauddhas. The first two are mentioned in ' संकेतित...जातिरेव वा ' and the last two are referred to at the end of 'the Vṛtti on this Kārika.

· · ·

यद्यपि...व्यक्तिरेव—Our worldly dealings consist of प्रवृत्ति or निवृत्ति i. e. we either proceed to do certain things or desist from doing certain others. Whether we are engaged in प्रवृत्ति or निवृत्ति, we always deal with the individual. For, the individual alone ( व्यक्तिरेव ), and not जाति or generality, is capable of doing an action calculated to serve our purpose or end. For example, when we want milk, we go towards an individual cow, not towards गोत्व or the generality cowness. Thus, as all our dealings refer to the individual, it would seem 'proper that convention should be understood with reference to the individual. After ' यद्यपि...व्यक्तिरेव ' supply ' इति तस्यामेव व्यक्तौ संकेतः युक्तः : '

· · ·

तथापि...तदुपाधौ एव संकेतः—This passage tells us that inspite of the fact that the individual is the centre of our प्रवृत्ति and निवृत्ति, it is not proper to understand convention with reference to it for three reasons or faults viz. ( 1 ) आनन्त्यम्, ( 2 ) व्यभिचार: and ( 3 ) विषयविभागप्राप्ति: We shall now see what these three reasons or faults are.

· · ·

आनन्त्यम्—If convention were to be apprehended with reference to the individual, it would refer ( 1 ) to all the individuals of a class, or ( 2 ) to a single individual, or ( 3 ) to a limited number of individuals. Thus, the word गो would mean all the bulls in the world, belonging to the past, present and future, or a single bull, or a limited number of bulls that we see every day. In the case of the first alternative the fault आनन्त्य or endlessness arises and in the case of the second and the third alternatives the fault व्यभिचार or violation. To explain : If the conventional meaning of गो were to include all the bulls in the world, it would be impossible to understand this conventional meaning. For, bulls in the world being endless ( अनन्त ) nobody can know them all. This is the fault आनन्त्य. But as a matter of fact we do understand the conventional meaning of गो. This is proof of the fact that the conventional meaning of गो cannot be all the bulls in existence.

· · ·

व्यभिचार:- व्यभिचार means violation. Here it means violation of the rule ' संकेतितस्यैव शब्दबोध: ' i. e. of the rule that we understand from a word only that sense about which a convention has been made with reference to it. Now, let us suppose that the convention of गो is made with reference to a single individual viz. a red bull. When, however, we see a black bull, we designate it also by the term गो. Here, what happens is that we understand from the word गो the black bull also.

· · ·

१७२

· · ·

But according to our supposition the black bull is not the conventional meaning of गो. It is संकेतविषय with reference to गो. Yet it is understood from the word गो all the same. This means that the rule 'संकेतितस्यैव शब्दबोध:' is violated. For, we have understood from the word गो of the sense of the black bull about which convention had not been made with reference to it. Thus, व्यभिचार or violation of 'संकेतितस्यैव शब्दबोध:' comes in.

· · ·

Similar reasoning is applicable to the third alternative also. Here we suppose that the convention of गो is understood with reference to a limited number of bulls, say ten. Now, when we see an eleventh bull, we shall designate it also as गो. But this eleventh bull is संकेतविषय. Hence the rule that a word expresses only that sense about which convention is made with regard to it is violated. Thus, there is व्यभिचार.

· · ·

विषयविभागाप्राप्ति:-In connection with the question of understanding the conventional meaning of words the grammarians quote this typical sentence viz. गौ: शुक्लश्वलोऽडिति: (A white bull, named Dittha, moves). Here, we find that the word गौ: denotes the class of bulls, शुक्ल: the quality viz. the colour white, चल: the action and डित्थ:, which is a proper name, the single individual bull. Thus, there is a distinct province ( विषय: ) assigned to each of these words, which are consequently known as जातिशब्द, गुणशब्द, क्रियाशब्द and संज्ञाशब्द or द्रव्यशब्द or यहच्छाशब्द. The grammarians, therefore, hold that words are of four kinds and that the convention of words refers, not to the individual, but to the four attributes ( उपाधि: ), which the individual possesses. These attributes are जाति, गुण, क्रिया and संज्ञा. The four classes of words correspond to these four attributes.

· · ·

Now, if the convention of words were to refer to an individual, it is clear that in the sentence 'गौ: शुक्लश्वलो डित्थ:' all words would signify the individual bull and would hence be as good as synonyms. The words would thus not have a separate province ( विषयविभाग: विभिन्न: विषय: इत्यर्थ: ); but would point to only one entity viz. the individual bull ( गोव्यक्ति: ). This is the defect विषयविभागाप्राप्ति:, referred to in 'गौ: शुक्लश्वलो...न प्राप्नोति'.

· · ·

Mammata has thus shown that owing to the three faults आननन्य, व्यभिचार and विषयविभागाप्राप्ति it is not proper to understand convention in the individual. So far both the grammarians and the Mīmāṁsakas agree, both of them being at one in holding that convention cannot be understood in the individual. But when it comes to the positive

· · ·

उपाधिवृत्त ... महाभाष्यकार:-

· · ·

उपाधि: ( चतुर्विधः )

· · ·

वस्तुधर्मः वक्तृयदच्छासंनिवेशितः ( संज्ञारूपो द्रव्यरूपो वा )

· · ·

सिद्ध: साध्य: ( किया )

· · ·

प्राणप्रदः ( जातिः ) 1 विशेषाधनहेतुः ( गुणः ) २

· · ·

गौ: स्वरूपेण गौ: नापि अगौ:

· · ·

रूप्यसत्काकं

· · ·

वाक्यपदीय—

· · ·

दित्यादिशब्दानां...यहच्छातत्क इति—

· · ·

speaker in giving him a particular name is the स्कोट of that name, which here is designated संज्ञा।

· · ·

गौ: श्रुक: ... महाभाष्यकार :-

· · ·

परमाणवादीनां ... गुणत्वम् -

· · ·

The Vaiśeṣikas divide all cognizable things in the world into seven heads or categories ( द्रव्यगुणकर्मादिसमवायविशेषाभावैरः सप्तपदार्थ:।' तर्कसंग्रह )।

· · ·

पारिमाण्डल्य belongs to atoms and विभुत्व to such entities as आकाश and आत्मा, which are all-pervading।

· · ·

But according to the grammarians and the rhetoricians परमाणुत्व is a जाति and परमाणु a जातिवाचक word।

· · ·

In spite of this, the परिमाणु परिमाण and others are regarded as गुणs by the वैशेषिकs।

· · ·

गुणक्रियायहच्छानां...आलम्बनमेदात्

· · ·

Now in the case of Proper names also the logic applies. A name like नारायण, though appears to be different being applied to different individuals, is really the same for the स्कोट of नारायण ramains the same all through.

· · ·

It should be noted that difference owing to the difference of abodes in the case of यदृच्छाशब्द is not quite so marked as it is in the case of गुणशब्द and क्रियाशब्द. But all three fall in the same category and have, therefore, been grouped together.

· · ·

The process of understanding the meaning from क्रिया and यदृच्छा words is once more the same as was seen in the case of गुण words. Thus, they first express the action and the Sphoṭa by अभिधा and then the individual possessed of that action and that Sphoṭa by आक्षेप or अनुमान.

· · ·

हिमपयःशब्दयोर्येषु...इति अन्ये

· · ·

— So far Mammata explained the view of the grammarians, who are जातिवादिनः The view of the Mimāṃsakas, referred to in ‘जातिरेव वा’ of the Kārikā on p. 5 is now being explained in this passage.

· · ·

The Mimāṃsakas are जातिवादिनः i. e. they say that the convention of all words is understood in जाति or generality. They proceed to prove this as follows :

· · ·

The whites that are found in snow, milk, conch and others are really different (परमार्थतः भिन्न) from one another even as individual bulls (गोव्यक्तयः) are different from one another. Yet with reference to the different whites we use an identical expression (अभिन्नाभिधानम्) viz. शुकृक, as when we say ‘शुकृक हिमं’, ‘शुकृक पयः’ and शुकृक शङ्खः get an identical cognition or apprehension (अभिन्नः प्रत्ययः) viz. the cognition of white (शुकृकत्वप्रतीति:). This is because, though the individual whites (शुकृकव्यक्तयः) are different from one another, they possess a common class-characteristic, called शुकृकत्व, on account of which an identical expression and an identical apprehension arise with reference to the different whites, even as अभिन्नाभिधान and अभिन्नप्रत्यय arise with reference to different individual bulls owing to their possessing the common class characteristic गोत्व. Thus, the word शुकृक, which is regarded as गुणवाचक by the grammarians, is exactly similar to the word गो. Both of them are, therefore, equally जातिवाचक.

· · ·

It should be noticed that according to the first view i. e. the view of वैयाकरणः, the seemingly different whites are really one and they appear to be different owing to the difference of abodes, The मीमांसकs on the other hand regard these white as really different and accept

· · ·

का. १२

· · ·

जाति i. e. शु्कृ्त्व to avoid the faults of आननन्य and व्यभिचार. Actually there is not much difference between the two views.

· · ·

It may here be pointed out that in designating शु्कृ्त्व as a जाति the Mīmāṁsakas have the support of the Vaiseṣikas, according to whom सामान्य or generality resides in substance, quality and action (‘ [ सामान्य ] द्रव्यगुणकर्मेति ।’ तक्रेसंग्रह ). Thus, शु्कृ्त्व and पाकत्व are सामान्यs or जातिस, according to the Mīmāṁsakas and the Vaiśesikas.

· · ·

Similarly, the action of going connected with a soldier, a woman: and a railway train is quite different in each case. But अभिन्नाभिधान and अभिन्नप्रत्यय arise with reference to these different goings because of the class-characteristic गमनत्व residing in them all. Thus, what are regarded as क्रियावाचक words by the grammarians are really जातिवाचक.

· · ·

That is due to the fact that these different डित्थशब्दs possess the class characteristic डित्थत्व. Secondly, the entity named डित्थ, such as a bull, is changing every moment, albeit imperceptibly, and perceptibly too, when it grows from childhood. through youth to old age. Yet with reference to these different Dittha entities, अभिन्नाभिधान and अभिन्नप्रत्यय arise.

· · ·

It should be noted that the Mīmamsakas’ idea that words when uttered by different individuals become really Pifferent proceeds from

· · ·

the fact that; they do not admit Sphoṭa. Secondly, the Mīmāṃsakas’ statement that entities like Dittha change every moment has reference to the Buddhistic doctrine of ‘सर्व क्षणिकम्’ Though the Mīmāṃsakas do not believe in this doctrine themselves, they seem to have made use of it to prove the जातिवाचकत्व of संज्ञा words.

· · ·

सर्वेषां शब्दानां जातिरेव पदार्थः — This sums up the view of the Mīmāṃsakas, who believe that all words possess जाति as the cause of currency i, e. as their संकेतित, वाच्य or मुख्य अर्थे.

· · ·

It must be remarked that the Mīmāṃsakas’ attempt to prove that जाति is the import of संज्ञाशब्दs cannot be regarded as successful. The first requisite for regarding जाति as the conventional meaning of proper names is that the entities to which those names are given must be shown to be अनेक. For, जाति or सामान्य, as we saw before, is एक and अनेकानुगत. The Mīmāṃsaks prove the plurality of entities expressed by proper names by resorting to the Buddhistic doctrine of universal momentariness. With such doctrine it is really not possible to get any idea of class-characteristic at all. For. in order to have such an idea we must observe different individuals and note what common characteristic they possess. When individuals are perishing every moment, such observation is impossible. Then again, such changeableness every moment (प्रतीक्षण भङ्गयमानता) is not peculiar to दित्थादि अर्थs. Even entities expressed by regularly जातिवाचक words undergo such change. Further, the Mīmāṃsakas’ idea that words like Dittha, when uttered by different individuals, become really different, is not peculiar to संज्ञाशब्दs. The same can be said with reference to जातिशब्दs also; when they are uttered by different individuals. Altogether the doctrine that संज्ञाशब्दs are जातिवाचक does not appear to us to be satisfactory.

· · ·

तद्वान् अपोहो वा शब्दार्थः कैश्चिद् उक्तः — In this sentence Mammata refers to two more views regarding the convention of words. These are the views of the ancient Naiyāyikas, who are known as जातिविशिष्टव्यक्तिवादिनः and of the Buddhists, who are designated अपोहवादिनः.

· · ·

तद्वान् शब्दार्थः means जातिवान् जातिविशिष्टः पदार्थः व्यक्तिरूपः शब्दार्थः शब्दस्य संकेतितः अर्थः. This is the view of ancient Naiyāyikas. They feel that it is not possible to fix the convention in the individual because of the faults of आनन्वय and व्यभिचार. Nor can it be understood in जाति because the idea of the individual in that case would not be had. Hence they advocate जातिविशिष्ट व्यक्तिवाद. Since in this view, the जाति is already grasped, आनन्वय and व्यभिचार faults do not arise.

· · ·

अपोहः

· · ·

क्षणिक

· · ·

जाति

· · ·

गुणक्रिया

· · ·

गो

· · ·

वृत्ति

· · ·

व्यक्तिवादिनस्तु आहुः

· · ·

परमाणवादीनों

· · ·

विरोध

· · ·

स मुख्यो ... उच्यते

· · ·

१८२

· · ·

Page 14

· · ·

So far Mammata has defined वाचक, शब्द वाच्यार्थ and अभिधा. Now he commences the treatment of लक्षणिक शब्द, लक्ष्यार्थ and लक्षणा. Out of these लक्षणा is defined in Kārikā 4, where we get a tacit definition of लक्ष्यार्थ also, and लक्षणिकशब्द in Kārikā 9a.

· · ·

Kārikā 4—Here ‘अत्र अर्थ: अभिधात: स कियते लक्षणा’ is the definition of लक्षणा. ‘मुख्यार्थबाधे तद्योगे हृदतोष्ट प्रयोजनात्’ enumerates the three conditions, under which लक्षणा becomes possible. आरोपिता is descriptive of लक्षणा. ‘यः अन्य: अर्थ: लक्ष्यते स लक्ष्यार्थ:’ is the definition of लक्ष्यार्थ that is implied.

· · ·

In our ordinary language we often come across words whose primary sense is inapplicable or incompatible and which, therefore, have to be understood in a different sense (अन्य: अर्थ:), which is known as secondary or metaphorical. e. g. When we say ‘Wilson College is proud of its traditions’ the word ‘Wilson college’ must be understood in the sense of the members of the college.

· · ·

Mammata’s two examples of लक्षणा are, ‘कर्मणि कुशल:’ ‘गङ्गायां घोष:’.

· · ·

(कुशल: शस्ते धातु असौ ) means one who picks up Kuśa grass (दर्भग्रहणहोता). कर्मणि means in action, say, in the action of studying or painting ( अभ्यासकर्मणि चित्रकर्मणि वा ). Now, we find that the meaning दर्भग्रहणहोता is in no way connected with the action of studying or painting. Thus, the primary or literal meaning of कुशल is incompatible in this sentence. Hence, another meaning viz. clever ( चतुर: or प्रविंग: वा ) has to be obtained from that word. This other sense चतुर: or प्रविग: is लक्ष्यार्थ and the process by which it is conveyed is लक्षणा.

· · ·

Similar is the case with ‘गङ्गायां घोष:’ घोष: means a hamlet, or a settlement of cowherds, so called because cows low there. Now a hamlet cannot be situated on the stream of the Gangā, which is the primary sense of the word गङ्गायाम्. The primary sense being thus incompatible गङ्गायाम् indicates another sense

viz. गङ्गातटे. This is done by means of लक्षणा,

· · ·

Three Conditions of Lakṣaṇā—

· · ·

The three conditions under which लक्षणा becomes possible are ( 1 ) मुख्यार्थबाध:, ( 2 ) तद्योग: and ( 3 ) हृदप्रयोजन्यतरत्. We shall find that in all the four examples of लक्षणा given above these three conditions are satisfied.

· · ·

First Condition—The first condition for understanding a word in a लक्षणिक sense is मुख्यार्थबाध:, which means मुख्यार्थस्य वाच्यार्थस्य संकेतितार्थस्य

· · ·

बाधः अनुपपत्तिः अनौचित्यं वा

· · ·

तस्य मुख्यार्थस्य लक्षणया योगः संबन्धः इति वा।

· · ·

to भतृमित्र this connection is stated to be of five kinds, thus : अभिधेयेन संबन्ध्यात् साधश्यात् समवायत् । वैपरित्यात् क्रिययोगाच्च लक्षणा पञ्चधा मता ॥

· · ·

Third Condition—The third condition is रूढिप्रयोजनान्यतरत्, which means that लक्षणा must proceed either from रूढि or established usage or from प्रयोजन or purpose.

· · ·

Hence, it was held that लक्षणा must always proceed from some definite purpose. प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा was thus the first to be evolved. ‘गङ्गायां घोष:’ is an example of such प्रयोजनलक्षणा, where गङ्गायां means गङ्गातटे.

· · ·

It is true that ‘गङ्गातटे घोष:’ would also indicate that the hamlet is cool and holy. But the idea of excess, belonging to these qualities of coolness, holiness etc. as associated with the hamlet, is to be had from ‘गङ्गायां घोष:’ only.

· · ·

Thus, when लक्षणा first began to be used in the language it had a definite purpose. In course of time in the case of some words this original purpose was lost sight of and forgotten.

· · ·

With reference to these रूढिलक्षणा s Viśvanātha remarks ‘पूर्वत्र प्रयोजनाभावाद् रूढिरेव’ He has even likeammaṭa paraphrased रूढि: by प्रसीद्‌धि.

· · ·

रूढिलक्षणाs.

· · ·

निरुढ़ा इति भ्रष्टोपचारप्रतीतय:।

· · ·

लावण्य।

· · ·

अन्यद् हि शब्दानां व्युत्पत्तिनिमित्तम्, अन्यच्च प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम्,

· · ·

कलिङ्ग साहसिक:

· · ·

इत्यादौ कलिङ्गशब्दो देहावयवेषादिरूपे स्वार्थे असंभवन् यया शब्दशक्त्या स्वसंयुक्तान् पुरुषादीन् प्रत्याययति...सा शक्तिलक्षणा नाम्।

· · ·

मुख्येन ( वाच्यार्थेन ) असमर्थः ( लक्ष्यः ) अर्थः लक्ष्यते ( प्रतिपाद्यते ) यत् ( येन शब्द-व्यापारेण ) सः शब्दव्यापारः लक्षणा. This is the definition of लक्षणा. Note here that मुख्येन is कर्तरि तृतीया and यत्, understood in the sense of येन, is करण तृतीया.

· · ·

अर्थः सान्तरार्थः वाच्यार्थः इत्यर्थः। तथस्मिन् स्थितः सान्तरार्थनिष्ठः।

· · ·

one example of रूढिलक्षणा viz. कर्मणि कुशलः. Apparently, he believes that these sub-divisions, उपादानलक्षणा and others, are not possible in रूढि. If this were the case, Mammata should have said so. His silence on such an important point detracts in our opinion from his reputation as an accurate and systematic writer.

· · ·

Mānikyacandra says that लक्षणाः based on रूढि are too numerous to be definite and that रूढ लक्षणिक words, such as द्विरेफ ( a bee ), द्विक ( a crow ), आनुकूल्य and लावण्य, are similar to वाचक words. That is perhaps why, he suggests, रूढिलक्षणाः are not mentioned by Mammata. Read 'प्रयोजनवती या लक्षणा तस्या एतद् भेदौ। रूढितस्तु या लक्षणा सा लोके प्राचुर्य गता इति न तस्या जैयत्वम्। अभिधाव्यापारतुल्येवावौ ' संकेत p. 29.

· · ·

This apologia for Mammata's failure to treat रूढिलक्षणाः is unsatisfactory. Holding as he does that कर्मणि कुशलः is an example of रूढ लक्षणा, Mammata should logically have proceeded to deal with its divisions. According to Visvanatha रूढिलक्षणा has as many divisions as प्रयोजनलक्षणा. We shall point out his examples of corresponding divisions of रूढिलक्षणा, as we proceed.

· · ·

उपादानलक्षणा, is otherwise known as अजहलस्वार्थी ( अजहत् स्वार्थी याम् ) or अजहल्लक्षणा. In order to understand this terminology l. c, e must remember that लक्षणा is, according to some, djvided in to three kinds viz. जहल्लक्षणा or जहद्सार्था, अजहल्लक्षणा or अजहद्स्वार्थी and जहदजहल्लक्षणा or जहदजहदस्वार्थी. जहल्लक्षणा is the same as our लक्षणलक्षणा, as l. c, e shall presently see. अजहल्लक्षणा is the same as our उपादानलक्षणा. e. g. 'काकेभ्यो दधि रक्ष्यताम् ,' where काक signifies in addition to the crows all other दृश्युपघातक creatures. जहदजहल्लक्षणा otherwise called भागलक्षणा or भागत्यागलक्षणा or Partial Indication, is that in which a part of the primary sense is abandoned and a part is retained, but no additional sense is conveyed e. g. सोऽयं देवदत्तः Here सः means तत्कालविशिष्टः देवदत्तः and अयम् signifies एतत्कालविशिष्टः देवदत्तः and in order to account for the identity of these two देवदत्तs तत्कालविशिष्टत्व and एतत्कालविशिष्टत्व, forming part of the primary senses of सः and अयम्, are dropped. This Indication finds no parallel in the Vedantins to account for the identily in तत्वमसि.

· · ·

उपादानलक्षणा is defined as ' स्वसिद्धये पराक्षेपः.' In examples like 'काकेभ्यो दधि रक्ष्यताम्' स्वसिद्धि already exists, For, काकेभ्यः is properly construed with दधि रक्ष्यताम् and there is nothing incompatible in the sentence as it stands. How is it then that the definition is applicable to such examples ? The answer is स्वसिद्धि in such cases means तात्पर्यानुपुणा वक्त्र-मित्रायानुगुणा व स्वसिद्धिः and it has been shown before that the mere primary sense of काक is not compatible with the intention of the speaker.

· · ·

'गौरनुबन्ध्य:' इत्यादौ

· · ·

Jyotiṣṭoma is a Soma-sacrifice

· · ·

The first two conditions of लक्षणा

· · ·

Somebody may perhaps urge here

· · ·

To this Mukulabhaṭṭa is supposed to reply

· · ·

विशेष्यं नाभिधा

· · ·

the sense व्यक्तिः can be obtained by आक्षेप or अनुमान as Mammata is going to tell us below. Therefore, it should not be regarded as the meaning of गौः i. e. as having been expressed by it by means of अभिधा.

· · ·

इत्सुपादानलक्षणा तु ... व्यक्तिराधीयते — Mammata here points out that 'गौः अनुवन्ध्यः' should not be quoted as an example of उपादानलक्षणा, because, though it satisfies the first two conditions of लक्षणा viz. मुख्यार्थबाधः and तद्योगः, it does not fulfil the third viz. रूढिप्रयोजनान्यतरत् i. e. it cannot be shown that लक्षणा in 'गौरनुवन्ध्यः' arises from either प्रयोजन or रूढि. To explain :

· · ·

न हि अत्र प्रयोजनमस्ति — there is no प्रयोजन here because the मुख्यार्थ here is गोत्वजाति and a जाति can have no attributes. So if we understand 'गौरनुवन्ध्यः' as an example of लक्षणा, there can possibly be no प्रयोजन for it.

· · ·

न वा रूढिरियम् — रूढि occurs when a word, which has been used in the language for some time in its primary sense, or which is even now being used in its primary sense in some instances, completely gives up that primary sense and is used to indicate a secondary sense, there being no purpose for such use of that word. Take the word कुशलः: Originally it must have for some time been current in the language in the primary sense of दर्भग्रहीता. But it has now given up that sense completely and indicates the sense चतुरः or प्रवीनः. There is no special purpose that we can eesily assign for such indication. Therefore, the indication of the sense चतुरः by the word कुशलः is said to proceed from रूढि or usage. Now in the present example 'गौः अनुवन्ध्यः' we cannot say that there is रूढि for two reasons. First, the word गौः has never been used in the language in its primary sense of गोत्वजाति only. Secondly, when the word conveys the sense of गोव्यक्तिः, which is supposed to be its लाङ्ग्यार्थः, it does not completely give up its primary sense of गोत्वजाति. For, the sense गोव्यक्तिः necessarily includes गोत्वजाति. An individual bull would not be a bull unless it was possessed of गोत्वजाति. It will thus be seen that the conveying of the sense of गोव्यक्तिः by the word गौः cannot be said to be due to लक्षणा based on रूढि.

· · ·

The absence of प्रयोजन and रूढि in the case of 'गौः अनुवन्ध्यः' is well brought out by the संप्रदायप्रकाशिनी as follows :— 'किमिङ् प्रयोजनलक्षणम् उत रूढा। न तावद्या, प्रयोजनाभावात्। मुख्यार्थैर्धमौणां हि लक्ष्यगतस्वप्रतीतिलक्षणायां प्रयोजनम्। न हि एतत् प्रकृते संभवति। जाते: धर्मकत्वादिति भावः। नापि रूढा। रूढयांहि मुख्यार्थस्य स्थानंसेव इह तु प्रतीतया जाते: स्त्रीकृत्यार्थानुप्रवेशाय प्रयास इति कथं रूढिलक्षणा' ll pp. 52–53

· · ·

So for Mammata has shown that 'गौ अनुवन्ध्यः' cannot be an example of उपादानलक्षणा based on either प्रयोजन or रूढि. One point incidentally

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

emerges out of this viz. it is suggested that, according to Mammata, उपादानलक्षणा based on रूढि is possible. But Mammata does not treat of रूढिलक्षणा at: all. This, as has been observed before, is a defect in his treatment of लक्षणा.

· · ·

In the sentence गौर्नुवन्त्यः we get an idea of व्यक्तिः गौः from the primary sense जातिः by means of inference (अक्षिप्यते अनुमीयते). This is because there is an invariable association between जातिः and व्यक्तिः. जातिः being an abstract idea can never be an object of व्यापारः. And therefore it also implies by means of inference the व्यक्तिः with which it is invariably associated. The latter is an आश्रयः for the former, it is like a man being asked to bring water, bringing it in a pot.

· · ·

According to प्रभा अक्षिप्यते in this passage means अर्थोपचयस्य बोध्यते or अनुमानेन बोध्यते. What अर्थोपत्ति means we shall see a little later.

· · ·

यथा क्रियताम् इत्यत्र … इत्यादि च-मम्मटः here gives us some examples of अनुमान based on अविनाभावः. In कुरुः we infer an object invariably connected with the क्रिया. Same is true of others.

· · ·

It will be noticed that मम्मटः gives two types of illustrations for inference. (1) क्रियताम् and (2) कुरुः and पिण्डीम्. These have reference to two schools of मीमांसकः viz. The प्रभाकर school and the school of कुमारिल भट्टः. प्रभाकर believes in अभीक्षेपः i. e. that is why मम्मटः says कर्ता (अक्षिप्यते). कुमारिल on the other hand, maintains that a word is necessary to complete the sense, शाब्दी हि आकांक्षा। शब्देनैव प्रपूर्यते (साहित्यदर्पण under ii. 10 ab) Hence only the आकांक्षा created by प्रविशः and पिण्डीम् is fulfilled by रहम् and भक्ष्यः respectively.

· · ·

It should be noted that in this paragraph we have further indications of Mammata's loose terminology. Thus, in 'न तु शब्देन उच्यते', उच्यते, which is really of general signification, is used in the sense of अभिधया बोध्यते or प्रतिपाद्यते. Mammata should have used अभिधीयते instead of उच्यते. Then again, आक्षिप्यते has been used in two senses viz. in the sense of लक्ष्यते or लक्षणया बोध्यते in 'इति जात्या व्यक्तिः आक्षिप्यते' and in the sense of अनुमीयते or अनुमानेन बोध्यते in 'व्यक्तिविनाभावविश्वाक्षा जाता व्यक्तिः आक्षिप्यते'. This loose use of आक्षिप्यते struck the संप्रदायप्रकाशिनी, which tries to explain it in this manner : 'द्विविधो हि आक्षेपः। लक्षणामूलः अविनाभावमूलः। इह [i. e. in व्यक्तिविनाभावविश्वाक्षः etc] अविनाभावमूलानेव अर्थान्तरप्रतीतिः, न लक्षणामूलः इति यावत्।' p. 53

· · ·

A point to note in connection with this discussion is : Mukula-bhatta has quoted गौर्नुवन्त्यः as an example of उपादानलक्षणा and Mammata has shown that as the third condition of लक्षणा is not here

· · ·

'पीनो देवदत्तो'

· · ·

अर्थापत्ति:

· · ·

दृष्टार्थापत्ति: and श्रुतार्थापत्ति: — अर्थापत्ति is of two kinds viz. दृष्टार्थापत्ति

· · ·

'गङ्गायां घोष:' इत्यत्र —

· · ·

उभयरूपा चेय...अमिश्रितत्वात्

· · ·

nnected with each other by the सामीप्यसंबन्ध. In the first case ( गज्ञा and गज्ञातः ) and संयोगसंबन्ध. in the other ( कुन्ता: and कुन्तिनः )

· · ·

Hence these two are illustrations of शुद्ध लक्षणा and not गौण. Expressions like मुखचन्द्र and माणवक. अभि: are however examples of गौण लक्षणा.

· · ·

In the first case चन्द्र secondarily means the face while in the other अभि metaphorically means the boy. In both these cases, between the primary sense and the metaphorical sense, similarity exists and hence they are illustrations of गौण लक्षणा.

· · ·

It will thus be seen that the distinction: between शुद्धा and गौणी is this : When the figurative use of a word arises from any relation other than similarity existing between the primary sense and the indicated sense, the लक्षणा is शुद्ध. But when such use is based on similarity, the लक्षणा is गौण.

· · ·

Note साहद्येत्तरसंबन्ध: शुद्धास्त: सकला अपि । 9 साहद्य्यातु मता गौण्य:’ सा. द. ii. ; Mammata expresses the same idea in a different manner, thus : When a लक्षणा is mixed with उपचार ( understood in its restricted sense ), it is गौण.

· · ·

When it is free from the mixture of such उपचार, it is शुद्ध. मुकुल distinguishes between शुद्ध उपचार and गौण उपचार, which correspond respectively with उपचार in its general and particular sense.

· · ·

It may here be pointed out that the word एव in ‘ उत्तमा शुद्धैव सा द्विधा’ of Kārika 5 'shows that उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा are varieties of शुद्धलक्षणा only.

· · ·

The force of एव is that that उपादान and लक्षण are not the divisions of गौण लक्षणा. एव thus distinguishes these varieties from सारोपा and साध्यवसान, which are both गौण and शुद्ध.

· · ·

अनयोरेदयो:...मेद: — This passage is once more directed against Mukulabhatta, who :holds that in these two varieties of शुद्धलक्षणा viz. उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा ( अनयोरेदयो: = अन्ययो: उपादानलक्षणा-लक्षणलक्षणा उपादानलक्षणा लक्षणलक्षणा

· · ·

-रूपयो: शुद्धलक्षणमेदया:) the indicated or secondary sense ( लक्षणम् ) and the -रूपयो: शुद्धलक्षणमेदया:) the indicated or secondary sense ( लक्षणम् ) and the

· · ·

expressed or primary or indicative sense ( लक्षणम् ) stand apart or aloof from each -other ( ततस् ) so that this aloofness amounts to regular distinction between the two and that the primary sense does not in any way tinge the secondary sense with its nature.

· · ·

What Mukul means is this : In ‘ गज्ञायां घोषः ’, which is an example of लक्षणलक्षणा, the primary sense stream and the secondary sense bank stand aloof and :are distinct from each other.

· · ·

Similarly, in ‘ कुन्ता: प्रविशन्ति ’, which illustrates उपादानलक्षणा, the indicative sense lances and the indicated sense lances are also distinct from each other.

· · ·

In both these cases 'the indicative senses do not tinge, or endow with their

· · ·

nature, the indicated senses. Thus, in these two varieties viz. उपादान and लक्षण the indicative and indicated senses are apprehended as distinct and aloof, not as identical with each other. Read अभिधावृत्ति-मातृका p. 9.

· · ·

But in सारोप and साध्यवसान लक्षणा (which are being defined in the next Karika), illustrated respectively by 'मुखचन्द्र: उदेति' and 'चन्द्र: उदेति' the indicative or primary sense viz. the moon and the indicated or secondary sense viz. the face of the word चन्द्र: are comprehended as being identical. :Thus, according to Mukulabhatta, the distinction between उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा on the one hand and सारोप लक्षणा and साध्यवसान लक्षणा on the other is that while in उपादान and लक्षण the वाच्यार्थ (लक्षक्) and the लक्ष्यार्थ (लक्ष्यम्) are comprehended as distinct and, therefore, as standing aloof, in सारोप and साध्यवसान they are realized as being identical.

· · ·

Mammata controverts this view in the passage under discussion. He declares that in उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा there is no such distinctive or difference-producing aloofness between the लक्ष्य (लक्ष्यार्थ:) and the लक्षक (वाच्यार्थ:) as Mukula imagines. On the contrary even in उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा there is the comprehension of :identity (अभेदप्रतिपत्ति:) between the लक्ष्यार्थ and the वाच्यार्थ exactly as we have it in सारोप लक्षणा and साध्यवसान लक्षणा. This is proved as follows:

· · ·

Both उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा are प्रयोजनवती। We have seen before that the purpose in a लक्षणा generally consists in suggesting that some characteristc or characteristics, which properly belong to the मुख्यार्थ, are also associated with the लक्ष्यार्थ. Now, such association becomes possible only when we comprehend that the मुख्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ are identical. For, when we get this comprehension, we transfer the characteristics of the मुख्यार्थ to the लक्ष्यार्थ, with which they are thereupon realized as being associated. Hence, even in उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा the apprehension of identity (अभेदप्रतिपत्ति:) between the मुख्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ is necessary in order to understand the प्रयोजन.

· · ·

Take 'गङ्गायां घोष:' which illustrates लक्षणलक्षणा. Here the word गङ्गा indicates (प्रतिपादने लक्षणया बोधने इत्यर्थ:) the bank. The purpose intended to be conveyed (प्रतिपादयिषित p. p. p of प्रतिपादयिषति, which is desiderative of प्रतिपादयति, the causal of प्रतिपादयते from प्रति+पद् 4 A) is that the bank is characterized by coulness, holiness etc., in an excessive degree. Vide p. 252 above. Now this purpose is comprehended

· · ·

( सम्प्रत्ययः ) only when we realize the identity of the bank with the stream ( तटचप्रतिपत्तौ = तटादीनां गङ्गादिल्वप्रतिपत्तौ ). For, the qualities properly belong to the stream and they can be understood as connected with the bank only on the apprehension of the identity of the bank with the stream. But if from ' गङ्गायां घोषः ' we understand only the connection of the bank with the stream ( गङ्गासम्बन्धमात्रप्रतीतौ ) and not the identity of the bank with the stream, there would be no difference between गङ्गातटवासी and गङ्गायां घोषः wherein the word गङ्गा is a मुख्य or वाचक word conveying the sense the stream, and गङ्गायां घोषः which represents a लक्षणा and where गङ्गा is a लाक्षणिक word indicating the sense, the bank.

· · ·

What is meant is this : We make use of the expression ' गङ्गायां घोषः ' in preference to ' गङ्गातटे घोषः ', because we want to convey the identity of the bank and the stream and thus to suggest that the bank is possessed of coolness, holiness etc. which really belong to the stream. If ' गङ्गायां घोषः ' were to convey only the connection of the bank with the stream and not its identity with the stream we might as well use ' गङ्गातटे घोषः ', which also conveys the connection of the bank with the stream. The expression ' गङ्गातटे घोषः ' has this advantage that in it the word गङ्गा occurs in its primary sense ( मुख्यशब्दः ). And it is a general rule that a word should as far as possible be understood in its primary sense. Hence, as we deliberately use ' गङ्गायां घोषः ' instead of ' गङ्गातटे घोषः ', it must be supposed that ' गङ्गायां घोषः ' conveys more than what गङ्गातटे घोषः does viz. that it conveys the identity of the bank with the stream, from which the purpose of the लक्षणा viz. the association of the qualities ot coolness and others with the bank is understood. It will thus be seen that even in लक्षणलक्षणा such as ' गङ्गायां घोष ' the identity of the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्यार्थ is apprehended.

· · ·

Similarly, in उपादानलक्षणा also, as in ' कुन्ता: प्रविशान्ति, ' there is अभेदप्रतिपत्ति: Here the purpose is गहनत्वप्रतीति: or तैक्ष्ण्यप्रतीति: Now गहनत्व or तैक्ष्ण्य properly belongs to the primary sense of the word कुन्त viz. lances. In order that it should be understood as connected with the lancers, which is the indicated sense, of : कुन्त, we must suppose that ' कुन्ता: प्रविशान्ति ' conveys the identity of the लक्यक viz. the वाच्यार्थ lances and the लक्ष्य viz. the लक्यार्थ lancers. Only on the apprehension of such identity of कुन्तसंबद्धगहनत्वप्रतीती: or कुन्तसंबद्दतैक्ष्ण्यप्रतीती: is had.

· · ·

Thus, in उपादानलक्षणा and लकषणलक्षणा there is अभेदप्रतिपत्ति between the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्यार्थ exactly as in सारोप लक्षणा and साध्यवसान लक्षणा.

· · ·

२००

· · ·

Kārikā 6—Having dealt with उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा and some other topics connected with them Mammata now proceeds to give us two more varieties of लक्षणा viz. सारोप and साध्यवसनिक or साध्यवसान.

· · ·

सारोप लक्षणा or Superimponent Indication is that Indication in which, as the adjective सारोप shows, there is the superimposition ( आरोप: ) of one thing ( विषयी = आरोप्यमाण: ) on another ( विषय: = आरोपविषय: ) and both these are mentioned by specific and separate words. ' मुखचन्द्र: उदेति', said when a girl with a lovely face is approaching, is an example of सारोप लक्षणा. Here चन्द्र is superimposed on मुख and both these are expressed by separate words. सारोपलक्षणा is thus the basis of the figure रुपक or metaphor.

· · ·

Page 17

· · ·

साध्यवसानिक लक्षणा or Introsusceptive Indication occurs when the thing on which something is superimposed or the object of superimposition ( अन्यदिमन् = विषय = आरोपविषये ) is put within itself or swallowed ( अन्त:कृते = निगोर्णे ) by the thing which is superimposed ( विषयिणा = आरोप्यमाणेन ) so that only the thing that is superimposed ( विषयी=आरोप्यमाण: ) is actually expressed by means of a word and the thing on which it is superimposed ( विषय = आरोपविषय: ) is not mentiond at all e.g. ' चन्द्र: उदेति '. Here the विषयिणं or the thing superimposed viz. चन्द्र: completely swallows the विषय or the thing on which it is superimposed viz. मुखम् so that only चन्द्र: is expressed by means of a word and मुखम् is not mentioned at all. साध्यवसानिक लक्षणा is thus the basis of the figure अतिशयोक्ति or Hyperbole ( First Variety ).

· · ·

अन्या means just another variety different from the two dealt with in Karika 5. The प्रदीप explains अन्य as गौणी. Read ' अन्या अर्थाद् गौणी आरोपाद्यवसानाभ्यां भिद्यते, न तु उपादानलक्षणाभ्यामिति शब्दार्थ: '. This is incorrect. In Karika 6 Mammata makes no reference to गौणी. Here he just defines two more varieties of लक्षणा and then in the next karika tells us that these two variteies are both गौण and शुद्ध. If अन्य is here interpreted as गौणी, as the Pradipa does, it would suggest that शुद्धा does not possess these divisions सारोप and साध्यवसानिक, which is not true. Therefore, the interpretation of Pradipa must be rejected.

· · ·

Note that विषयी is the same as आरोप्यमाण:, the same as उपमानम्. Thus विषयी = आरोप्यमाण: = उपमानम्. Similarly, विषय = आरोपविषय: = उपमेयम्. अनपहुतमेदौ means whose difference has not been concealed i. e. which are mentioned by separate words. This word distinguishes सारोप लक्षणा from साध्यवसानिक. In ' मुखचन्द्र: ', which illustrates सारोप, though there is the superimposition of चन्द्र on मुखम्, the two are distinctly

· · ·

साधयवसानिक as in 'चन्द्र:' the distinction between चन्द्र: and मुखम् is concealed so that मुखम् is not mentioned at all.

· · ·

सामानाधिकरण्येन (समनम् अधिकरणे ययो: ते समानाधिकरणे तयो: भाव: समानाधिकरण्यम् तेन ) in a state of common abode. i. e. having the same case relationship.

· · ·

In a सारोप लक्षणा the विषयी and the विषय are mentioned in the same case relation, as in मुखचन्द्र:.

· · ·

As their names show सारोप लक्षणा and साधयवसान लक्षणा are based on आरोप and अध्यवसान.

· · ·

आरोप or superimposition means the identification of the object of superimposition i. e. the उपमान, when both of them are separately mentioned e. g. 'मुखं चन्द्र:' or 'माणवक: अपिन:'

· · ·

अध्यवसानम् or introsusception signifies the identification of the विषय or उपमेय with the विषयिन् or the उपमान, when the विषय is not separately mentioned e. g. चन्द्र: or अपिन:

· · ·

आरোপ: ordinarily means attribution. In मुखचन्द्र: we attribute the nature of the moon to the face and thus identify the two.

· · ·

अध्यवसान means निश्चय or determination. Here we come to the determination that the face is the moon with the result that the idea of the face is completely lost sight of and the moon alone attains prominence in our consciousness.

· · ·

[ Sutra Kārikā 7 abc ]

This Kārikā tells us that these two varieties of लक्षणा viz. सारोप and साध्यवसान can be both गौण or Qualitative and शुद्ध or Pure according as they arise from similarity between the expressed sense and the indicated sense (सादृश्यम् =तद्वृत्तित्वने सति तद्रतभूयोधर्मवत्त्वम् ) and from any other relation existing between them.

· · ·

Thus, we learn that शुद्ध लक्षणा has in all four varieties viz. उपचार and लक्षणा, treated of before, and सारोप and साध्यवसान, mentioned here.

· · ·

गौण लक्षणा on the other hand has only two varieties viz. सारोप and साध्यवसान.

· · ·

गौण सारोप लक्षणा and गौण साध्यवसान लक्षणा, which are caused by or arise from similarity, (सादृश्यहेतू), are illustrated respectively in 'गौरवाहीक:' and 'गौरयम्'.

· · ·

In 'गौरवाहीक:' we :have the identification of गौ: ( a bull), which is the विषयिन् or उपमान, with वाहीक:' ( an inhabitant of the Vahika country ), which represents the विषय or उपमेय.

· · ·

As both the विषयिन् and विषय are mentioned, 'गौरवाहीक:' is an example of सारोप लक्षणा.

· · ·

Then again, between the Vahika and the bull similarity exists, because both of them possess qualities like dullness and stupidity.

· · ·

Thus, as the लक्षणा is caused by similarity, it is गौण.

· · ·

So 'गौरवाहीक:' is an example of गौण सारोप लक्षणा.

· · ·

गौराहिकोऽभिधया ( गोत्वम् )-लक्षणया स्वार्थसाहचर्यसंवन्धेन ( गोता: जाद्य-मान्यादय:)-पुनरभिधया ( वाह्हीक: )

· · ·

the sense Vāhika (परार्थाभिधाने = परांथा वाहीकः तस्य अभिधाने अभिधया बोधने )—

· · ·

This view cannot be accepted, because it is open to the following five objections : (1) According to this view the word गो expresses वाहीक in the third stage.

· · ·

The holder of the first view was apparently aware of this difficulty. That is why he put in अपि in ' लक्षणमाणा अपि ' showing thereby that a लक्ष्यार्थ could not usually be the प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त of a word.

· · ·

(5) As this view consists of three stages or functions viz. अभिधा, लक्षणा and पुनरभिधा. it involves गौरव or cumbrousness.

· · ·

गोशब्दात्-अभिधया (गोत्वम्)-लक्षणया स्वार्थेसहचरितगुणामेदरूपसंवन्धेन (वाहीकगता: जात्यादिमान्वादय:) आक्षेपेण अनुमानेन अविनाभावेन वा (वाहीक:)

· · ·

गोशब्दात्-अभिधया (गोत्वम्)-लक्षणया साधारणगुणाश्रितया (वाहीक:)

· · ·

is therefore, resorted to and by means of that लक्षणा गौ: indicates the sense वाहीक ( परार्थ: = वाहीकार्थ: ). तद्योग is present in this लक्षणा because both the bull and the Vahika, which represent the मुख्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ respectively of गौ:; possess the common qualities of dullness, stupidity and others. Thus, as both the words are एकार्थाभिधायक or convey the idea of one entity viz. वाहीक, their सामानाधिकरण्य is explained.

· · ·

It should be remembered that when in the above discussion we say that गौ expresses गोस्‍त्र by means of अभिधा, we mean गोव्यक्ति as well. For, we have already seen that the proper primary senses of words viz. जाति, गुण, क्रिया ānd संज्ञा convey by inference the individual in which they reside. That is why the bull has been stated to represent the मुख्यार्थ of गौ: in the paragraph.

· · ·

Mammata supports the third view by quoting the authority of कुमारिलभट्ट. The couplet ‘अभिधेयाविनाभूतप्रतीतिलक्षणोच्यते’ comes from Kumarila's तन्त्रवार्तिक The couplet defines two independent functions viz. लक्षणा and गौणी वृत्ति, which, as we noted before correspond with Mammata's शुद्ध लक्षणा and गौण लक्षणा.

· · ·

अभिधेयाविनाभूतप्रतीतिलक्षणोच्यते—This is Kumarila's definition of लक्षणा, which is the same as Mammata's शुद्ध लक्षणा Explain it, therefore as अभिधेयं वाच्यार्थ: ( प्रवाहादि: स्‍वाभाविकी ) तेन अविनाभूत. संबद्ध: अर्थ: इत्यर्थ: ( तत्रादि: मदस्‍थबालकादिर्वी ) तस्य प्रतीति: ज्ञानं लक्षणा इति उच्च्यते. Indication, according to Kumarila, is the apprehension of the sense connected with the primary sense.

· · ·

अविनाभावोऽन्यत्र.—In this paragraph Mammata gives two reasons why अविनाभाव, ocuring in Kumarila's definition of लक्षणा. is to be understood in the sense of connection only ( संबन्धमात्रम् ) and not in that of invariable connection. (1) If अविनाभाव were to mean invariable association (तत्स्थं = अविनाभावस्थ नान्तरीयकत्वे), ‘मद्धा: क्रोशन्ति’, which is generally regarded as an example of लक्षणा, would not be so. For, मद्दा: ( bed-steads, cots ) is here a लक्षणिक word and indicates children sleeping on the bed-steads ( मदस्‍थबालका: ).The children are not invariably connected (नियतसंबन्ध) with the bedsteads, but are only temporarily so connected. Hence, if अविनाभाव were to mean नियतसंबन्ध, मदस्‍थबालका: would not be the लक्ष्यार्थ of मद्दा: and ‘मद्धा: क्रोशन्ति’ not an example of लक्षणा. Therefore, अविनाभाव must be taken to mean connection only. (2) If अविनाभाव in the sense of व्याप्ति were the relation between the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ, the लक्ष्यार्थ viz. मदस्‍थबालका: would be established by inference only and लक्षणा would not be necessary at all.

· · ·

Note that in 'अविनाभावोऽत्र संवन्यमात्रम्' संवन्यमात्रम् really means साधस्येतरसंबन्धमात्रम्. For, 'अभिधेया...लक्षणोच्यते' is the definition of what to Mammata is शुद्ध लक्षणा.

· · ·

लक्ष्यमाणगुणीभ्योंगाढम् इतरैरिष्टा तु गौणता।

· · ·

(1) लक्ष्यमाणो यो वाहीकः तस्या गुणेः जात्यमान्यादिभिः योगः संबन्धः वाच्यार्थस्य गवाः इत्यर्थः तस्मात्। लक्ष्यमाने वाहिके ये जात्यमान्यादयः गुणाः सन्ति त एव वाच्ये गवि वर्तन्ते अतः सहरुगुणत्वात् साधस्याद् वा इयं वृत्तिः गौणी इति इष्यते।

· · ·

(2) लक्ष्यमाणगुणैः वाच्यगुणैः कृतात्त् योगाद् वाच्यार्थलक्ष्यार्थयोःसंबन्यात्। वाच्यार्थो गौः लक्ष्यार्थो वाहिकश्व वाच्यगुणैः संबद्धौ अतः।

· · ·

(3) लक्ष्यमाणस्य वाहिकस्य, गुणैः गौवाहीकसाधारणैः गुणैः योगात्त् वाच्यार्थेन गवा संबन्यात्।

· · ·

(4) लक्ष्यमाणः साधारणतया हेत्स्यमानः ये गुणाः गौवाहीकोभयगता: जात्यमान्यादयः तैः योगात् गौवाहीकसंबन्यात्.

· · ·

Out of these three views Mammata evidently holds the third. This can be known from the fact that he mentions it last and supports it by a quotation from Kumarila. It is also free from any objections.

· · ·

This discussion concerning the three views about the operation of गौण लक्षणा seems to us to have created a lot of fuss about a really

· · ·

आयुर्घृतम्

· · ·

आयुरेवेदम्

· · ·

एवमादी

· · ·

अत्र

· · ·

शुद्धभेदयोस्‍तु॰

· · ·

काचित् तादथ्योद॰

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

Indra himself would do or that the post is as adorable as Indra or following Mammata's view about the commonness of purpose for all सारोप or साध्यवसान शुद्ध लक्षणा we may say that the प्रयोजन here is व्यभिचारण इष्टप्रदत्लम्.

· · ·

It should be noted that उपचार: in 'कचित् तादथ्यादुपचार:' possesses the general sense viz. the metaphorical use of a word. This general sense, as we have already seen, actually comes to be the metaphorical use of a word on any relation other than similarity.

· · ·

When the word राजा indicates the sense of an officer of the king it becomes an example of शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा once more. Here the relation underlying the लक्षणा is स्वस्वामिभावसंवन्ध: i. c. भृत्यस्वामिमभावसंवन्ध: and the purpose is अतिक्रमयणीयत्लम्.

· · ·

अग्रहस्तः: ( अग्रस्थ असौ हस्तस्थ इति कर्मेधारय:) is another example of शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा. Now here between the लक्ष्यार्थ ( palm ) and the वाच्यार्थ ( hand ) the relation of अवयव-अवयविभाव exists. So अग्रहस्तः is an example of शुद्ध लक्षणा, which is based on अवयवावयविभाव. The purpose here is to suggest बलाधिक्यम्.

· · ·

तात्कर्म्ये is another relation from which शुद्ध लक्षणा, arises. तात्कर्म्ये means the work of another. तक्शा means a carpenter by caste. When a Brāhmaṇa does the work of a carpenter, he is designated तक्शा. Here तक्शा, applied to and meaning a Brāhmaṇa, becomes an example of शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा arising from तात्कर्म्ये. The purpose is to suggest the Brāhmaṇa's proficiency in the work of the carpenter ( तक्शाकर्मनिपुणत्लं प्रयोजनम् ).

· · ·

लक्षणा तेन षड्विधा — In Kārikā 7 abc four varieties of लक्षणा are mentioned viz. गौण सारोप, गौण, साध्यवसान, शुद्ध सारोप and शुद्ध साध्यवसान. Therefore ( तेन = उत्क वातुर्विध्य प्रतिपादनेन ), along with the two divisions first mentioned ( आयमेदाभ्या सह ) viz. शुद्ध उपादान and शुद्ध लक्षणा, लक्षणा is of six kinds. Thus, the divisions of लक्षणा, according to Mammata, are as follows :

· · ·

लक्षणा

· · ·

शुद्ध

· · ·

( 1 ) उपादान (2) लक्षण (3) सारोप (4) साध्यवसान (5) सारोप (6) साध्यवसान

· · ·

कुन्ता: प्रविशान्ति गजानां घोष: आयुर्ददताम् आयुर्वेदम् or आयु: पिबति गौरवहीक: गौरयम् गामाहयति

· · ·

Page 19] NOTES : Second Flash ७१९

· · ·

There is not the slightest doubt in our mind that the above represents the classification of लक्षणा intended by Mammata. But commentators of the Kāvyaprakāsaśh, guided more, it seems to us, by extraneous considerations than by the natural construction of Mammata's words, have advanced two other divisions, which they regard as intended by Mammata, That is why some discussion about this problem becomes necessary.

· · ·

We regard the above as Mammata's classification for three reasons, Which are as follows:

· · ·

(1) This is the only classification that naturally and directly follows from Mammata's words. In Kārikā 5 Mammata treats of two divisions viz. उपादान and लक्षण, which he states are शुद्ध. Kārikā 6 gives two more divisions viz. सारोप and साध्यवसान, which are declared to be both गौण and शुद्ध. From this it follows that शुद्ध has four varieties vis. उपादान, लक्षण, सारोप and साध्यवसान. The above classification gives the divisions exactly in this manner.

· · ·

(2) In Kārikā 7 abc four varieties of लक्षणा are mentioned and is Kārikā 7 d लक्षणा is stated to be six-fold. The Vṛtti explains this statement by pointing out that the six varieties are made up by adding the previously mentioned two ( आयमेदाभ्यां सह ) viz. शुद्ध उपादान and शुद्ध लक्षण .to the four referred to in Kārikā 7 abc. From this it is clear that the previously mentioned two varieties viz. शुद्ध उपादान and शुद्ध लक्षण are on the same level as the four now mentioned viz. गौण सारोप, गौण साध्यवसान, शुद्ध सारोप and शुद्ध साध्यवसान.

· · ·

(3) Kārikā 7 abc ( भेदाभेदौ च साधद्यात्‌ संबन्धान्तरतस्तथा। गौणौ शुद्धौ च विधेयौ ) clearly show that Mammata intends सारोप and साध्यवसान to be direct divisions of both गौण and शुद्ध. It would, therefore, not be correct to regard, as the Pradipa does, सारोप and साध्यवसान as the direct divisions of only गौण and as the indirect divisions of शुद्ध through the medium of उपादान and लक्षण. There is no justification whatsoever for making a distinction between गौण and शुद्ध in the matter of their sub-division into सारोप and साध्यवसान.

· · ·

Thus, we feel sure that the above is the classification of Mammata. It must, however, be remarked that Mammata's classification given above is not logically accurate, because the divisions are not mutually exclusive, but overlap. For example, आयुर्गृधतम् and आयुः पिबति, which are given as illustrations of शुद्ध सारोप and शुद्ध साध्यवसान respectively, may as well be regarded as रुद्धलक्षणा, because in both these illustrations आयुः completely gives up its मुख्यार्थ.

· · ·

शुद्ध गोणी

· · ·

उपादानलक्षणा लक्षणलक्षणा

· · ·

(1) सारोप (2) साध्यवसाना (3) सारोपा (4) साध्यवसाना

· · ·

कुन्ता: कुन्तिन: प्रविशान्ति आयुधैस्तम् गज्नायां तटे घोष: गज्नायां घोष:

· · ·

Mammata forgot to give an illustration for one variety viz. शुद्ध उपादान सारोप and gave to illustrations for another viz. शुद्ध लक्षण साध्यवसाना, separating them by a long interval.

· · ·

मुकुलभट्ट has the following scheme of division :- लक्षणा

· · ·

This scheme, we think, मम्मट did not accept for the following reasons :-

· · ·

( 1 ) Neither in any of the कारिकास nor in वृत्ति, मम्मट mentions उपचारमिश्रा as a primary division of लक्षणा along with शुद्धा, Nor can this be deduced from statement उपचारैरामिश्रितत्वात्. For when this is read along with the Karika 7abc (भेदाविमौ-विमेदयोः) it is obvious that according to मम्मट शुद्ध and गौण are the primary divisions of लक्षण

· · ·

( 2 ) The characteristic उपचारामिश्रितत्ववम् where उपचार means साध्यसंबन्धेन-प्रवृत्ति: gives लक्षणगुद्धालक्षणा and excludes the गौणी लक्षणा and not the four divisions that are to follow.

· · ·

( 3 ) If the lead of Manikyacandra and Jayanta be followed in the matter of the classification of लक्षणा, we shall have to suppose that the words गौण and शुद्धा in the Karika 'गौणि शुद्धा च विभेयोः' are used in the sense of गौणोपचारमिश्रो and शुद्धोपचारमिश्रौ. Similarly, the word गौणभेदयोः and शुद्धभेदयो: will have to be understood as standing for गौणोपचारमिश्रभेदयोः and शुद्धोपचारमिश्रभेदयो:. This appears to us to be highly improbable. Mammata nowhere speaks of any divisions like गौणोपचारमिश्रा and शुद्धोपचारमिश्रा.

· · ·

( 4 ) In the classification of Mukulabhatta the division of उपचार into शुद्ध and गौण plays an important part. It is the principle on which उपचारमिश्रा is further divided. But Mammata nowhere speaks of this division of उपचार into शुद्ध and गौण. He cannot, therefore, be regarded as subscribing to Mukulabhatta's classification of लक्षणा. It is true, as we have already noted, that Mammata uses the word उपचार in its general

· · ·

Page 20 ] NOTES : Second Flash २१५

· · ·

It will be seen from above that Jagannātha's six divisions of प्रयोजनवती are the same as Mammata's only he calls लक्षणलक्षण and उपादानलक्षणa as जहत्स्वार्थी and अजहत्स्वार्थी respectively. Though Mammata does not say so definitely, his six divisions also refer to प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा.

· · ·

Kārikā 8—In this Kārikā Mammata divides लक्षणा according to a new principle viz. the presence or absence of a suggested sense. लक्षणा is thus two-fold according as it does not possess or possesses a suggested sense. The latter has two varieties according as the suggested sense is concealed or not-concealed. Thus, according to this new principle, लक्षणा is three-fold.

· · ·

As we shall see in Kārikā 9cd and 10ab, the प्रयोजन or purpose of a लक्षणा is understood only through the function or process of suggestion (व्यञ्जनव्यापारगम्यमेव ). Therefore, the suggested sense in a लक्षणा is the same as its purpose. Consequently, the two varieties that possess a suggested sense occur in प्रयोजन or प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा and the one variety, which is void of a suggested sense, in रूढ or रूढा. All this may be represented as follows :—

· · ·

लक्षणा

· · ·

( 1 ) व्यञ्ज्यरहिता [ रूढो आभ्रिता ] e. g. कमेणि कुशलः कलिङ्गः साहसिकः

· · ·

( 2 ) गूढव्यञ्ज्या e. g. मुखं विकसितस्मितम् etc. ( 3 ) अगूढव्यञ्ज्या e. g. श्रीपरिचयात् etc.

· · ·

गूढम् means that which can be understood only by a सहृदय, a man of taste and अगूढ is that which can be understood by all. The criterion of course is bound to be subjective.

· · ·

The stanza which describes the rise of youth in a lovely woman has been quoted as an illustration of गूढ व्यञ्ज्य. This means it is an example of लक्षणामूलव्यञ्जना ( p. 24 ). Thus, here we have a प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा and the प्रयोजन thereof is such as can be understood only by a sahṛdaya person.

· · ·

There are in all eight लाक्षणिक words and the following table will explain the purposes of the various indicative words in this stanza, as we understand them :—

· · ·

लाक्षणिक: | शब्द: मुख्यार्थबाध: | लक्ष्यार्थ: मुख्यार्थसंबन्ध: | गूढं व्यङ्ग्यं प्रयोजनम्‌

· · ·

विकसित वचित समुच्छलित अपास्त मुकुलित उद्भूत उद्रम: मोदते

· · ·

विकासस्य पुष्पधर्मस्य स्मिते बाध: | वशीकरणस्य चेतनधर्मस्य प्रेक्षिते बाध: | समुच्छलनस्य ऊर्ध्वगमनस्य मूर्तधर्मस्य अमूर्तविभ्रमे बाध: | अपासनस्य त्यागस्य चेतनधर्मस्य अचेतनायां मतौ बाध: | मुकुलितवस्य पुष्पधर्मस्य स्तनयोरबाञ्छ: | उद्भूतपुरावृतवस्य चेतधर्मेस्य जघने बाध: | उद्र्मनस्य मूर्तधर्मस्य अमूर्ते गौवने बाध: | मोदस्य चेतनधर्मस्य यौवनोदय बाध:

· · ·

प्रमूत कारणम्‌ कार्यकारणभाव: | विकास: प्रसरणस्य स्वाधीन कारणम्‌ कार्यकारणभाव: | वशीकरणं स्वार्थे प्रादुर्भूत नत्वस्य कारणम्‌ कार्यकारणभाव: | समुच्छलनं प्रादुर्भावस्य कारणम्‌ कार्यकारणभाव: | अपासनं दूरे भाव-नस्य कारणम्‌ कार्यकारणभाव: | मुकुलितवस्य किश्चित्‌-तत्वस्य तत्त्वम्‌ | सादृश्यम्‌ | उद्भूतसिद्धे य भारसहन-क्षमतात्‌ समाने प्रादुर्भाव: कार्यकारणभाव: | उद्र्मन्‌ प्रादुर्भावस्य कारणम्‌ कार्यकारणभाव: | मोदस्य सातिशयं प्रसरति

सातिशयप्रसरणे मोदस्य धर्म:

· · ·

सौरभम्‌ मृदुल्लेख्या स्वीकार: | The lady can indulge in a crooked glance exactly when it pleases her. | बाहुल्यं साहजिकत्वं वा Her gait showed profuse or natural sportive movements. | अतिशयितत्वम्‌ Youth made her mind excessively unsteady. | अलिन्ज्जनयोग्यत्वं काठ-नत्व वा | रतियोग्यत्वम्‌ | आकर्षकत्वम्‌ | आलानन्दजनकत्वम्‌

· · ·

In connection with this topic of गूढ and अगूढ व्यञ्जय it may be pointed out that when a व्यञ्जय is गूढ, it becomes more charming and striking than the वाच्यार्थ and makes the stanza an example of उत्तम काव्य or ध्वनि.

· · ·

Thus, 'मुख विकसितमितं', where the व्यञ्ज्यार्थ being गूढ is

· · ·

On the otherhand when a व्यञ्जय is अगूढ, it becomes less charming than, or subordinate to, वाच्यार्थ and the stanza becomes an example of मध्यम काव्य or गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयच.

· · ·

श्रीपरिच्च्यात०', is thus गुणीभूतव्यङ्गय, because the व्यञ्ज्यार्थ here, being obvious, is less charming than the वाच्यार्थ.

· · ·

It is possible to combine these two classifications.

· · ·

The first six divisions, we have seen, belong to प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा.

· · ·

Each of these can now be looked upon as being two-fold, according as the प्रयोजन is गूढ or अगूढ.

· · ·

Thus, प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा will be of twelve kinds.

· · ·

Add to these one more variety viz. अव्यङ्ग्या or निरूढ लक्षणा and we get in all 13 divisions of लक्षणा according to Mammata.

· · ·

तद्लक्षणिक:- This is the definition of a लक्षणिक शब्द.

· · ·

तद् = तस्य:

· · ·

लक्षणया: भू: आधार्य:.

· · ·

An indicative word is that in which Indication resides.

· · ·

A tacit definition of लक्ष्यार्थ is given in Kārikā 4 above, which defines लक्षणा.

· · ·

This concludes Mammata's treatment of लक्षणक शब्द.

· · ·

So far he has dealt with लक्षणक and words.

· · ·

Now व्यञ्जक शब्द remains to be dealt with.

· · ·

For that purpose व्यञ्जना must be explained.

· · ·

So Mammata starts the treatment of व्यञ्जना with 'तत्र व्यापरो व्यञ्जनात्मक:.'

· · ·

But before we actually follow him, a few observations on व्यञ्जना may be made.

· · ·

The functions अभिधा and लक्षणा are admitted by all schools but regarding व्यञ्जना there was no unanimity.

· · ·

In developing the theory of व्यञ्जना there was no unanimity.

· · ·

स्कोट the grammarians first tacitly admitted it since they thought that स्कोट is वर्णाभिव्यङ्गय.

· · ·

It is later that आनन्दवर्धन the writer of ध्वन्यालोक positively maintained that ध्वनि or suggestion is the Soul of poetry and that व्यञ्जना is necessary to convey that suggestion.

· · ·

Rhetoricians like भट्टनायक author of the हृदयदर्पण, कुन्तक author of the वक्रोक्तिजीवित deny the existence of ध्वनि as the soul of poetry.

· · ·

Nor do मीमांसका s and न्यायिकs admit it as a separate function.

· · ·

But writers like मम्मट, विश्वनाथ and जगन्नाथ have accepted it and it has come to stay.

· · ·

Page 21

· · ·

तत्र व्यापरो व्यञ्जनात्मक:- With this Mammata commences the treatment of व्यञ्जना.

· · ·

तत्र = लक्षणके शब्दे.

· · ·

In an indicative word there exists a function (व्यापार:) of the nature of suggestion (व्यञ्जना:).

· · ·

e. g. in गङ्गायाम् we obtain, in addition to वाच्यार्थ (प्रवाह:) and लक्ष्यार्थ (तट:), व्यञ्ज्यार्थ

· · ·

( शीतत्वोपवर्नलादि ) and Mammaṭa now tells us that this suggested sense is 'obtained, because of a function called Suggestion, This function which exists in an indicative word and by which we obtain the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ or प्रयोजन of the लक्षणा is called लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना. So व्यञ्जनात्मकः =लक्षणामूलव्यञ्जनात्मकः

· · ·

This yields the following classification of व्यञ्जना —

· · ·

Out of these divsions of व्यञ्जना Mammaṭa deals with लक्षणामूला and अभिधामूला in this Ullāsa and अर्थमूला in the third Ullāsa. We already have had illustrations of अर्थी व्यञ्जना under Kārikā 2ab 'सर्वेषां प्रायशोऽर्थानां व्यञ्जकत्वमपीयते'. The Pradīpa says that Mammaṭa treats लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना first for two reasons viz. (1) लक्षणा is the matter in hand, because Mammat̤a has been dealing with it all the while. So लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना would naturally occur to him first. (2) लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना is well known, more so than the other viz. अभिधामूल. A third reason may also be suggested. (3) All this while Mammaṭa has been discussing प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा. That discussion would not be complete unless we know how the प्रयोजन is conveyed to us. This is done by लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना. Therefore, this व्यञ्जना comes first treatment.

· · ·

Kārikā 9 cd and 10 ab— This gives us the definition of लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना. The definition is given in a somewhat fighting mood with the object of proving the necessity of व्यञ्जना for understanding the purpose of a लक्षणा. When we resort to लक्षणा (समुपास्यते = आश्रीयते) i. e. when we use a लाक्षणिक शब्द, in as 'गङ्गायां घोष:' we do so with the desire

· · ·

to convey a certain purpose ( प्रयोजनप्रतिपादयिषया ) viz. coolness, holiness etc. यस्य शीतत्वपावनत्वादिरूपस्य फलस्य प्रतीतिर् ज्ञानम् आधातुं जनयितुम् ). That purpose is known from that word alone by means of no other function but Suggestion. This Suggestion is अभिधामूल व्यंजना. Note : that the function is designated as व्यंजना or व्यञ्जनम्. The propriety of एक in शक्तैकगम्ये = लक्षणैकशब्दमात्रगम्ये and of एव in तस्मादेव शब्दात् is to suggest that the प्रयोजन cannot be understood by any other i. e. शब्देतरप्रमाण such as अनुमान and प्रत्यक्ष.

· · ·

नाभिधा न लक्षणा—It was remarked before that neither अभिधा nor लक्षणा conveys the प्रयोजन for which लक्षणा is resorted to. Mammata now proves this. The purpose of the लक्षणा in ‘ गङ्गायां घोष: ’ is the properties holiness and others, which are understood as belonging to the bank. These properties connot be expressed by अभिधा, because no convention of the word गङ्गा has been made with reference to those qualities.

· · ·

हेत्वभावात् न लक्षणा—Here Mammata tells us that लक्षणा cannot convey the प्रयोजन. What is meant is this : In ‘ गङ्गायां घोष: ’. अभिधा expresses the meaning the stream. This meaning being inapplicable, लक्षणा is resorted to and it indicates the sense the bank. This लक्षणा is प्रयोजनवती and the प्रयोजन is पावनत्वादयो धर्मोः. How is this प्रयोजन conveyed ? One may say that after the लक्ष्यार्थ ‘ गङ्गातटे घोष: ’ is indicated, a second लक्षणा should be resorted to and it should be supposed to indicate the purpose viz. the properties holiness and others. This, Mammata declares, is not possible, because there is no हेतु ( हेत्वभावात् = हेतोः अभावात् ) in the present case for resorting to a second लक्षणा.

· · ·

The word हेतु in हेत्वभावात् stands for the three causes viz. मुख्यार्थबाधः तद्योगः and रूढिप्रयोजनान्यतरत्‌.

· · ·

Kārika 11 — This Krāikā explains how the three causes of लक्षणा are absent in the present case and how, therefore, a second लक्षणा cannot be admitted to indicate the प्रयोजन of the first.

· · ·

मुख्यार्थबाधः—In the example ‘ गङ्गायां घोष: ’, at the stage where we have arrived viz. ‘ गङ्गातटे घोष: ’, the sense गङ्गातट is not the मुख्यार्थ ( लक्ष्यतटरूपं न मुख्यं न गङ्गाशब्दस्य मुख्योऽर्थः ). So the question as to whether there is मुख्यार्थबाध or not does not arise at all. Further, even if we were to suppose for a moment that तट is the मुख्यार्थ, we find that it is not बाधित or incompatible in the present case viz. in गङ्गातटे घोषः. Therefore, the first condition मुख्यार्थबाध is not fulfilled.

· · ·

तद्योगः—This means the connection of the मुख्यार्थ with the लक्ष्यार्थ.

· · ·

purpose such as घोष. Now how is this second purpose conveyed ? For this a third लक्षण will have to be admitted which again will need a purpose thus giving rise to अनवस्था or regressus ad infinitum. This अनवस्था will ultimately make us impossible to apprehend the first purpose and hence is called as मूलक्षयकारिणी paraphrased in the वृत्ति as प्रकृतप्रतीतिकृत.

· · ·

So far Mammata has been considering the view of the द्वितीयलक्षणवादिन् i. e. of one who holds that a second लक्षण should be resorted to in order to obtain the प्रयोजन of the first. Mammata has shown that the प्रयोजन cannot thus be indicated, because (1) the three conditions which are necessary for understanding a लक्षण are not fulfilled in the case of this proposed second लक्षण, and (2) if in spite of this we were to understand a second लक्षण, we would be involved in अनवस्था. Now Mammata proceeds to discuss the view of the विशिष्टलक्षणवादिन् or one who holds that a लक्षण indicates a sense qualified by a प्रयोजन.

· · ·

ननु पावनत्वादि... व्यञ्जनेन - This embodies the view of the विशिष्टलक्षणवादिन्. He says that it is not necessary to resort to a second लक्षण in order to understand the purpose of the first in 'गङ्गायां घोष:'. because this first लक्षण indicates the bank as qualified by the properties, holiness etc. Hence व्यञ्जना also is not needed. Thus, according to the विशिष्टलक्षणवादिन् the लक्ष्यार्थ in 'गङ्गायां घोष:' is पावनत्वादिगर्मयुक्ततत्. But then the question is 'What is the प्रयोजन in this लक्षण ?' पावनत्वादि, which up to now was regarded as the प्रयोजन is included in the लक्ष्यार्थ. The answer is that the प्रयोजन of the लक्षण in 'गङ्गायां घोष:' is the apprehension (प्रतिपत्ति:) of the sense which is additional (अधिक) to that which we obtain from 'गङ्गायास्तटे घोष:'. This additional sense is पावनत्वादि. The apprehension of that i. e. पावनत्वादिग्रतिपत्ति: is thus the प्रयोजन of the लक्षण in 'गङ्गायां घोष:', according to the विशिष्टलक्षणवादिन्.

· · ·

प्रयोजनेन...युक्त्यते - This contains Mammata's reply to the view of the विशिष्टलक्षणवादिन्. A लक्ष्यार्थ or an indicated sense (लक्षणीयम्), such as तट, qualified (सहित = विशिष्ट) by the purpose such as the properties, holiness and others (प्रयोजन = पावनत्वादिना), is not proper, that is, it is not proper to hold that a लक्षण indicates a sense (लक्षणीयम्) qualified by the purpose. This amounts to saying that it is not proper to regard पावनत्वादिविशिष्टत्व as the लक्ष्यार्थ. Hence, it follows that विशिष्टलक्षण is not proper.

· · ·

We must here note that the word प्रयोजन has been used in two senses In the passage 'ननु...विशिष्टे लक्षण', which explains the view of विशिष्टलक्षणवादिन्.

· · ·

of the विशिष्टलक्षणवादिन्, the purpose is declared to be अधिकस्य अर्थस्य [पावनत्वादे:] प्रतिपत्तिः i.e. पावनत्वादि:प्रतिपत्ति:. On the other hand in Mammata's लक्षणीयम् न युज्यते,' प्रयोजन means पावनत्वादि. These two senes of प्रयोजन must further be explained in somewhat technical terms in order to enable the student to grasp accurately the two interpretations which Kārikā 11 ab 'ज्ञानेस्य विषयो ह्यन्यात् फलम्‌ञ्ज्ञदुहैतं' yields.

· · ·

The प्रयोजन पावनत्वादि:प्रतिपत्ति: is लक्षणार्थज्ञानजन्य (लक्ष्यार्थेस्य पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतत्स्य ज्ञानेन जन्या) i. e. produced by the knowledge of the indicated sense viz. the bank as qualified by the properties, holiness and others. For, when we know the लक्षणार्थ viz. पावनत्वादिविविशष्टट्, we obtain the cognition of पावनत्वादि. Thus, the प्रयोजन पावनत्वादि:प्रतिपत्ति: is लक्षणार्थज्ञानजन्य, which is abbreviated into ज्ञानजन्य or जन्य.

· · ·

On the other hand the प्रयोजन पावनत्वादि is लक्षणार्थज्ञानजन्यप्रतिविषय (लक्ष्यार्थस पावनत्वादि विशिष्टतत्स्य ज्ञानेन जन्या या पावनत्वादि:प्रतीति: तस्या: विषय:, अर्थात् पावनत्वादि:वि:) i. e. the object of the cognition (viz. पावनत्वादि:प्रतीति:), which is produced by the knowledge of the indicated sense (लक्ष्यार्थेस्य पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतत्स्य ज्ञानेन जन्या). When we know the लक्षणार्थ viz. the bank as qualified by the properties, holiness and others, we get the cognition of those properties. The object of this cognition is naturally those properties themselves. So the प्रयोजन पावनत्वादि is लक्षणार्थज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय, which is shortened into ज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय or जन्यप्रतीतिविषय or ज्ञाप्य.

· · ·

This line contains Mammata's reason why विशिष्टलक्षण cannot be admitted. It enunciates a general rule or proposition and thereby it is suggested that if विशिष्टलक्षण were accepted, this proposition would be violated. Therefore, विशिष्टलक्षण should not be admitted. Before we proceed to see what this general proposition is, certain other matters must be explained.

· · ·

ज्ञान in the Kārikā stands for प्रमाण. So when ज्ञानेस्य is paraphrased by प्रत्यक्षादि:, आदि refers to अनुमान, उपमान and शब्द. We are here not concerned with प्रत्यक्ष, अनुमान and उपमान, but only with शब्द. Mammata, however, illustrates the general proposition, which is applicable to all the four प्रमाणs, by adducing an example of प्रत्यक्ष.

· · ·

When we cognize a blue thing such as a नीलकमल, we obtain नीलवस्तुज्ञान. The fruit of this cognition can be viewed from two points of view viz. objective and subjective. Objectively, the fruit of the cognition is that the blue thing that we have cognized has attained ज्ञातता or known-ness, or प्रकटता or manifestness. It now differs from other blue things, because while it is known, the others are not. ज्ञातता or प्रकटता, Which

· · ·

is thus produced in a thing, when it is known, is a वस्तुधर्मः. This is the view of भाट्टमीमांसकः or the followers of Kumārilabhaṭṭa.

· · ·

Subjectively, the fruit of the above cognition is the consciousness in the form ‘अहं नीलवस्तु जानामि’ that arises in us when we cognize the blue thing. It is this consciousness in us that distinguishes the known blue thing from others that are not known. Mammaṭa designates this consciousness by the term संवित्तिः or self-consciousness.

· · ·

संवित्तिः is an आत्मधर्मः. This is the view of प्रभाकरमीमांसकः or the followers of Prabhākarabhaṭṭa and of the Naiyāyikas.

· · ·

In ‘अहं नीलं जानामि’ ज्ञानविषयः is नीलवस्तु and ज्ञानफलं is either प्रकटता or संवित्तिः. Here it will be seen that ज्ञानविषयः is different from ज्ञानफलं. Then again, it may also be said that here विषयः and फलं are both different from ज्ञान. अत्र ज्ञानविषययोर्भेदः ज्ञानफलयोरभेदः प्रतीयेते। These are really the two senses which the line under explanation yields.

· · ·

We can now proceed to see what general propositions ‘ज्ञानस्य... दुःदाह्यत्वं’ lays down i. e. what its two interpretations are and how they are logically connected.

· · ·

(1) According to the first interpretation the general proposition here laid down is

· · ·

ज्ञानविषयात् ज्ञानफलम् अन्यत्

· · ·

e. g. ज्ञानविषयः = नीलवस्तु ज्ञानफलम् = प्रकटता (or ज्ञातता) or संवित्तिः } नीलम् अहं जानामि

· · ·

As नीलवस्तु is different from प्रकटता or संवित्तिः, the general proposition, which establishes ज्ञानविषय-ज्ञानफलयोभेदः, is found true in the case of ‘नीलम् अहं जानामि.’

· · ·

Applying the general proposition to the present case of विशिष्टलक्षणा, where we first understand प्रयोजन in the sense in which it occurs in the Kārikā ‘प्रयोजनेन सहितं’ i. e. in the sense of ज्ञातप्रतीतिविषय or ज्ञाप्य viz. पावनत्वादि, we get the following:-

· · ·

ज्ञानम् = पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतत्ज्ञानम् ज्ञानविषयः = पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतत् ज्ञानफलम् = पावनत्वादि

· · ·

Here we find that ज्ञानविषय and ज्ञानफल are not different. For, ज्ञान-विषय viz. पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतत् includes ज्ञानफल viz. पावनत्वादि in accordance with the general rule that the विशिष्ट includes the विशेषण. Thus as the general proposition ‘ज्ञानविषयात् ज्ञानफलम् अन्यत्’ is here violated, we cannot admit विशिष्टलक्षणा.

· · ·

An objection from the विशिष्टलक्षणावादिन् - In the above application of the general proposition to the present case ज्ञानफल is taken to be

· · ·

पावनत्वादि i. e. ज्ञानफल is understood to be ज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय or ज्ञाप्य. In his Vṛtti on this line Mammata points out that the फल is प्रकटता or संवित्तिः.

· · ·

ज्ञानं = पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतज्ञानं ज्ञानविषयः = पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतत् ज्ञानफलं = पावनत्वादिज्ञानं

· · ·

( 2 ) We now say that the general proposition which the line lays down is

· · ·

ज्ञातात् विषयः अन्यः, ज्ञातं फलेऽपि अन्यत्

· · ·

ज्ञानं = नीलज्ञानं विषयः = नीलम् फलं = प्रकटता or संवित्तिः.

· · ·

ज्ञानम् = पावनत्वादिविशिष्टटज्ज्ञानम्

· · ·

विषय: = पावनत्वादिविशिष्टटत्

· · ·

फलम् = पावनत्वादिज्ञानम्

· · ·

Here we note that while विषय is differnt from ज्ञान, फल is not. For, फल (पावनत्वादिज्ञानम्) is really included in ज्ञान (पावनत्वादिविशिष्टटज्ज्ञानम्), according to the rule which says that विशिष्टज्ञान (e. g. दण्डज्ञान) includes विशेषणज्ञान (e. g. दण्डज्ञान). Therefore, that part of the general proposition which says that there should be ज्ञानफलयोभेद: is violated in विशिष्टलक्षणा. Consequently, विशिष्टलक्षणा cannot be accepted.

· · ·

It will thus be seen that the line ‘ज्ञानस्य विषयो धान्य: फलम्त्रय्दुदाहत्‌म्’ yields two interpretations, which have reference to the two senses in which Mammata uses the word प्रयोजन. Both the interpretations serve to show in their respective sphere that विशिष्टलक्षणा is not possible. This is exactly the purpose for which the line under discussion is intended. Therefore, there can be no question as to which is the more natural or more correct interpretation. Both are evidently intended, whether natural or unnatural, inasmuch as Mammata uses the word प्रयोजन in two different senses. That he should have thus used प्रयोजन with different senses and at places so near each other is an indication of his loose writing.

· · ·

Such loose use of प्रयोजन or फल is found in other places also. Thus, प्रयोजन or फल in the sense of लक्ष्यार्थज्ञानजन्य or ज्ञानजन्य or जन्य occurs in is the following passages : ( 1 ) ‘तेषां चैतपावनत्वादीनां धर्माणां तथा प्रतिपादनास्मन्: प्रयोजनाच’ p. 16. (2) ‘अत्र गौणभेदयोर्मेदेपी तादृप्प्रतीति: सर्वथैवामेदावगमम्‍श्र् प्रयोजनम्’ p. 21. (3) ‘अधिकस्य अर्थस्य प्रतिपत्तौ प्रयोजनम्’ p. 26. ( 4 ) ‘फलेऽपि तु प्रकटता संवित्त्यो’’ D. 26.

· · ·

प्रयोजन or फल in the sense of ज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय or जन्यप्रतीतिविषय or ज्ञाप्य is met with in (1) ‘प्रतिपिपादयिषितप्रयोजनसंप्रत्यय:’ p. 18. (2) ‘चिद्वभेदयोस्स्तु अन्यवैलक्षण्येन अव्यभिचारण च कार्यकारित्वादि’ p. 21 (3) ‘प्रयोजनं हि व्युत्पत्ति-व्यापारगम्यमेव’ p. 22. (4) ‘फलेऽपि शब्दैकरम्येद्र्श्र्’ p. 24. (5) ‘प्रयोजनप्रतिपिपाद-विषया यत्र लक्षणया शब्दप्रयोग:' p. 24. (6) ‘योग: फलं नो’ p. 25. (7) ‘तदा प्रयोजनं लक्ष्यते किंचित् प्रयोजनम् नापि गम्य-शब्दसट्टमिव प्रयोजनं प्रतिपादयितुमस्मर्थ:' p. 25. (9) ‘एवम्पीति प्रयोजनं चेल्क्ष्यते’ p. 26. (10) ‘प्रयोजनैन सहितं लक्षणीयं न गुज्यते’ p. 26.

· · ·

विशेषा: स्युस्टु लक्षणीते — स्यू:=व्यापारान्तरेगम्या: स्युः. लक्षणीते = लक्षणया बोधिते अर्थे=लक्ष्यार्थ, paraphrased in the Vṛtti by तटादौ. What is meant is that the properties, which are cognized in the लक्ष्यार्थ, should be understood by a separate function viz. लक्षणा.

· · ·

का. १५

· · ·

२२६

· · ·

लक्षणामूले व्यङ्कत्वम्

· · ·

Out of the three functions of a word viz. अभिधा, लक्षणा and व्यञ्जना, अभिधा alone is an independent and self-sufficient function. It does not require the help of, or is not based on, any other function. A word can be merely वाचक without being लाक्षणिक or व्यञ्जक. But such is not the case with the functions लक्षणा and व्यञ्जना.

· · ·

लक्षणा depends on its three causes viz. मुख्यार्थबाध, तद्योग and रूढिप्रयोग-जनान्यतरत्. It also depends on अभिधा, because it cannot come into operation unless अभिधा has expressed its sense and that sense is found incompatible. A word cannot be merely लाक्षणिक. It has to be वाचक first and only when the वाच्यार्थ is बाधित, it becomes लाक्षणिक. But a word cannot be वाचक and लाक्षणिक at the same time. The लक्ष्यार्थ dislodges the वाच्यार्थ, 'which is incompatible, and takes its place in the sentence. The लक्ष्यार्थ is understood, not in addition to the वाच्यार्थ, but in substi-

· · ·

व्यज्ञना depends on both अभिधा and लक्षणा. For, it does not come into operation unless अभिधा and लक्षणा have first conveyed their senses.

· · ·

A word cannot be व्यंजक alone. It has necessarily to be either वाचक or लक्षणिक first. But there is a distinction between the लक्ष्यार्थ and the व्यंग्यार्थ. The व्यंग्यार्थ is understood in addition to वाच्यार्थ or लक्ष्यार्थ. not in place or in stead of it. A word is thus वाचक and व्यंजक, or लक्षणिक and व्यंजक simultaneously.

· · ·

[ Sutra Kārikā 14 ]

अनेकश्रृस्य शब्दस्य वाचकत्वे संयुगात्पः नियतत्वे [सति] अवाच्यार्थाधीकृत व्याप्तितः व्यंजन [भवति]।

· · ·

अनेकार्थस्य—Two views are held regarding अनेकार्थ or double-or multi-meaning words. One view says that these words possess as many expressive powers as they have primary senses and on account of these many expressive powers they express many meanings. The second view maintains that there are as many words as there are senses ( यावन्तः अर्थास्तवतः शब्दाः ). Thus, करः meaning the hand is a different word form कर: the trunk, or कर: the tax. According to this view an अनेकार्थ शब्द is impossible, because no word can have more than one sense.

· · ·

संयोगाद्यैः=संयोगः आद्यः येषां तैः [ विषयः वस्तुशक्तिभिः ]

· · ·

संयोगो विप्रयोगश्च—

· · ·

शब्दार्थस्य स्मृतिहेतवः

· · ·

इत्युक्तदिशा—

· · ·

[ Sutra २३० ]

काव्यप्रकाश:

· · ·

( 8 ) शब्दस्य अन्यस्य सन्निधि: means the proximity of another word. In ' देवस्य पुराराते.' the word देव is अनेकार्थ, because even in the sense of a god 'it is applicable to any god, besides signifying other senses. But the proximity of पुराराति: = त्रिपुराराति:, which is a special epithet of Śiva, restricts the अभिधा of देव to Sambhu. It should be noted that the word देव is here restricted to Śambhu, and not to mere god, as Mammata's words 'इति शंभौ' show.

· · ·

This view of the Pradīpa is criticized by Appaya Dīkṣita and Jagannatha. According to them both the words may be of uncertain meaning and may mutually determine the sense of each other and may also be in different cases.

· · ·

सामर्थ्यम् must be distinguished from अर्थ: and लिङ्गम्. Śiva has the power of destroying transmigratory existence and Cupid is capable of becoming angry. So अर्थ: and लिङ्गम् appear to be the same as सामर्थ्यम्. The distinction between them is, however, this: अर्थ: refers to a fruit which is to be obtained in the future on account of the power which it presupposes. सामर्थ्यम् refers to a power, which has already manifested its result in some one else. लिङ्गम् refers to a characteristic which belongs to oneself.

· · ·

[ Sutra (10) ]

औचिती (उचितस्य भावः)

· · ·

[ Sutra (11) ]

देशः

· · ·

[ Sutra (12) ]

कालः

· · ·

[ Sutra (13) ]

व्यक्ति

· · ·

[ Sutra (14) ]

स्वरः

· · ·

२३२

· · ·

ing of a word capable of yielding more than one sense in the Veda only, not in poetry. इन्द्रशत्रु: is an अनेकार्थ word. It may either be a पष्ठीतत्पुरुष or a बहुव्रीहि compound and may then mean different things. Thus ‘ इन्द्रशत्रु:’, when accented on the last syllable, is a Tatpuruṣa compound and means ‘the destroyer of Indra ( इन्द्रस्य शत्रुः शातयिता )’. For, compounds are generally accented on the last syllable, according to ‘ समासस्य अन्तः निघातः उदात्तः स्वरः’. But if इन्द्री, the first member of this compound, receives its proper accent, according to ‘ बहुव्रीहौ प्रकृत्या पूर्वपदम्’ पा. ६, २. १, इन्द्रशत्रुः becomes a Bahuvrīhi and means ‘ one whose killer is Indra.’

· · ·

The word इन्द्रशत्रु: is often quoted to show how important it is to pronounce Vedic words with the correct accent and how disastrous consequences may sometimes follow even a small error in their pronunciation. Compare पाणिनीयशिक्षा 52

· · ·

स्वर is defined as ‘ स्वर उदात्तादिः रसगणाधार.

· · ·

Page 26

· · ·

( 15 ) आदिग्रहणाद्....... अभिनयादयः:- In the second couplet above occurs the word स्वरादयः. Mammata now tells us that आदि here includes अभिनय and others. Thus, अभिनय is the 15th circumstance that restricts the अभिधा of an अनेकार्थ word. An illustration of अभिनय is stanza 6: ‘ एताव-न्नमाचष्टनिकाः’. Here the word एतावत् is अनेकार्थ, because being of general signification it can express any sense that we can convey by a gesture. So by appropriate gestures एतावत् is here restricted to four different senses.

· · ·

The stanza describes the condition of a girl, who in, say, four days grows very lean on account of separation from her lover.

· · ·

( 16 ) प्रदीप includes अपदेश also by आदि. अपदेश is defined as ‘ अपदेशिमतनिदर्शे: ‘ प्रदीप: i. e. pointing out. An example of अपदेश is इतः स दैत्यः प्राप्तश्रोन्त एवाहं ति क्षयम् । विष्णुब्रक्षोदपि संवर्ध्य स्वर्या श्चित्तुसांप्रतम् ॥ कुमारसंभव 2.55,

· · ·

Here as the speaker, Brahma utters the word इतः:, he points to himself by placing his hand on his chest. Thus the अनेकार्थ word इतः is made definite by the gesture.

· · ·

इतः...व्यञ्जनमेव व्यापारः:-Mammata tells us in this paragraph that even though the power to express other primary senses of a word having more than one primary sense is thus stopped owing to some such circumstance as संयोग, in some cases ( कचित् ) cognition of another primary sense does arise. This cannot be said to be due to अभिधा, because it is restricted. Nor can it arise from लक्षणा,, because here मुख्यार्थबाघ and the other two causes necessary for लक्षणा, are not present. Therefore,

· · ·

तद्युक्तो व्यञ्जकः शब्दः

· · ·

general definition of व्यञ्जना. He treats of two varieties of शाब्दी व्यञ्जना in Kārikās 9 cd-10 ab and 14 and defines a व्यञ्जक शब्द in 15a. He also does not define व्यङ्ग्यार्थ which should be understood as tacitly defined as ' यमर्थं व्यञ्जकः शब्दः योतयति स व्यङ्ग्यार्थः '.

· · ·

So far Mammata has dealt with वाचक, लक्षणिक and व्यञ्जक words, वाच्य ( मुख्य ), लक्ष्य and व्यङ्ग्य senses and अभिधा लक्षणा and ( शाब्दी ) व्यञ्जना.

· · ·

यत् सौदर्थ्यादन्तरयुक्...मत्-व्यञ्जना is divided into शाब्दी and अर्थी। But one may urge. This division is not reasonable. शब्द and अर्थ are inseparably connected together ( ' वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्तौ ' रघुवंश i. 1 ) Therefore it is not proper to separate them and make them the basis of two divisions of व्यञ्जना. The stanza ' भद्रास्तु मनो ' which illustrates अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना, is an example of ध्वनिकाव्य. A काव्य consists of शब्दार्थो। If the words in ' भद्रास्तु मनो ' are regarded as व्यञ्जक, what about the senses therein ? Are they not व्यञ्जक also ? If so, what is the point in dividing व्यञ्जना into शाब्दी and अर्थी ? Then again, in ' गङ्गायां घोषः ', which is an example of लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना, the word गङ्गा is suggestive. Bıt what about its लक्ष्यार्थ ? Is it also not suggestive ? If so, why again is व्यञ्जना divided into शाब्दी and अर्थी ?

· · ·

Such objections are answered by Mammata in this Kārikā. A word ( रुः-शब्दः ) is said to be suggestive ( तथाऽ-व्यञ्जकः ), when it is अर्थान्तरयुक्। The expression अर्थान्तरयुक् possesses two senses according as it refers to the व्यञ्जक word in अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना and in लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना. In अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना a word becomes suggestive, when it is अर्थान्तरयुक् in the sense of वाच्यार्थयुक् ( अन्याः व्यङ्ग्यार्थाद् अन्याः अर्थाः अर्थान्तरं वाच्यार्थः इत्यर्थः तेन युक् युक्तः ) For example, in ' भद्रास्तु मनो ' कर is suggestive of the trunk. But it is so suggestive, when joined with the वाच्यार्थ hand. What is meant is that कर suggests the trunk only after it has expressed the hand. Thus, here the वाच्यार्थ hand is also suggestive. Similarly, in लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना a word is suggestive, when it is अर्थान्तरयुक् in the sense of लक्ष्यार्थयुक्। For example, in ' गङ्गायां घोषः ' गङ्गा is suggestive of पावनत्वादि। But this suggestion is made only after the लक्ष्यार्थ viz. तट is indicated. So the लक्ष्यार्थ तट is also suggestive. Thus, in अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना अर्थान्तर means वाच्यार्थ and in लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना it signifies लक्ष्यार्थ। Read ' अर्थान्तरयुक् अभिधेयेन लक्षणेन वा यौचितेन केनचिदर्थेन युक्तो भूतो तथा व्यञ्जको भवति ' साहित्यचूडामणि p. 79.

· · ·

It has been shown above that when शब्द is व्यञ्जक, its अर्थे viz. its वाच्यार्थ in अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना and its लक्ष्यार्थ in लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना is also व्यञ्जक. But the suggestiveness of अर्थ is by way of cooperation ( सहकारितया ). What is principally suggestive is शब्द। Hence, these two varieties

· · ·

of लक्षणा are known as शाब्दी, according to the maxim 'प्राधान्येन व्यपदेशा भवन्ति'. Later on in iii. 3 p. 36 Mammaṭa will tell us that when अर्थ is principally suggestive as in आर्थी व्यञ्जना, शब्द is also suggestive in a subordinate manner, because अर्थ, only when conveyed by शब्दप्रमाण.

· · ·

The second Ullāsa is called शब्दार्थस्वरूपनिर्‌णय. So here Mammaṭa has dealt with three kinds of words viz. वाचक, लक्षणिक and व्यञ्जक and three kinds of senses viz. वाच्य, लक्ष्य and व्यङ्ग्य, as also with the three functions viz. अभिधा, लक्षणा and (शाब्दी) व्यञ्जना that are responsible for the three-fold division of शब्द and अर्थ.

· · ·

अर्थः प्रोक्तः: पुरा तेषाम्—This part of the Kārikā is intended to show the logical connection (संगति:) between the second and the third Ullāsa.

· · ·

certain circumstances senses are not suggestive. Those circumstances are enumerated in these Kārikās 1 cd and 2, which contain a definition of आर्थी व्यञ्जना.

· · ·

Construe: वक्तृबोधग्याकूना...वैशिष्ट्याद् यः अर्थस्य व्यापारः प्रतिभाजुषाम् अन्यार्थीहेतुः [ भवति ], सा व्यक्तिः एव [ भवति ].

· · ·

वाक्य च वाच्य च वाक्यवाच्ये ( द्रन्दुः ) वाक्यवाच्याभ्यां सहितः अन्यसन्निधिः ( मध्यम पदलोपि समासः ) तस्य।

· · ·

The above Kārikās define आर्थों व्यञ्जना. But Mammata does not definitely say so.

· · ·

With reference to the nine circumstances or things that have been specifically enumerated in the above Kārikās, we have to point out that while in the case of some the वैशिष्टच or speciality actually belongs to them in the case of others the circumstances themselves form the वैशिष्टच or speciality.

· · ·

Thus, काकुवैशिष्टचम् and अन्यसन्निधिवैशिष्टचम् become examples of षष्ठी or the genitive of identity, exemplified in expressions like 'राहोः शिरः' and 'ब्रह्मणः आनन्दः'.

· · ·

बोधव्य:...प्रकरणम्

· · ·

बोधव्य:

· · ·

क्रमेणोदाहरणानि

· · ·

अत्र चौर्यरतगोपनं व्यज्यते

· · ·

त्वामपि

· · ·

( 3 ) Stanza 3—This stanza is an example of काकुवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्गकता. Here काकुवैशिष्ट्याद् means owing to the speciality viz. काकु or the change in voice.

· · ·

The काकु or modulation is present in the last line. If we read 'गुरु: खेदं खिन्ने मयि भजति नाथ्यापि कुरून् ' in an ordinary voice, the line would mean ' Yudhiṣṭhira would entertain anger towards me, who am enraged, not even now towards the Kuruś.' But if we read it with a change in our voice, it would give rise to two questions of appeal, thus : गुरु: खिन्न मयि खेदं भजति (किम्), अध्यापि कुरून न (खेदं भजति किम् ) l And the suggestion from these questions of appeal, which are the results of काकु, is that anger towards Bhīmasena ( मयि = भीमसेनें ) is improper and that it is proper towards the Kurus. Thus, owing to the presence of काकु or the change in the voice, with which Bhīmasena recites the last line, the वाच्यार्थ becomes व्यङ्गक. Hence the stanza is an example of काकुवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्गकता.

· · ·

न च वाच्यसिद्धयैव...विर्धान्ते:- These sentences are intended to show that the stanza 'तथाभूतां दृश्वा', which has been quoted as an illustration of काकोर्वैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्गकता, is not an example of that variety of गुणीभूतव्यङ्गच काव्य, which is known as काकाक्षिप्ति.

· · ·

Mammata deals with मध्यम or गुणीभूतव्यङ्गच काव्य in the fifth Ullāsa. There he divides गुणीभूतव्यङ्गच into 8 varieties. Two of the these varieties are called वाच्यसिद्धचन्त and काकाक्षिप्ति. वाच्यसिद्धचन्त is that variety, where the suggested sense is subordinate to the establishment of the expressed sense of a word. काकाक्षिप्ति on the other hand is that variety where the sense suggested by काकु or the modulation of voice becomes subordinate to the establishment of the expressed sense of a sentence.

· · ·

गुरु: खिद्र्ने मथि खेदं भजति. अद्यापि कुरुषु न [ भजति ]

· · ·

प्रश्नात्रेणापि काकोरिव्याप्तान्ते:

· · ·

मथि न योग्य: खेद: कुरुषु तु योग्य:

· · ·

तथाभूतां द्रष्टा

· · ·

२४०

· · ·

friend of hers. The friend was reflected in the glossy cheek of the beloved. The man, who was secretly in love with the friend, could not directly look at her owing to the presence of his beloved. He, therefore, steadily fixed his gaze on his beloved's cheek, where he could see the reflection of his new favourite. When the friend left the place, the man no longer looked at his beloved's cheek. The lady understood the reason why the man first looked at her cheek so intently and then removed his gaze from it altogether viz. that he was secretly in love with the friend (प्रच्छन्नकामुकत्वम्.) and suggested this fact as well as her surprise at it (अहो) by addressing him the present stanza, wherein she used the significant words तदा, इदानाम् and सा. ( in 'न सा दृष्टि:' ) Therefore, this stanza illustrates वाच्यवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्जकता.

· · ·

गण्डस्थलनिम्नम्—This expression contains a suppressed metaphor, which consists in the superimposition of the character of water on the cheek. For, निम्न is primarily applicable to water.

· · ·

[ Sutra 5 ]

Stanza 5—This stanza illustrates वाच्यवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्जकता. A young man, accompanied by his beloved, arrived at a romantic spot on the bank of the Narmadā. Then he described that spot to his beloved in this stanza in such a manner as to suggest that she should enter it for enjoyment.

· · ·

उद्देशः region. This is to be construed with नर्मदाया: = नर्मदातटस्य. कुञ्जानां लतामण्डपानाम् उत्कर्षेण श्रेष्ठतया उत्कृष्टकुञ्जः इत्यर्थः अर्थातः उद्धृतः रमणीयु विलासिनीषु विग्रहः चित्तावस्थास्य यस्मिन्. There were such excellent bowers in this region that mental uneasiness or perturbation due to love sprouted up in the minds of women. सुरतसखः friends of amorous enjoyment. The breezes are so called, because they were capable of removing the exhaustion caused by love-sport owing to their coolness and fragrance.

· · ·

येषामग्रे... मनोभूः—The idea in this line is that the breezes, which blew in this region, were so excessively exciting that it seemed Cupid was moving in front of them and influencing all people that came within his reach.

· · ·

Here we find that the वाच्यार्थ is brought out by adjectives which pointedly refer to such features as are exciting. Thus, कदलीशोभा, विध्रमोद्गलदकुञ्जः and सुरतसखमपरिहारवाताः are features that are supposed to excite in the lady a desire for enjoyment. So उद्दिपकविशेषणयुक्तत्वम् is the वैशिष्ट्य of वाच्य that makes the वाच्यार्थ suggest that the lady should enter the place for enjoyment.

· · ·

वाच्यवैशिष्ट्य must be distinguished from वाक्यवैशिष्ट्य. For वाच्य is expressed by the वाक्यs and whatever speciality the sentences may have would be the speciality of the expressed sense as well and vice versa. But it is possible to make a distinction between the two. वाक्यवैशिष्ट्य consists in the use of words of general signification such as तदा, इदानिम् and सा, which suggest their proper sense, when we take the whole situation into consideration. वाच्यवैशिष्ट्य on the other hand means the use of adjectives which express ideas useful for the purpose in hand.

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 6) ]

Stanza 6—This stanza illustrates अन्यसंनिधिवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता. Here अन्यसंनिधिवैशिष्ट्याद् means owing to the presence of another. A girl was in love with some one. Her lover came and stood near the place where she was having a talk with a neighbour. He wanted to know the time when he could meet her. The girl knew this and addressed this stanza to the neighbour. The stanza suggests to the lover, who stood near, apparently unconcerned or indifferent (तटस्थ), that evening is the time of appointment (संकेतः). Now it can be easily seen that the girl's words would not have thrown out the above suggestion, had it not been for the fact that her lover was near. Therefore, the stanza is an example of अन्यसंनिधिवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता.

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 7) ]

Stanza 7—This stanza illustrates प्रस्ताववैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता. प्रस्ताव means occasion or context. The occasion itself is the speciality. So that प्रस्तावस्य वैशिष्ट्यम् means प्रस्तावरूपं वैशिष्ट्यम्. A wanton girl had become ready to move out of her house to meet her paramour. A friend of hers, who had heard that her husband was returning in a short time, addressed this stanza to her. The stanza suggests that it was not proper for the girl to go out then to meet her paramour, when her husband was expected. This suggestion would not have been possible, had it not been for the fact that the girl had actually become ready to move out. So, the प्रस्ताव here is उपपत्ति प्रति अभिसरणसिद्धता, which throws out the suggestion 'न युक्तम् अभिसरणमस्मिन् समये ]' एवंमेव just thus, idly. Or एवमेव may mean just in this अभिसारिकावेश.

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 8) ]

Stanza 8—This stanza illustrates देशवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता.

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 9) ]

Stanza 9—This stanza illustrates कालवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता. A young man was asked by his father to go on a journey in spring. The spring is an exciting season and his wife would find it

· · ·

अत्र कालः वसन्तः इत्येव वैशिष्ट्यम् । वसन्तकालरूपवैशिष्ट्यमित्यर्थः तेन वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 10 ]

चेष्टया: वैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता ।

· · ·

चेष्टावैशिष्ट्याद् विशिष्टाभिः चेष्टाभिः इत्यर्थः आकृतिविशेषस्य व्यञ्जनमात्र.

· · ·

ऊरुयुगलस्य प्रथमतः प्रोञ्चासनेन प्रसारणेन तदनन्तरं परस्परसमासजनन शुत्रताभिलाष: व्यज्यते । तस्य पूरुणार्थ त्वया आगन्तव्यमित्यापि ध्वन्यते । शिरोऽधिकस्य पुरतः आनयननेन ल्वय सश्चिर अच्छाभ गुहं समागन्तव्यमिति योत्स्यते । आगमनवेलायां इतस्ततो यत्र कुत्रापि न प्रक्षेप्तव्या दृष्टि: इति लोचनयो: अधःक्षेपण सूच्यते । वाक्यप्रसरनिवारणेन मनागपि कोलाहलमकृत्वा आयातव्यमिति प्रदर्श्यते । दोर्लतयो: सङ्कोचननिर्योऽलिङ्गनस्य इहा प्रकटीक्रियते ।

· · ·

वक्त्रादीनां मिथः संयोगे द्वित्रादिभेदन — Here supply व्यञ्जकत्वमुदाहार्यम् to complete the sentence.

· · ·

अनेन कमेण लक्षणव्यञ्जकयोः व्यञ्जकत्वमुदाहार्यम्—This Ullāsa deals with आर्थी व्यञ्जना i. e. the व्यञ्जकता of वाच्यार्थ, लिङ्गार्थ and व्यङ्ग्यार्थ.

· · ·

the व्यङ्ग्यार्थे should be illustrated, he now tells us in this sentence. He gives us no illustrations himself. We have already pointed out that the व्यञ्जकत्व of लक्ष्यार्थ and व्यङ्ग्यार्थ is respectively illustrated by stanza 2 and 3 of the second Ullāsa. Stanza 2 illustrates बोधव्यवैशिष्ट्याद लक्ष्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता and stanza 3 is an example of वक्तृबोधव्ययो: वैशिष्ट्याद वा व्यङ्ग्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता.

· · ·

Kārikā 3 — This Kārikā refers to the same matter as has been dealt with in Kārikā 15bcd of the second Ullāsa. In आर्थी व्यञ्जना it is the अर्थ which is व्यञ्जक or suggestive. But अर्थ must first be conveyed by शब्द ( शब्दबोधक:) before it can become व्यञ्जक and suggest another sense. Thus, शब्द helps अर्थ to become व्यञ्जक by conveying it. Therefore, Mammata tells us here that when अर्थ is व्यञ्जक, it is so with the cooperation of शब्द.

· · ·

Though both अर्थ and शब्द are in this manner व्यञ्जक, the व्यञ्जना is termed आर्थी owing to the greater importance that here belongs to अर्थ. Similarly, शाब्दी व्यञ्जना is so called because there greater importance belongs to शब्द. The Kārikā is intended to account for the division of व्यञ्जना into शाब्दी and आर्थी, though in both these divisions शब्द and अर्थ are both suggestive. The division is explained on the ground that in शाब्दी व्यञ्जना greater importance belongs to शब्द and in आर्थी to अर्थ.

· · ·

According to the Pradipa this Kārikā is intended to remove the following objection: काव्य is defined as शब्दार्थो. All the ten preceding

stanzas are काव्य and what is more उत्तम काव्य or ध्वनि, because they contain a suggested sense which is more charming than the expressed sense- In an उत्तम काव्य both word and sense are व्यञ्जक ( Vide p. 6 where Mammata says 'न्यभावितवाच्यग्ययस्सननक्षसय शब्दार्थयुगलस्य'). Therefore, if in the stanzas illustrating आर्थी व्यञ्जना only the अर्थ is regarded as व्यञ्जक, how can they be examples of उत्तम काव्य ?

· · ·

शब्देति ... व्यञ्जक: — This Vṛtti means that अर्थ, which is शब्दप्रमाणवेद्य, is alone suggestive and that अर्थ understood from any other प्रमाण such as प्रत्यक्ष, अनुमान or उपमान is not व्यञ्जक. The reason for this is plain. व्यञ्जना is a function which belongs to शब्द and the अर्थ conveyed by it. Therefore, it follows that it cannot belong to अर्थ which may be conveyed by any other प्रमाण.

· · ·

We have noted before ( p. 234 ) the view of the Udyota that शाब्दी व्यञ्जना is so called, because it is शब्दपरिवृत्तिसह. This means that the distinction between शाब्दी व्यञ्जना and आर्थी व्यञ्जना is based on शब्दपरिवृत्त्यसहत्व. While शाब्दी व्यञ्जना is शब्दपरिवृत्त्यसह, आर्थी is शब्दपरिवृत्तिसह. Jagannātha also holds the same view. Read रसगङ्गाधर p. 138.

· · ·

Having defined and illustrated शब्दालङ्कार's in उल्लास IX मम्मट now proceeds to treat of figures of sense in this उल्लास.

· · ·

( 1 ) उपमा Or simile

· · ·

A striking or beautiful comparison between two things is उपमा. मम्मट defines it as साधर्म्यमुपमा भेदे. साधर्म्य means similitude i. e. the state of having a common property.

· · ·

It should be noted that when a भाववाचक प्रत्यय is affixed to a compound, it signifies some relation. साधर्म्य therefore, signifies the relation existing between उपमान i. e. the standard of comparison and उपमेय, the object of comparison, both being possessed of a common property. The definition of उपमा thus is उपमानोपमेययो: साधर्म्यम्.

· · ·

Some interpret मम्मट's words सामानेन धर्मेण सम्बन्ध: in the sense of connection between उपमान and उपमेय on the one hand and समानधर्मे on the other. This is manifestly wrong. सामानेन धर्मेण in the वृत्ति is a करणे तृतीया and not सह. Also the relation between उपमानोपमेयौ and समानधर्मे will not be साधर्म्य but समवाय, they being related as गुणिनौ-गुण. Moreover this is obviously not meant by मम्मट.

· · ·

साधर्म्ये means the relation between उपमान and उपमेय brought about by a common property. This relation constitutes the उपमा. मम्मट further adds that this साधर्म्ये exists between उपमान and उपमेय only and not between any other correlates like कार्य and कारण. This is because the relation between कार्ये and कारण is not striking as is needed for a figure of speech and secondly this relation is कार्यकारणभाव and not साधर्म्ये.

· · ·

साधर्म्ये ( similitude ) practically comes to mean साहश्य or सौम्प्र ( similarity, resemblance ) and the two words are often used as synonyms. Psychologically the two can, however, be distinguished. साधर्म्ये is the cause and साहश्य is the result. We first realize that two things have a common property and then the idea that they are, therefore, similar arises in us.

· · ·

To the definition of उपमा, Mammata adds the word भेदे. This word serves the purpose of excluding the figure अन्योक्ति from the province of उपमा, भेदे suggests that the साधर्म्ये, which constitutes उपमा, must be between two distinct entities. In अनन्वय or Self-Comparison, exemplified by ' रामरावणयोर्युद्धं रामरावणयोरिव', though साधर्म्ये has formally been shown between the उपमान ( रामरावणयोर्युद्धम् ), and 'the उपमेय ( रामरावणयोरिव ), the उपमान and उपमेय are not distinct. They are really one. Therefore. भेदे

· · ·

excludes अनन्वय from being उपमा. There is another point of distinction between the two. In उपमा साधर्म्ये is striking, while in अनन्वय what strikes us is उपमानान्तरव्यवच्छेदः. This means that while उपमा ultimately conveys the idea of similarity between the उपमेय and the उपमान, अनन्वय aims at conveying that there is no second similar thing ( द्वितीयसदृशव्यवच्छेदः: )

· · ·

उपमा must also be distinguished from another figure called उपमेयोपमा, where also साधर्म्ये between उपमान and उपमेय is established. An example of उपमेयोपमा is ' कमलेव मतिर्मातिरिव कमला,' where साधर्म्ये between कमला and मति is established. Mammata's definition of उपमा does not contain anything specific to distinguish it from उपमेयोपमा. Therefore, the word साधर्म्ये itself must be supposed to serve this purpose. This means that उपमा is distinguished from उपमेयोपमा, because while साधर्म्ये is the ultimate idea in उपमा, the ultimate idea in उपमेयोपमा, is तृतीयसहशव्यवच्छेद i. e. to convey that there is no third similar thing. Viśvanātha puts वाक्यैक्ये ( when there is unity of sentence ) in his definition of उपमा in order to exclude उपमेयोपमा. For, whilst साधर्म्ये is conveyed by उपमा in one sentence, it is conveyed in two by उपमेयोपमा.

· · ·

The purpose of उपमा is to exalt the greatness or excellence of the उपमेय. In the case of a figure called प्रतिप, which consists in turning an ordinary उपमान into an उपमेय, as in ' मुखमिव चन्द्रः,' the excellence of the new उपमेय viz. चन्द्रः is not exalted, but lowered Hence, though we have भेदे साधर्म्यम् in ' मुखमिव चन्द्रः,' it is not an example of उपमा.

· · ·

Some rhetoricians think that it is necessary to include in the definition of उपमा some such adjective for साधर्म्यम् as ' striking ' or ' lovely.' Their idea is that the साधर्म्ये which constitutes उपमा must be striking. Prosaic साधर्म्ये such as we find in ' गौरिव गवयः' ' घट इव पट्टो द्वव्यम्,' घट इव पट्टो जातिमान्,' and ' आश्विनड दधिन्-चैव पृष्वत् कुषवतथा । राजन् त्व यशो भाति ( शरच्चन्द्रमरीचिवत् )' does not constitute उपमा. We think that such a qualification is by no meāns necessary. Whenever a figure is defined, it is presumed that it is a figure. And a figure means strikingness ( 'वैचित्र्ये चालङ्कारः' p. 40 ). Therefore, special reference to strikingness in the definition of a figure is unnecessary.

· · ·

Most writers begin their treatment of अर्थालङ्कार with उपमा, because it forms the basis of many other figures and is also easily understandable and pleasing. Viśvanātha says that among figures of sense those that are based on similarity are principal. Among these latter उपमा is the chief. Hence it is first defined.

· · ·

अपच्या दीक्षित in चित्रमीमांसा shows how उपमा with only slight changes assumes the form of other figures. Read चित्रमीमांसा.

· · ·

पूर्णों छलाच—Mammaṭa now commences the treatment of the divisions of उपमा. उपमा is first divided into पूर्णा and लुप्ता. उपमा requires four elements or ingredients viz. उपमान, उपमेय, साधारणधर्मे and उपमाप्रतिपादक. When all these four elements are mentioned ( उपादाने प्रहणे शब्दोद्देशे ) the Comparison is पूर्णा or complete. When one, two or three of these elements are omitted, it becomes लुप्ता or Elliptical.

· · ·

साधारणधर्मः, referred to hereafter as धर्मः, is the common property possessed by both उपमान and उपमेय, which brings about the connection between the two.

· · ·

Mammaṭa first divides उपमा into two broad classes viz. पूर्णा and लुप्ता. पूर्णा is further divided into श्रौती and आर्थी, each of which has three varieties. पूर्णा is thus of six kinds. लुप्ता is then further divided into seven.

· · ·

kinds, which along with the sub-divisions of five of them make a total of nineteen. Thus, Mammata's उपमा has in all twenty-five varieties.

· · ·

Thse divisions will be clear from the following: - उपमा ( 25 varieties )

· · ·

पूर्णा ( 6 varieties ) लुप्ता ( 19 varieties )

· · ·

श्रौती ( 3 kinds ) आर्थी ( 3 kinds )

· · ·

(1) वाक्यगता( 2 ) समासगा (3) तद्धितगा (4) वाक्यगा (5) समासगा (6) तद्धितगा स्वनेषपि अत्यायप्तैः गभीरेगनिमा चक्रितहरिण अवितथ दुरालोक Stanza 1 Stanza 3 Stanza 5ab Stanza 2 Stanza 4 Stanza 5cd

· · ·

(1) धर्मल्क्ष्ता (2) उपमान (3) वादि (4) धर्मेवादि (5) धर्मोपमान (6) वाद्युपमय (7) वादिधर्मोप- (5 kinds ) लुप्ता लुप्ता लुप्ता लुप्ता लुप्ता मानलुप्ता ; (2 kinds) (6 kinds) (2 kinds) (2 kinds) (1 kind) (1 kind)

· · ·

The sub-divisions of these seven varieties of लुप्ता can be thus shown:- (1) धर्मल्क्ष्ता— (7) वाक्यगा श्रौती e. g. धन्यस्थानन्य Stanza 6 (8) वाक्यगा आर्थी e. g. आकृष्टकरवालो Stanza 7 (9) समासगा श्रौती e. g. करवाल इवाचरः: Stanza 8 (10) समासगा आर्थी e. g. वाग्मूतोपमा Stanza 8 (11) तद्धितगा आर्थी e. g. विषकल्पं मन Stanza 8

· · ·

(2) उपमानलुप्ता— (12) वाक्यगा आर्थी e. g. सकलकरण Stanza 9 (13) समासगा आर्थी e. g. सकलकरण Stanza 9 (14) समासगा (द्विपदसमासगा) e. g. ततः कुसुमद्राथेन Stanza 10; (त्रिपदसमासगा) e. g. असितभुजग Stanza 11 (15) कर्मकृजगा e. g. पौंर श्रियति Stanza 12 (16) आधारक्यजगा e. g. समानान्तरे अन्तःपुरीयति Stanza 12 (17) कतृजगा e. g. सफलत्सेना नार्तीयते Stanza 12 (18) कर्मणसुल्गा e. g. निदाघचर्मगुदरां Stanza 13 (19) कतॄणसुल्गा e. g. पाथीसंचार संचरति Stanza 13

· · ·

(4) धर्मवादिलुप्ता— (20) कतृगा e. g. सर्विता विधवति Stanza 14 (21) समासगा e. g. परिपन्थिमनोराज्य Stanza 15

· · ·

(5) धर्मोपमानलुप्ता— (22) समासगा (आर्थी) e. g. डुणडुणायमानो Stanza 16 (23) वाक्यगा ( आर्थी) e. g. डुणडुणायमानो Stanza 16

· · ·

(6) वाक्यगेयलङ्का—(24) क्यज्जा e. g. स सहस्रायुजीयति Stanza 17

· · ·

(7) वादिगमोपमानलङ्का - ( 25 ) समासगा e.g. सृगनयना Stanza 18

· · ·

साधिमता ... तद्धिते तथा — This part of Kārikā 1 tells us that the first ( अधिमा ) of the two varieties mentioned above viz. पूर्णी is श्रौती and आर्थी and that these two kinds occur each in a sentence, in a compound and in a nominal affix.

· · ·

When all the four words expressive of the four ingredients of an उपमा viz. उपमान, उपमेय, साधारण धर्म and उपमाप्रतिपादक occur in an independent uncompounded. form, the उपमा is वाक्यगा. When any of these four are compounded, the उपमा is समासगा. It is to be noted here that in a पूर्णोपमा a compound of उपमान and उपमाप्रतिपादक alone is possible e. g. चन्द्रइव सुन्दरं मुखं ( श्रौती ) or चन्द्रतुल्यं सुन्दर मुखं ( आर्थी ). For, if we were to compound any other words, or these words with any other, the expression would not bring out the intended sense and would be awkward in addition e. g. चन्द्र इव सुन्दरमुखम्, चन्द्र इवसुन्दरे मुखम् etc. or चन्द्रेण तुल्यं सुन्दरमुखम्, चन्द्रे तुल्यं सुन्दरं etc. When a तद्धित affix is added to a word, the resulting formation, such as चन्द्रवत्, is not a compound. For, तद्धित is different from समास. Nor is चन्द्रवत् a sentence. For, in a sentence words occur in different cases. Hence, तद्धितगा उपमा is a variety distinct from वाक्यगा and समासगा.

· · ·

In Pāṇini's system of grammar तद्धित is the name of a group of terminations that are applied to nouns to form nominal derivative nouns. The derivatives thus formed are also known by the term तद्धित. For example, वत् is a taddhita termination and चन्द्रवत् is formed by adding it to चन्द्र. Here both वत् and चन्द्रवत् are known as तद्धित.

· · ·

तद्धित is often contrasted with कृत्. कृत् is the name of another group of terminations which are applied to verbs to form verbal derivatives, which are either nouns, adjectives or indeclinables. These derivatives are also known as कृत् or कृदन्त. For example, अङ्क is a Kṛt termination and पाचक, derived from the root पच् by its addition, is also known as कृत् or कृदन्त.

· · ·

The paragraphs beginning with ' यथैवादिशब्दा:' and ' तेन तुल्यं मुखम्' explain the basis of the division of उपमा into श्रौती and आर्थी. उपमा is defined as साधर्म्य or the connection between the उपमान and the उपमेय brought about by a common property possessed by both. When this

· · ·

Page 35 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash २५९

· · ·

connection is directly ( श्रुत्या = श्रवणेन = शब्देन ) conveyed, the उपमा is श्रौती. When it is conveyed indirectly i. e. by implication ( अर्थेन = आक्षेपेण ) the उपमा is आर्थी.

· · ·

Whether साधर्म्य is conveyed directly or indirectly depends on which उपमाप्रतिपादक word is used to convey it. From the point of view of the power to convey साधर्म्य उपमाप्रतिपादक words are divided into two classes viz, (1) यथााद and (2) तुल्यादि. The यथााद group consists of यथा, इव, वा, व ('व वा यथा तथैवैव साम्ये' अमरः) and वत् in the sense of इव.

· · ·

The तुल्यादि group is made of तुल्य, सदृश, सम, समान etc. and वत् in the sense of तुल्य.

· · ·

These two classes of words essentially differ from each other in the way in which they convey साधर्म्य. The words यथा, इव, वा and व possess some special inherent power by which they convey साधर्म्य, or the connection between the उपमान and the उपमेय founded on a common property, even as they are heard ( श्रुयैव-श्रवणमात्रेण ) i. e. by their very presence ( सान्निध्येन ) or directly ( साक्षात् ). Thus, in 'कमलमिव सुन्दरं मुखम्' इव by its very power i. e. directly conveys the साधर्म्य between कमल and मुख.

· · ·

Therefore, when the words यथा, इव, वा and व are used to express comparison, the उपमा is श्रौती or Direct.

· · ·

But words like तुल्य, सदृश, सम etc., which mean resembling or similar, primarily or directly convey resemblance or similarity ( तुल्यता, सादृश्य or साम्य ) and indirectly साधर्म्य. Thus when we hear 'कमलेन तुल्यं मुखम्' the idea that we first get is that the face is similar to the lotus, or the idea of similarity between the face and the lotus. Then we begin to think why the two are similar and conclude that they are similar, because they are connected with each other on account of a common property. Thus, the idea of साधर्म्य dawns on us, not why, when words like तुल्य, सदृश and सम are used as उपमाप्रतिपादक, the उपमा is आर्थी or Indirect or Implied.

· · ·

It will thus be seen that the distinction between साधर्म्य and सादृश्य or साम्य that we pointed out before becomes pertinent in आर्थी उपमा though, as noted there the two words are often treated as synonyms.

· · ·

There is another point of distinction between these two classes of उपमाप्रतिपादक words. यथा, इव, वा and व are always used with उपमान.

· · ·

But तुल्य, सदृश etc. can be used to go with either उपमान or उपमेय or both.

· · ·

Page 35

· · ·

यथादिवादिशब्दा।—This paragraph explains how उपमाप्रतिपादक words like यथा, इव and वा express साधर्म्य. Mammaṭa is here answering a

· · ·

तथैव तत्र ... वतेरुपादाने

· · ·

'तेन तुल्ये मुखं' ... स्थितौ

· · ·

साम्यपर्यालोचनया तुल्यताप्रतीति:

· · ·

तद्धत् 'तेन.....स्थितौ'

· · ·

‘तेन तुल्यं क्रिया चेद् वति:’ पा. 5. 1. 115

· · ·

"इवेन नित्यसमास:...समासगा"

· · ·

इवेन नित्यसमास: विभक्त्यलोप: पूर्वपदप्रकृतिस्वरत्वं च—

· · ·

Page 35 ]

· · ·

But here the compound जीमूतस्येव is not accented on the last syllable, but on the second, which is the प्रकृतिस्वर or the original proper accent of जीमूतः.

· · ·

This इव compound does not fall under any of the well-known classes. It is known as a सुप्रखुप compound.

· · ·

It should be noted that when a word is compounded with another, two changes usually occur therein viz. (1) it loses its case termination and (2) it loses its proper accent. The whole compound then takes the accent which is laid down for the kind of compound that it is.

· · ·

When the वārtika states that these two changes do not occur in the case of इव compounds, the statement amounts to saying that इव is to be considered as a matter of convention as having formed a compound with the उपमान after which it is used. For, such a compound causes no change in its first member.

· · ·

In the Veda, however, this convention about इव compounds has a purpose viz. that the two words being looked upon as a compound are not analysed separately in the Padapāṭha, but have an avagraha inserted between them as in the case of regular compounds. Thus, जीमूतस्येव yields the Padapāṭha जीमूतस् + इव.

· · ·

In classical Sanskrit इव compounds are purely conventional and are regarded as compounds for the purpose of making them serve as examples for certain varieties of उपमा.

· · ·

With reference to Mammata's expression 'नित्यसमास:' it must be pointed out that the word नित्य does not occur in either the सिद्धान्तकौमुदी or the महाभाष्य, where this vārtika is quoted. Where Mammaṭa gets his नित्य from cannot be known. Perhaps he was influenced by what he found in the Ṛgveda, where इव forms a compound with the :words preceding it in all cases of its occurrence without an exception.

· · ·

In classical Sanskrit the statement नित्यसमास: in not found true. For, here cases occur where इव is not used with the उपमान, but with some other word and has consequently to be shifted from its place and joined with the उपमान in construing the stanza e. g. 'प्रांशुलस्पे फले मोहादुदाहुरिव वामनः' रघुवंश 1. 3.

· · ·

The grammarians. therefore, regard इव compounds as optional. Consequently, Mammaṭa's reading नित्यसमास: must be pronounced as unwarranted.

· · ·

नित्यसमास is a technical term in Sanskrit grammar. It means a compound the meaning of which cannot be expressed by supplying

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

case-terminations to its component parts. It is in short a compound which admits of no proper dissolution.

· · ·

Page 36

· · ·

क्रमेण उदाहरणम् — Mammata now proceeds to give illustrations for the six varieties of पूर्णा उपमा in order. Note that उदाहरणम् here is a collective singular.

· · ·

Stanza 1—This stanza is supposed to have been addressed by a poet to a king who is ever victorious in battles. Victory does not leave him as a fondly-loving wife does not abandon her lover. स्वप्रेऽपि - This naturally goes with विजयश्री:

· · ·

This stanza is an illustration of वाक्यगा श्रौती पूर्णा. Here विजयश्री is the उपमेय, स्वाधीनपतिका is the उपमान, अमोचन or अपरित्याग, expressed by ‘न मुञ्चति,’ is the साधारण धर्म and यथा is उपमाप्रतिपादक.As all the four elements are mentioned, the उपमा is पूर्णा. As the उपमाप्रतिपादक belongs to the यथादि class, it is श्रौती. And as the उपमाप्रतिपादक यथा is not compounded with the उपमान, it is वाक्यगा.

· · ·

Stanza 2—This stanza tells us how some one is delighted at the thought that a lotus and the face of his beloved in anger resemble in being of red colour.

· · ·

This stanza is an illustration of वाक्यगा आर्थी पूर्णा. Here ज्ञानन is the उपमेय, सरसिज the उपमान, तरुणारुणातारहारकान्तित्व the साधारणधर्म and सम the उपमाप्रतिपादक word. As all the four elements are mentioned, the उपमा is पूर्णा. As सम, the उपमाप्रतिपादक, belongs to तुल्यादि class, it is आर्थी. As सम is not compounded with the उपमान सरसिज, it is वाक्यगा.

· · ·

It may be noted that चकितहरिणलोललोचनया: is also an example of समासगा वादिलुप्ता. For, here three elements of उपमा viz. उपमेय (लोचन ), उपमान ( चकितहरिण ) and साधारणधर्म ( लोल ) are mentioned. Only the उपमाप्रतिपादक एव is dropped.

· · ·

Stanza 3—This stanza describes a certain king, who protected the world with four expedients ( उपायैः ), as Kṛṣṇa did with his four arms. The adjectives in the instrumental plural go with both उपायैः and भुजैः: In the following the first explanation refers to उपायैः and the second to भुजैः, अत्यायतैः: (1) far-extended i. e. or far-reaching in their consequences. (2) extremely long उद्दतानां नियमक्षयारिमः: (1) that frame rules of conduct for arrogant people from among the subjects. (2) which accomplish restraint or control of the impudent demons. दिव्यैः: (1) excellent. (2) divine, because they belong to Lord Kṛṣṇa. प्रभाभिः- This is an उपलक्षणे तृतीया. (1) characterized by prowess. (2) endowed with

· · ·

Page 36 ]

· · ·

splendour or lustre. अनपायिभ्यः (1) which never fail in achieving their ends, (2) न अपायः नाशः; तत्प्रचुरैः अविनाशिभिः eternal. उपायैः—This means the four expedients or means of success against an enemy viz. सामनू, दान, भेद and दण्ड.

· · ·

शौरिः is Lord Kṛṣṇa. अदः = एतत् लक्ष्मीविलासभवनैः (1) The expedients brought the king wealth and grace or splendour: (2) the abodes of the sports of Lakṣmī sported with the arms of the Lord.

· · ·

This stanza illustrates समासगा श्रौती पूर्णा। The उपमा is पूर्णा, because the four elements viz. उपमेय ( उपायैः ), उपमान ( भुजेः ) साधारणधर्मे ( अत्यायतत्वादिः ) and उपमाप्रतिपादक ( इव ) are mentioned. It is श्रौती, because the उपमाप्रतिपादक is इव. And it is समासगा, because भुजेริव is a compound, according to ‘इवेन नित्यसमासः विभक्त्यलोपः पूर्वपदप्रकृतिस्वरत्वं च’.

· · ·

Stanza 4 —This stanza describes how a certain king is an object of longing or desire to all people, because like the desire-yielding tree of the gods he is known for fulfilling the desires of all.

· · ·

This stanza is quoted as an illustration of समासगा अर्थी पूर्णा। The उपमा here is पूर्णा, because the four elements viz- उपमेय ( भवान् ), उपमान ( शरततुः ), साधारण धर्म ( अवितथ-प्रगुणगरिसंगीतश्रीमतू ) and उपमाप्रतिपादक ( सदृश ) are mentioned. It is अर्थी, because the उपमाप्रतिपादक सदृश belongs to तुल्यादि group. It is समासगा, because the वाचक सदृश is compounded with the उपमान शरतुः.

· · ·

Stanza 5—This stanza describes another king whose depth is as great as that of the ocean and who is difficult to look at in battle like the sun. No one गंगामुजंगः means the ocean. भुजंगः also means a paramour. The ocean is called a paramour of गंगा because the husband of गंगा was इन्दुतुः.

· · ·

The first line of this stanza illustrates तद्धितगा श्रौती पूर्णा उपमा। The Comparison is पूर्णा, because all the four ingredients viz. उपमेय ( सः from तस्य ), उपमान ( गंगामुजंगः ) साधारण धर्मे ( गंगामुखगम्भीरत्वं ) and उपमाप्रतिपादक ( वत् ) are mentioned. It is श्रौती, because the उपमाप्रतिपादक वत् belongs to यथादि class, having been used in the sense of इव ( गंगामुजंगवत् = गंगामुजंगस्य इव ). And it is तद्धितगा, because वत् is a तद्धित termination affixed to गंगामुजंगः in the sense of इव, according to ‘तत्र तस्यैव’ and the formation गंगामुजंगवत् is known as a तद्धित.

· · ·

The second line exemplifies तद्धितगा अर्थी पूर्णा उपमा। The Simile is पूर्णा, because all the four constituents viz. उपमेय ( सः ), उपमान ( निदाघाम्बररत्नं ), साधारण धर्मे दुरोलोकत्वं ) and उपमाप्रतिपादक ( वत् ) are mentioned. It is अर्थी, because the उपमाप्रतिपादक वत् belongs to तुल्यादि group having been used in the sense of तुल्य ( निदाघाम्बररत्नवत् = निदाघाम्बररत्नेन तुल्यः ). And it is

· · ·

तद्वितगा, because वत् is a termination affixed to निदाघाम्बररत्न in the sense of तुल्य according to 'तेन तुल्य किया चेद्रति:' . The common property दुरालोकत्वम् represents an action. Therefore, वत् is properly applied here in the sense of तुल्य.

· · ·

Now अर्थचित्र काव्य means a poem in which अर्थगुण and अर्थालङ्कार are striking or prominent. Here we are not concerned with अर्थगुण, but with अर्थालङ्कार. We must, therefore, see whether in the examples quoted by Mammata अर्थालङ्कार is prominent.

· · ·

In this connection some one objects as follows : Strikingness or charm is the very essence af a figure (वैचित्र्य च अलङ्कार:). In stanza I ' स्वप्रेङ्गपि ', the strikingness or charm of the statement (उक्तिवैचित्र्यम्) lies in the suggested sense प्रतीमानम् = प्रतीमानार्थी = व्यङ्ग्यार्थ: that we obtain from it viz. just as a lady, who has her husband under her thumb and is yet devoted to him causes extraordinary wonder, even so the Glory of victory excites wonder by resorting to you. Thus, the suggested sense is here striking or prominent. If it is regarded as more prominent than the expressed sense, the stanza would be an illustration of ध्वनि or उत्तम काव्य. If it is regarded as less striking than the expressed sense, the stanza would be an illustration of गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य or मध्यम काव्य. In any case owing to the presence of a distinct suggested sense, which makes the statement in the stanza striking, the stanza cannot properly be regarded as an example of अर्थचित्र काव्य. It must be designated ( व्यवहार: ) either ध्वनि or गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य.

· · ·

Mammata's answer to this objection is as follows : It is true that strikingness constitutes a figure. But strikingness in this stanza is apprehended not on account of our thinking of the expressed sense that

· · ·

रसादिस्‍तु

· · ·

विरसतातामावहन्ति

· · ·

Therefore if रस is absent, there is nothing in the stanza which the so-called figure therein can heighten. The use of the various ingredients of a figure in such a stanza would be like putting an ornament on a dead body.

· · ·

Moreover a mere statement of the ingredients of a figure does not constitute a figure. It must contain वैन्त्र or चमत्का i. e. strikingness.

· · ·

In पूर्वापरविरुद्धाभिधानं पूर्वाभिधान refers to the definition of अवरकाव्य as 'शब्दचित्रे वाच्यचित्रं' and its designation अव्यञ्जकं. अपराभिधान refers to illustrations such as 'स्ववेदपि.' which are supposed to be सव्यञ्जक or possessed of a distinct suggested sense.

· · ·

This finishes the treatment of पूर्णा उपमा.

· · ·

तदत् धर्मेष्य...पुनः—From here Mammata starts the treatment of लुप्ता उपमा. This Kārikā gives us the varieties of धर्ममेलुसा. तदुत् = पूर्णावत् = षड्विधा. Mammata first says that धर्ममेलुसा is like पूर्णी i. e. of six kinds and then adds that in तदुत्, such as कल्प, धर्ममेलुसा is आर्थी only. Thus, धर्ममेलुसा is of five kinds viz. वाक्यगा श्रौती, वाक्यगा आर्थी, समासगा श्रौती, समासगा आर्थी and तद्धितगा आर्थी.

· · ·

तद्धितगा श्रौती धर्ममेलुसा is not possible because taddhita termination वत्, whether used in the sense of इव or तुल्य, necessarily requires the mention of the common property. Therefore, तद्धितगा धर्ममेलुसा, whether श्रौती or आर्थी, would at first appear impossible. But there are some taddhita terminations such as कल्प, देश्य, देशीय and बहु, which possess the sense of तुल्य, but which do not require the mention of the common property. When such terminations are used तद्धितगा आर्थी धर्ममेलुसा becomes available. But इवार्थ taddhita terminations, not requiring the mention of the common property, do not exist in grammar. Hence तद्धितगा श्रौती धर्ममेलुसा is not possible.

· · ·

कल्पादौ—This refers to two sūtras of Pānini, which lay down the addition of the taddhita terminations कल्प, देश्य, देशीय and बहु in the sense of इवदसमासि or a little less than, almost equal to. These terminations primarily convey the idea of साध्य and not of साधर्म्ये. That is why they are said to be तुल्यार्थी. Out of these कल्प, देश्य and देशीय are affixed while बहु is prefixed.

· · ·

Stanza 6—This stanza is an exhortation to his mind by the speaker to act up to the nectar-like words of some blessed person. It

· · ·

illustrates वाक्यगा श्रौती धर्मलुप्ता. Here वचः is उपमेय, अमृतम् is उपमान and यथा is उपमाप्रतिपादक. The common property between वचः and अमृतम् viz. माधुर्यम् or परिणामहितावहत्वम् (being beneficial in the end) is not mentioned. Hence, the Comparison is धर्मलुप्ता. The presence of यथा makes it श्रौती. As यथा is not compounded with अमृतम्, the उपमा is वाक्यगा.

· · ·

It may here be noted that सत्यम् is an adverb meaning truly. करणीयम् cannot be regarded as the common property, because it is not applicable to अमृतम्.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 7 ]

This stanza illustrates वाक्यगा आर्थी धर्मलुप्ता. Here प्रभुः is उपमेय, कृतान्तः (यमः) is उपमान and समः is उपमाप्रतिपादक. The common property between the king and Death viz. कृरत्वम् is not mentioned. Hence, the उपमा is धर्मलुप्ता. It is आर्थी because सम belongs to तुल्यादि class and it is वाक्यगा, because सम is not compounded with the उपमान कृतान्त.

· · ·

It may be noted that आकृष्यकरवालस्वम् cannot here be regarded as the common property, because it is not applicable to Yama, who is supposed to carry a rod (Note his name दण्डधरः) and not a sword. Similarly, संपरायपरिश्रमण cannot be regarded as the common property. For, though Death may be supposed to be stalking on the battle-field, this is not a special characteristic of Yama. Nor can this have been intended as the साधारण धर्म by the poet.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 8 ]

This stanza contains a warning against a certain man. Construe तस्य आचारः करवाल इव... [इति:] यदि वेत्सि, तत् (=तर्हि) जीवसि (=जीविष्यसि).

· · ·

This stanza illustrates the remaining three varieties of धर्मलुप्ता viz. समासगा श्रौती, समासगा आर्थी and तद्धितगा आर्थी. आचारः करवालइव is समासगा श्रौती, समासगा आर्थी धर्मलुप्ता, the common property that is dropped being वैक्ष्ण्य or घातुकत्वम्. वाग् अमृतोपमा is समासगा आर्थी धर्मलुप्ता. Here the common property माधुर्यम् is omitted. Note that the उपमाप्रतिपादक word इव is तुल्यार्थ and primarily conveys साध्य, not साध्यम्. Vide काव्यादर्श i. 59. quoted above on p. 252. Hence, the उपमा is आर्थी. विषकल्पम् मनः is तद्धितगा आर्थी धर्मलुप्ता. Here the common property that is not mentioned is नाशकत्वम्. विषकल्पम् is a तद्धित formation and कल्प has the sense of तुल्य. Hence the उपमा is तद्धितगा आर्थी.

· · ·

उपमानानुपादाने - This Kārikā tells us that when उपमान is not mentioned, लुप्तोपमा occurs in a sentence and in a compound. i. e. is वाक्यगा and समासगा.

· · ·

It may here be noted that taddhita terminations like वत्, whether possessing the sense of इत् or तुल्य, are always affixed to words denoting उपमान. Therefore, when उपमान is dropped, such terminations cannot be applied. Hence, तद्धितगा is not possible in उपमानलुप्ता. Then again,

· · ·

उपमाप्रतिपादक words like इव are also affixed to उपमानs. Consequently, they cannot occur in उपमानद्धता. Hence, उपमानद्धता cannot be श्रौती. So the two varieties of उपमानलुप्ता that are mentioned in the Kārikā are आर्थी.

· · ·

This stanza contains praise of काव्य as a supreme source of joy.

· · ·

Here सरसकाव्य is the उपमेय, because it is the matter under description. सक्तिकरण ... वितरणम् represents the common property. सदृशं is the उपमाप्रतिपादक word and it is not compounded with सरसकाव्य. उपमान is not mentioned. Therefore, this stanza is an example of वाक्यगा आर्थी उपमानलुप्ता.

· · ·

If in the above stanza we read काव्यसमं (काव्यसमम्) instead of सरसं (सदृशम्), the same stanza would be an illustration of समासगा आर्थी उपमानलुप्ता. For, सम is now compounded with काव्य.

· · ·

It seems that according to Viśvanāthā उपमानलुप्ता can also be श्रौती वाक्यगा and श्रौती समासगा. But this view of Viśvanātha is entirely wrong. उपमाप्रतिपादक words like यथा and इव cannot be used after उपमेयs. As far as the commonly accepted usage in the language goes they come after उपमानड only. That is why श्रौती is impossible in उपमानलुप्ता.

· · ·

According to अलङ्काररत्नाकर, the उपमानलुप्ता variety contains असम अलङ्कार, उभ्योत, प्रभा and रसगङ्गाधर stoutly oppose this because according to them in उपमानलुप्ता variety the non-existence of उपमान is realized by one person only while in असम the उपमान is absolutely non-existing. As a matter of fact we believe that लुप्तोपमा where उपमान is absent is not possible at all. If there is no उपमान there can be no उपमा. उपमा consists in साधर्म्य which requires the existence of उपमान. The distinction of जगत्प्रथ between आत्यन्तिक and 'तात्कालिक सदृशनिपेध' though ingenious is unconvincing.

· · ·

Secondly लुप्तोपमा occurs when one of the constituents is dropped but we are well aware of it. If we are not aware, उपमा is not possible.

· · ·

The logical corollary of this view of ours is that धर्मोपमानलुप्ता and वादिधर्मोपमान लुप्ता are also impossible in our opinion.

· · ·

वादिभि:...णमुलि—This portion of Kārikā 3 tells us that वादिलुप्ता, otherwise called वाककलुप्ता, i. e. the Elliptical Comparison in which उपमाप्रतिपादक word is dropped, occurs in (1) a compound, (2) कर्मण्यच्, (3) आधारकयच्, (4) क्यच्, (5) कमेणमुल् and कर्तृणमुल्. वादिलुप्ता is thus of six kinds.

· · ·

Page 39 ]

· · ·

It may be noted that वादिह्यता is not possible in a sentence. For when उपमाप्रतिपादक is dropped, the remaining words, when uncom- pounded, do not develop उपमा e. g. मुखचन्द्र आल्हादकम्. Similarly, तद्धितगा वादिह्यता is also impossible. For, the taddhita terminations themselves are उपमाप्रतिपादक and when they are dropped, how can तद्धितगा be possible?

· · ·

So also the distinction of श्रौती and आर्थी is not possible in वादिह्यता. For, this distinction depends on what kind of उपमाप्रतिपादक is used. And when no उपमाप्रतिपादक is used, this distinction cannot arise.

· · ·

Read 'योतकमदयैव श्रौतार्थविभागः। तस्य च लोपे क श्रौत्वसंभवः ॥' सुधासागरं; इहं च यथादितुल्यादिविरहात् श्रौत्यादिविशेषचिन्ता नास्ति ।' साहित्यदर्पण.

· · ·

It will be noticed that Mammata uses same technical terms from Panini's grammar in stating the varieties of वादिह्यता. Those terms must now be first explained.

· · ·

The nominal affixes क्यच् and क्यङ् denote the termination य. They are generally applied to nouns expressive of उपमान in the sense of behaviour to form nominal verbs. When the denominative is in परस्मैपद, it is क्यप्, when in आत्मनेपद, it is क्यङ्.

· · ·

When क्यच् is applied to a noun expressive of उपमान in the objective case i. e. if it is a grammatical object, then it is a case of कर्मण्यच् e. g. पुत्रीयति छात्रम्; Here क्यच् is applied to पुत्र-उपमान in the accusative case (पुत्रसिव आचरति ). If the same termination is applied to nouns, used as upamānas in the locative case which is expressive of an abode, then it is आधारक्यच् e. g. प्रासादर्याति कुञ्जां मृगः or अन्तःपुरीयति रणेपु राजा.

· · ·

As a practical test whether it is कर्म or आधार can be known from the case of the उपमेय.

· · ·

The termination क्यङ् is applied to nouns in the nominative case in the sense of behaving like e. g. कृष्णायते कृष्ण इव आचरति; रमयते etc.

· · ·

णमुल् i. e. the termination अम्-is applied to a verb to form gerunds when repetition of action is suggested. e. g. स्मारं स्मारं नमति शिवम्.

· · ·

If the termination is applied to a root when it is compounded with a noun used as an उपमान in the accusative case, it is कर्मणमुल् e. g. निदाघघर्माग्नुद्ररम् is a कर्मणमुल् for it is equal to निदाघघर्माम् नुदन् हृदयम्.

· · ·

If compounded with an उपमान in the nominative, it is कर्तृणमुल् पार्थसंचारं is कर्तृणमुल because णमुल् i. e. the form संचारं if applied to पाथे which is an agent (पाथे इव संचाल् ).

· · ·

वादशब्द...लोपे — Mammata here explains वादेलोपे of the Kārikā. वा is उपमायोतक or expressive of comparison. Therefore, वादेलोपे means when the उपमाप्रतिपादक word is dropped. लोपे means the preceding word.

· · ·

घन इव श्यामः घनश्यामः ।

· · ·

असितभुजगभीषणासिपत्रः

· · ·

पौरं जनं सुतोषयति (सुतमेव = आचरति)

· · ·

अनतःपुरीयति

· · ·

सपत्नसेना नारीयते

· · ·

कयच् to नारी and no उपमाप्रतिपादक is used. Therefore, the sentence is an illustration of आहारकयच् वादिल्घसा.

· · ·

'सः पाथःसंचारं ( पाथ इव संचर्य ) संचरति ' is an example of कर्तृणमुल्घगा वादिल्घसा.

· · ·

Thus, the six varieties of वादिल्घसा are illustrated.

· · ·

What is dropped in these cases is साधारणधर्म.

· · ·

According to Jagannātha कर्मकयड्, आहारकयड् and कयड् are instances not only of वादिलोep, but of धर्मलोप as well i. e. of वादिधर्मलोप.

· · ·

Jagannātha seems to agree with Mammata in holding that in णमुल् there is वादिलोप only.

· · ·

So far Mammata has dealt with एकल्घसा, which is of 13 kinds.

· · ·

एनदद्रिलोपी क्रिपुमाससगा

· · ·

एतथो: धर्मवाच्यो:

· · ·

किप्—The termination किप् is optionally affixed to all nouns expressive of उपमान and denoting an agent, in the sense of आचार in order to form denominative verbs therefrom, according to the Vārtika 'सर्वप्रातिपदिकेभ्य: किप् वा वक्तव्य:' (उपमानवाचकेभ्य: कर्तृवाचिभ्य: सर्वेभ्य: प्रातिपदिकेभ्य: आचारे अर्थे किप्-प्रत्ययो विकलपेन वक्तव्य: यथा कृष्ण इव आचरति कृष्णति । अ इव आचरति अति ।)। किप् denominatives take the Parasmaipada.

· · ·

When धर्म and वाचक are dropped, लुप्तोपमा is not possible in वाक्य or in तद्धित. The distinction of श्रौती and आर्थी is also impossible here.

· · ·

[ Sutra 14 ]

Stanza 14—This stanza describes how the condition of one's mind seems to work a change in the external world around. If the mind is happy, even the sun is cool and even nights are bright The reverse happens when the mind is in grief.

· · ·

सविता विधवति ( = विधुरिव आचरति ) in an example of किप्‌गा धर्मेवादिलुप्ता. Here only two constituents of उपमा viz. उपमेय ( सविता ) and उपमान ( विधुः ) are mentioned. साधारण धर्म ( आह्लादकरम् ) and वादि i, e. उपमाप्रतिपादक or वाचक ( इव ) are not stated. Hence, the उपमा is धर्मेवादिलुप्ता. As विधवति is a नामधातु or denominative formed from विधुः ( the moon ) by the addition of the affix किप् the उपमा is किप्‌गा.

· · ·

'विधुः सवितरति (=सविता इव आचरति)', 'यामिन्य: (रात्रय:) दिनन्ति ( = दिनानि इव आचरन्ति' and 'दिनानि यामिनयन्ति (यामिन्य: इव आचरन्ति) are also examples for किप्‌गा धर्मेवादिलुप्ता. The common properties in these three cases are तापदायकत्वम्, आनन्दोत्संजनकत्वम् and दौर्मनस्योत्पादकत्वम् respectively.

· · ·

[ Sutra 15 ]

Stanza 15—This stanza describes how a certain king is difficult to be overpowered in battle by the enemies even in their fondest desires.

· · ·

The stanza exemplifies समासगा धर्मवाचिलष्टा and the illustrative expression is राजकुञ्जर. This compound is dissolved as राजा कुञ्जर: इव an elephant-like king ('मातङ्गो गजो नाग: कुञ्जरो वारण: करी' अमर:). Here उपमेय (राजा) and उपमान (कुञ्जर:) are mentioned and साधारणधर्म (दूराधर्षत्वं परसेनाविद्रावकत्वं वा) and वादि (इव) are not stated. Therefore, उपमा in this stanza is धर्मवाचिलष्टा.

· · ·

The compound राजकुञ्जर: is उपमानोत्तरपद-कर्मधारय: and is formed according to 'उपमितं व्याघ्रादिभि: सामान्यप्रयोगे' पा. 2. 1. 56, which means that an उपमेय is compounded with an उपमान such as व्याघ्र to form a Karmadhāraya, when the common property between the उपमेय and the उपमान is not mentioned. Expressions like पुरुषसिंह:, मुखचन्द्र: and चरणकमलं are compounds of this type.

· · ·

It may be noted that neither 'परिपन्थि...दुराकम:' nor 'संपरायप्रकृत:' nor 'राजते' can here be regarded as the common property. For, the sūtra according to which the compound राजकुञ्जर: is formed definitely lays down that the common property must not be mentioned. Besides 'परिपन्थि...दुराकम:' and 'संपरायप्रकृत:' are not applicable to the उपमान कुञ्जर.

· · ·

: Another point to be noted here is this : राजकुञ्जर: is capable of two dissolutions viz. (1) राजा कुञ्जर: इव and (2) राजा एव कुञ्जर:. In both cases the compound is formed according to the same sūtra. But 'राजा कुञ्जर: इव' is known as उपमानोत्तरपद-कर्मधारय: and 'राजा एव कुञ्जर:' अवधारणापूर्वक-कर्मधारय:. Then again, in 'राजा कुञ्जर इव' the figure is उपमा and prominence, therefore, belongs to the उपमेय viz. राजा, while in 'राजा एव कुञ्जर:' the figure is रूपक or metaphor (Vide p. 51 below) and prominence, therefore belongs to the उपमान viz. कुञ्जर:.

· · ·

The question now is : In the present stanza is राजकुञ्जर: to be dissolved as राजा कुञ्जर इव or राजा एव कुञ्जर:? In such cases the rule is that the dissolution is determined by the other word in the sentence. If the other word is such as primarily goes with the उपमेय, the compound should be so dissolved as to bring out an उपमा, wherein prominence belongs to the उपमेय. If on the other hand the other word is primarily applicable to the उपमान, the compound should be dissolved in such a manner as to manifest a रूपक, wherein the उपमान is prominent.

· · ·

In the present stanza the expressions 'परिपन्थि...दुराकम:' and 'संपरायप्रकृत:' are primarily applicable to राजा. Therefore, the compound राजकुञ्जर: must be dissolved as 'राजा कुञ्जर इव' so that prominence is given to राजा, the उपमेय, and the figure is उपमा. It is true that राजते

· · ·

काव्यप्रकारः

· · ·

can primarily go with both राजा and कुञ्जर:. But we cannot regard it as the determining word, because of the presence of the two expressions, which definitely go with the उपमेय राजा.

· · ·

The above rule can be easily remembered by the familiar

example of मुखचन्द्र:. In 'मुखचन्द्रः हसति' मुखचन्द्रः must be dissolved as मुखं चन्द्र इव, because हसति or हासः primarily goes with the उपमेय मुखम्. 'मुखचन्द्रः हसति' is thus an example of उपमा. In 'मुखचन्द्रः उदेति' मुखचन्द्रः must be dissolved as मुखमेव चन्द्रः, because उदेति or उदयन is primarily applicable to the उपमान चन्द्र:. The figure here, therefore, is रूपक.

· · ·

धर्मोपमानयोः.....दृश्यते—This Karika tells us that when the commn property and the उपमान are dropped, हृपमा is seen in a compound ( वृत्तौ = समासे) and in a sentence. Thus धर्मोपमानलुप्सा is tow-fold viz. (1) वृत्तिगा or समासगा and (2) वाक्यगा.

· · ·

वृत्ति is a general term meaning a complex formation but here वृत्ति is used in the limited sense of one of the five proper वृत्तिस viz. समासवृत्ति. because when धर्मी and उपमान are dropped, उपमा is possible only in समासवृत्ति. तद्धितवृत्ति cannot have scope in धर्मोपमानलुप्सा; because तद्धित affixes are applied to words expressive of उपमान and when उपमान is dropped, there is nothing after which they can be applied. Similarly, it is not possible for धर्मोपमानलुप्सा to be श्रोती, because उपमाप्रतिपादक words of the यथादि class, which make an उपमा श्रोती, cannot be used here, as they are affixed to उपमान and उपमान is here dropped.

· · ·

Stanza 16—This stanza tells the bee not to hover round the केतकि leaving मालती blossom.

· · ·

This stanza is an example of वृत्तिगा or समासगा धर्मोपमानलुप्सा. Here मालतीकुसुम is उपमेय and सृङ्ग is उपमाप्रतिपादक. These two are compounded. उपमान and साधारण धर्म viz. कोमलत्व are not mentioned. Hence, this becomes an illustration of समासगा धर्मोपमानलुप्सा.

· · ·

In the same:stanza if we read 'मालतीकुसुमेन समं ( मालतीकुसुमेनसम्मम् ) instead of मालतीकुसमसरीच्छ ( मालतीकुसुमसदृक्ष्म् ), it will be an example of वाक्यगा धर्मोपमानलुप्सा.

· · ·

Both these varieties are आर्थी, because the उपमाप्रतिपादक सम belongs to तुल्यविर्ग class.

· · ·

It should be noted that उपमा is developed here only if we believe that there does exist somewhere some flower which is superior to मालती. Our own view in this case, as stated earlier, is that as there is no

· · ·

उपमान, the उपमा अलङ्कार is not developed here. Incidentally the stanza is a good example of अप्रस्तुत प्रशंसा.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 17 ]

This stanza describes the bravery of a king in the battle.

· · ·

२६८

· · ·

[Page 42

· · ·

Another point to note is that वाच्युपमेयलुता is not possible in क्रिय्. 'सह्हायुधायते' would be a क्रिय् formation. क्रिय् is enjoined in the case of an उपमान, which is an agent. In 'स सहायुधायते = सहायुध इव आचरति' स: represents the उपमेय, because the उपमान सहायुध is in the nominative case and सः also is in the same case. Even if 'ससहायुधायते' be regarded as one word, the expressions 'अराति... विलोचन:' and 'कृपाणो... दण्ड:' would still give us the उपमेय. If we take 'सहायुधायते' alone as our expression, it would be incomplete in sense and cannot develop उपमा.

· · ·

So far Mammata has dealt with three varieties of दृश्यता viz. धर्मवाच्-छुता, धर्मोपमानलुता and वाच्युपमेयलुता. Other possible दृश्यताs are उपमानवाच्छुता (e. g. इव आल्हादकम्), उपमेयधर्म-छुता (e. g. चन्द्र इव). But these cannot develop उपमा at all. Therefore, they are not regarded as varieties among दृश्यता.

· · ·

Page 42

· · ·

त्रिलोके च समासगा—With this Mammata commences the treatment of त्रिलोके viz. that छुप्तोपमा in which वाचि, धर्मे and उपमान are dropped. This वादिधर्मोपमानलुता has only one variety viz. समासगा.

· · ·

In त्रिलोक वादिधर्मोपमानलुता alone is possible. Other possible varieties viz. उपमेयोपमानधर्मलुता (e. g. इव) and उपमेयधर्मवाचलुता (e. g. चन्द्रः) cannot develop Comparison. Then again, there is no question here as to whether the उपमा is श्रौती or आर्थी. For, the उपमाप्रतिपादक is dropped.

· · ·

Stanza 18—This stanza describes a lovely damsel, who attracts the mind of a sage.

· · ·

Here त्रिलुता or वादिधर्मोपमानलुता उपमा exists in मृगनयना, which is dissolved as मृगनयने इव ( चञ्चले ) नयने यस्या: सा. Thus, in the compound मृगनयना नयने from मृगनयने, which is the उपमान, इव which is the उपमाप्रतिपादक and चञ्चले, which represents the साधारणधर्म, are dropped. Only the उपमेय नयने ( meaning the eyes of the girl ) remains. Therefore, मृगनयना is an example of वादिधर्मोपमानलुता,

· · ·

The compound मृगनयना with its dissolution ' मृगनयने इव ( चञ्चले ) नयने यस्या: सा ' is formed according to the वात्तिक ' सप्तम्युपमानपूवंपदस्य उत्तरपदलोपश्च ' on ' अनेकमन्यपदार्थे ' पा. 2. 2. 24.

· · ·

The vartika means : A compound word, which possesses for its first member a word in the locative ( सप्तमी सप्तम्यन्तं पूवंपदं यस्य ईहृशो पदम् ), or a word expressive of उपमान ( उपमानम् उपमानवाचकं पूवंपदं यस्य ईहृशं पदम् ), forms a बहुत्रीहि compound with another word and then the latter member of the first compound word, which is सप्तमीपूवंपद or उपमानपूवंपद, is dropped. For example, उरसिस्थानि लोमानि यस्य सः उरसिलोमा

· · ·

२७० काव्यप्रकाश:

· · ·

If you regard मृग as उपमान, you must consider it as such all through. Then, मृगतयना would not be an example of वादिधर्मोपमानलुब्धता.

· · ·

This confirms our view stated before that no हृतोपमा is possible, when उपमान is dropped. We, therefore, hold that मृगतयना is an example of वादिधर्मैकलुब्धता only.

· · ·

कूराचारस्य—It was pointed out above that no other variety except वादिधर्मोपमानलुब्धता is possible in त्रिलोप. But प्रतिहारेंदुराज, author of the लघुवृत्ति on the काव्यालंकारसंग्रह thinks that तद्धितगा उपमेयधर्मवाचिलुब्धता is also possible. Mammata is here controverting this view of प्रतिहारेंद्रुराज.

· · ·

Pratihārendurāja's example of तद्धितगा उपमेयधर्मवाचिलुब्धता is आयःशूलिकः and means one who deals with an iron rod i. e. one who is cruel in his conduct. It is pointed out that these तद्धित affixes are available only when the words आयःशूल and दण्डाजिन are used in their metaphorical senses.

· · ·

Thus, in the case of the तद्धित formation आयःशूलिक the उपमेय is क्रूराचारः ( cruel conduct ), the साधारण धर्म is तैक्ष्ण्यम् ( sharpness ) and the उपमानप्रतिपादक is इव. Out of these उपमेय, साधारण धर्म and उपमानप्रतिपादक are dropped. Therefore, आयःशूलिकः is an example of तद्धितगा उपमेयधर्मवाचिलुब्धता. This is the opinion of Pratihārendurāja.

· · ·

Mammata's view in this matter is that cruel conduct ( क्रूर आचार : ) is here ascertained to be identical with an iron lance or rod ( आयःशूल ). Thus, there is अध्यवसाय: the swallowing of the उपमेय ( क्रूराचारः ) by the उपमान ( आयःशूलम् ) in the expression आयःशूलिकः. Consequently, the figure here is अतिशयोक्ति and not उपमेयधर्मवाचिलुब्धता. It is अतिशयोक्ति that is founded on अध्यवसाय, not उपमा. See below Kārikā 14ab p. 68.

· · ·

It will be noticed that all these 25 varieties are based on grammatical considerations such as sentence, a compound and various affixes. Appaya Dīkṣita rightly remarks that such divisions do not deserve to be treated in the science of poetics. Here they serve no other purpose except that of showing the author's proficiency in the science of grammar. He further points out that Mammata's divisions of Elliptical Comparison are by no means exhaustive. Read चित्रमीमांसा P. 27.

· · ·

It may here be pointed out that उद्भट ( 800 A. D. ) is the earliest writer who divides उपमा on such grammatical basis. Vide his काव्यालंकारसंग्रह p. 16 ( निर्णयसागर ).

· · ·

मालोपमा or Garland-Comparison and रशनोपमा or Girdle-Comparison

· · ·

Having finished with the divisions of उपमा Mammata proceeds to give us illustrations and definitions of मालोपमा and रशनोपमा in the Vṛtti and remarks in the end ( p. 48 ) that these two varieties of उपमा have not been separately defined by him in the Karikas ( न लक्ष्यत:=अनयो: मालोपमारशनोपमयो: ) for two reasons viz. (1) A figure must have a distinct strikingness of its own. If such strikingness as is found in मालोपमा and रशनोपमा be regarded as sufficient to constitute a separate figure, a thousand of such strikingnesses is possible ( एवंविधवैचित्र्यसहस्रसंभवात् ) and it will obviously be impossible to define and illustrate them all. (2) मालोपमा and रशनोपमा do not really go beyond or exceed the divisions already given ( उत्तमेदानतिक्रमात् ). They can be included under one or the other of these divisions. Hence there is no necessity to regard them as distinct figures and define them as such.

· · ·

This repudiation of the claims of मालोपमा and रशनोपमा as independent divisions of उपमा is apparently intended as a hit against Rudrata, who admits both these as regular varieties of उपमा. See his काव्यालङ्कार viii. 25 and 27.

· · ·

एकस्थैव बहूपमानोपादाने मालोपमा (p. 47)—This contains Mammata's definition of मालोपमा or Garland-Comparison, which consists in mentioning ( उपादानम् ) many standards of comparison for one and the same object of comparison. मालोपमा is of two kinds viz. (1) when the common property between the उपमेय and the many उपमानs is अभिन्न or not different i. e. is identical or the same and (2) when the common property is different.

· · ·

Stanza 19—This stanza describes a woman who is withered with dejection. It is an example of अभिन्ने साधारणे धर्मे मालोपमा. Here सा is उपमेय, राज्यश्री:, मनस्विता and पद्मिनी are the many उपमानs, इव is उपमाप्रतिपादक in each sentence and म्लानि:, understood from म्लानौ, is the one common property possessed by the उपमेय and the many उपमानs. As there are many उपमानs for one उपमेय and as there is only one common property, the stanza is an example of अभिन्ने साधारणे धर्मे मालोपमा.

· · ·

Out of the three sentences that constitute this stanza the first two are examples of वाक्यगत श्रौती पूर्णोपमा and the last one of समासगत ( पद्मिनी इव ) श्रौती पूर्णोपमा. Thus, मालोपमा does not go beyond the divisions of उपमा already mentioned.

· · ·

[ Sutra २० ]

मित्रे साधारणे धर्मे मालोपमा।

· · ·

ज्योतिरमे उपमेयस्य उपमानत्वे रशनोपमा

· · ·

[ Sutra २२ ]

मिन्ने साधारणे धर्मे रशनोपमा

· · ·

Page 44 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash २७३

· · ·

In this stanza also all the three clauses are examples of समासगा श्रौती पूर्णा. Hence, रशनोपमा does not involve उत्तमेदाधिकम्.

· · ·

रशनोपमा is so called, because here the उपमाs are connected with one another on account of the उपमेय of the preceding उपमा becoming the उपमान of the succeeding, as the links in a chain, which go to make a girdle, are inter-connected. Note उपमेयस्य उपमानभावाप्तौ शृङ्खलान्यायेन वत॔मान रशनोपमा । संप्रदायप्रकाशिनी

· · ·

(2) अनन्वय: or Non-Connection or Self-Comparison.

· · ·

When one and the same thing is described as being both an उपमान and an उपमेय in one sentence, that gives rise to the figure अनन्वय.

· · ·

उपमानान्तरसंबन्धभाव: अनन्वय:-This Vṛtti explains the significance of the name अनन्वय:. अनन्वय: means absence of connection of the उपमेय with any other उपमान. As the उपमेय itself is described as the उपमान in this figure, it is not connected with any other उपमान.

· · ·

The words एकस्य, एव and एकत्रैवगे in the definition are significant. एकस्य excludes उपमा, where उपमानत्व and उपमेयत्व belong to two different objects. एव excludes the possibility of using synonyms to designate the उपमान and the उपमेय. Thus, 'अस्याः वदनसिव अस्या: वक्त्रं ' is not an example of अनन्वय. अनन्वय requires both अर्थैकत्व and शब्दैकत्व and this is shown by the word एव. For, it is held that when two different words, though synonyms, are used, they create an impression of two different objects. एकत्रैवगे excludes रशनोपमा and उपमेयोपमा from the province of अनन्वय. For, though in रशनोपमा and उपमेयोपमा one and the same object becomes उपमेय and उपमान this does not happen in one sentence, but in two.

· · ·

Stanza 23 — This stanza contains description of a lady with matchless beauty.

· · ·

This stanza contains two examples of अनन्वय, one in each of the two halves. In the first half one and the same entity viz. नितम्बिनी is both the उपमेय and the उपमान and in the second half तटद्रलास: are described as being both the उपमेय and the उपमान. Thus अनन्वय is developed.

· · ·

The ultimate idea in अनन्वय is द्वितीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद:. For, when 'one says that a certain object is like itself, one means there is no other object similar to it. Thus, if in a stanza one and the same thing is described as उपमान and उपमेय, but there is no desire to suggest that there is no second similar thing, the stanza would not be an example of अनन्वय e. g. 'लोहितपितै: कुषुमैरावतमाभाति भूतः शिवरम्। दावज्वलनज्वाल: कदाचिदाकीर्णमिव समये ।। Here the peak of the mountain as it looks at present is compared with itself as it looked at some other time.

· · ·

का. १९

· · ·

२७४

· · ·

It should be noted that unlike विश्वनाथ, मम्मट thinks that for अनन्वय अलंकार, शब्दैकत्व is necessary. According to विश्वनाथ शब्दैकत्व is only accidental therein.

· · ·

Another point to note in connection with this figure is this : The terms उपमान and उपमेय presuppose the idea of साधर्म्य or सारस्य. साधस्य is based on भेद. For, unless two things are different, they cannot be said to be similar. Therefore, in order to make सारस्य possible one and the same thing is intentionally imagined to be different in अनन्वय. Thus, अनन्वय is characterized by एकस्य एव वस्तुनः आहार्यः ( artificial, intentional, volitional, imaginary ) भेदः.

· · ·

(3) उपमेयोपमा or Reciprocal Comparison.

· · ·

विपर्य्यास: उपमेयोपमा तयो:- This is Mammata's definition of उपमेयोपमा. It means, as the Vritti on the next page explains, that when there is an inversion or interchange (विपर्य्यास = परिवर्तनः ) of the उपमान and the उपमेय ( तयो: = उपमानोपमेयोः ) in of course two sentences, there is उपमेयोपमा. Thus, उपमेयोपमा requires that the उपमान and the उपमेय of the first sentence should respectively become the उपमेय and the उपमान in the second.

· · ·

उपमेयोपमा is so called because here there is a comparison with an उपमेय. Mutual comparison is an external form of this अलंकार. Its purpose is to exclude a third similar thing ( तृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद ). Hence this mutual comparison must be based on one common property and not on different ones. Therefore सविता विदग्धति विचित्रुपि सवितरति । is not an instance of उपमेयोपमा. As indicated by the word तयो: in the definition, उपमेयोपमा is different from रशनोपमा because in the latter, there is no mutual comparison and hence no तृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद.

· · ·

There is also no तृतीयसदृशव्यवच्छेद in रशनोपमा. Read ' तयो:' इत्यनेन 'भणितिरिव मति:' इत्यादिरशनोपमाव्यावृत्ति:। तत्र उपमेयाया मतेरेव उपमानताहृविपर्य्यंसेपि भणितेरुपमानभूताया उपमेयत्वरूपतदभावात् ।' प्रभा p. 379

· · ·

वाक्यद्वये- It is pointed out that the two sentences, which are necessary for उपमेयोपमा, may either be expressed or implied. This will be clear from 'तत्र वाक्यद्वयं शाब्दमात्रे वा । तेन 'रामरावणतुल्य:' इत्यादि-नव्यास्मि: । तत्रापि 'रामो रावणतुल्य:' इति वाक्यार्थमेव प्रतीतः ।' उद्योत

· · ·

Stanza 24— This stanza describes a certain king and contains three examples of उपमेयोपमा. The common properties in these three examples are respectively महत्त्व, दुरासदत्व and विशालत्व. It should be noted that the two sentences which constitute each of these three

· · ·

Page 45

· · ·

उपमेयोपमाs possess the same common property. Thus, 'मोते: कमलेब

· · ·

महती कमला च मतिरिव महती' is the sense of the first उपमेयोपमा, whose

· · ·

import is to suggest that as far as the quality of greatness is concerned,

· · ·

there is nothing which can be compared with the king's मति and कमला.

· · ·

The two other उपमेयोपमाs are to be similarly explained.

· · ·

जगन्नाथ divides this अलंकार into two varieties depending on whether

· · ·

the साधर्म्य is expressly stated or suggested i. e. उत्तधर्मा and व्यक्तधर्मो.

· · ·

The three figures that have been dealt with so far are regarded

· · ·

as वाच्यसाधर्म्य or those in which साधर्म्य is expressed by some word such

· · ·

as इव or तुल्य ( वाच्यम् =शब्दबोध्यम् ). Now Mammata starts on the

· · ·

treatment of अर्थसाधर्म्य figures i. e. those in which साधर्म्य is suggested.

· · ·

Of these उत्प्रेक्षा is taken first for treatment, because it is regarded as

· · ·

the most striking.

· · ·

प्रकृतस्य ( उपमेयस्य ) स्समेन ( उपमानेन ) संभावनं ( प्रायस्तादात्म्यज्ञापनम् ) उत्प्रेक्षा—

· · ·

Poetical Fancy is the representation of an उपमेय as probably identical

· · ·

with :a similar object i.e. with an उपमान e.g. अस्ति मुखं नूनं चन्द्र: . Here

· · ·

the speaker represents the face ( प्रकृतम् =उपमेयम् ) as being probably

· · ·

identical with the moon ( समम् = उपमानम् ). Hence, the sentence is an

· · ·

example of उत्प्रेक्षा.

· · ·

The name उत्प्रेक्षा is significant. It means the prominent ( उत्. )

· · ·

apprehension ( ईक्षा ) of the superior object ( प्र ) i.e. उपमान as being

· · ·

identical with the उपमेय.

· · ·

All our judgments fall in four broad divisions : (1) We are sure

· · ·

of a certain thing. Thus, in 'मुखं चन्द्र: इव' ( उपमा ) we are sure that

· · ·

the face is like the moon. So also in 'मुखं चन्द्र:' ( रूपकम् ) and 'चन्द्र:'

· · ·

( अतिशयोक्ति: ) we are equally sure that the face and the moon are identi-

· · ·

cal and that the face is nothing but the moon. (2) We are in

· · ·

doubt as to whether a certain entity is this or that e. g. इदं मुखं चन्द्रो वा.

· · ·

Here both the alternatives viz. मुखम् and चन्द्र: are equally prominent.

· · ·

This is known as संशय:, which is defined as 'एकस्मिन् धर्मिणि विरुद्धानार्थौर्मदी:

· · ·

संशय:' तर्कभाषा, 'एकस्मिन् धर्मिणि विरुद्धानानार्थसंशयितावगाहि ज्ञानं संशय:'

· · ·

'एकस्मिन् धर्मिणि विरुद्धानानाकोटिकं ज्ञानम्'. कोटि: side, alternative or extreme.

· · ·

संशय is at the basis of the figure ससंदेह. (3) We are in doubt, but one

· · ·

of the two alternatives appears more prominent than the other i. e. we

· · ·

lean more towards one alternative than towards the other e. g. नूनमनेन

· · ·

मुखेन चन्द्रेण भवितव्यम्. This is technically known as ऊह: or conjecture which

· · ·

is thus defined: 'उक्तैककोटिक: संशय: ऊह:' सम्पदार्थी. It will be seen that

· · ·

ऊह is the same as उत्प्रेक्षा and संभावन. Thus, the technical ऊह is at the

· · ·

२७६ काव्यप्रकाश: [Page 45

· · ·

basis of the figure उत्प्रेक्षा. (4) We falsely apprehend one thing as being another i. e. we honestly mistake one thing for another e. g. ' रज्चा सर्प:' or 'शुक्तिकां रजतम्' or 'चन्द्र:'; said when we honestly mistake the face for the moon. This is known as विपर्यय:, which is defined as ' मिथ्याज्ञाने विपर्यय:' तर्कसंग्रह. विपर्यय is at the basis of the figure भ्रान्तिमान.

· · ·

From the point of view of the apprehension of similarity between the उपमेय and the उपमान the following figures represent an ascending order : (1) संदेह:, which is based on संशय: e. g. इदं मुखं चन्द्रो वा. Though the doubt in संदेह arises from similarity between the face and the moon that similarity is not expressly stated. (2) उपमा e. g. मुखं चन्द्र इव. Here the उपमेय and the उपमान are definitely realized as similar and the similarity is actually expressed by means of the word इव. (3) उत्प्रेक्षा e. g. नूनमनेन मुखेन चन्द्रेण भवितव्यम्. Here the similarity of the face with the moon is carried to a higher pitch with the result that we begin to think that the face is probably the moon. (4) रूपक e. g. मुखं चन्द्र:. Here the similarity reaches such a stage that we look upon the two as identical. रूपक is thus based on अभेद. (5) अपह्नुति: e. g. नेदं मुखं कि तु चन्द्र:. Here we have intensified identification ( अतिशायित: अभेद: ). 'The identification is strengthened by the denial of the उपमेय (प्रकृतनिषेधसहित अभेद: ). (6) अतिशयोक्ति: e, g. चन्द्र:. This is based on अध्यवसान. Here all idea of उपमेय is lost and it is realized as being nothing but the उपमान. (7) भ्रान्तिमान e. g. चन्द्र:, said under an honestly mistaken idea that the face is the moon. In all the first six figures the speaker is quite conscious of the difference between the उपमान and the उपमेय, though in 4 to 6 he represents them as अभिन्न or identical.

· · ·

The अभेद here is आहार्य or intentional. But in भ्रान्तिमान the अभेद loses its आहार्यत्व and becomes real. There is an honest mistake of one thing for another.

· · ·

Essentials of उत्प्रेक्षा

· · ·

The essentials of उत्प्रेक्षा are three ; (1) There is always a certain fact, on which a fancy is built. Thus, when there is the fact of a lovely face, we fancy it to be the moon in ' नूनमिदं मुखं चन्द्र:' Hence, उत्प्रेक्षा is developed. (2) The fancy must proceed from similarity i. e. उत्प्रेक्षा must have उपमानोपमेयभाव for its basis. This is suggested by Mammata's paraphrase of समेन by उपमानेन.

· · ·

(3) The fancy should be आहार्य or volitional. It should not proceed from genuine mistake. Thus, though in ' नूनं तव मुखं चन्द्र:' the lover is inclined to regard his beloved's face as the moon, he is quite conscious that the two are different.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 25 ]

पद्मलक्ष्मी

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 26 ]

सूचक्रकृत्

· · ·

२७८

· · ·

stanza. According to उdyोत the प्रकृत or उपमेय in the second sentence is नमःकर्तृक-अज्ञानकर्मक-अधःप्रसरण and it is fancied to be identical with नमःकर्तृक-अज्ञानकर्मक-वर्षण, which is the सम or उपमान. Now नमःकर्तृक-अज्ञान-कर्मक-अधःप्रसरण is not a fact. But we have to suppose that the poet imagines it to be such. Thus, according to the उdyोत we have here first an imagined fact, प्रकृत or उपमेय, which is poetically fancied to be सम or उपमान.

· · ·

According to the अलङ्कारसर्वस्व उत्प्रेक्षा is developed in this stanza because darkness, which cannot in the nature of things be the agent of the action of smearing, is fancied to be such an agent and because sky, which cannot be the agent of the action of showering, is fancied to be such an agent. Thus, उत्प्रेक्षा here arises, because an attribute ( धर्मः ) such as तमः or नमः ( धर्मीः ) such as लেপनकर्तृत्वम् or वर्षणकर्तृत्वम् entity ( धर्मी )

· · ·

Putting together the views of Mammata, with whom Viśvanātha agrees, and Ruyyaka we arrive at the following conclusion : उत्प्रेक्षा is of two kinds viz. ( 1 ) धर्मोत्प्रेक्षा i. e. the उत्प्रेक्षा where one entity ( मुख or व्याप्ति ) is fancied to be identical with another ( चन्द्र or लेपन ). धर्मोत्प्रेक्षा always springs from fancied identity or अभेद. ( 2 ) धर्मोत्प्रेक्षा i. e. the उत्प्रेक्षा where a धर्म or attribute ( लेपनकर्तृत्वम् or वर्षणकर्तृत्वम् ) is fancied to belong to a धर्मिन् or an entity ( तमः or नमः ). धर्मोत्प्रेक्षा does not require the basis of अभेद. Mammata and Viśvanātha admit धर्म्युत्प्रेक्षा only. Ruyyaka admits both धर्म्युत्प्रेक्षा and धर्मोत्प्रेक्षा.

· · ·

Jagannātha considers this topic in detail and expresses his opinion in favour of the view of Ruyyaka, the author of the Alamkārasarvasva. Read रसगङ्गाधर pp. 296, 298.

· · ·

उत्प्रेक्षा is a very important figure. Read ‘सर्वालङ्कारसर्वस्वे कविकृतिविवर्धिनी। उत्प्रेक्षा हरति स्वान्तमचिरोघं स्मितादिव ॥’ अलङ्कारशेखर p. 34. Its examples are sown broad-cast in Sanskrit literature. But मम्मट does not seem to attach to it the importance it deserves.

· · ·

Elaborate treatment of the divisions and sub-divisions of उत्प्रेक्षा are found in the Sāhityadarpana and the Rasagaṅgādhara. Viśvanātha gives 176 varieties of this figure. Jagannātha, though not going quite to this length, treats it in great detail all the same. However, at the end he remarks that the many varieties mentioned by him do not possess distinctive charm and deserve not to be separately illustrated. Individual charm or strikingness is found in only three varieties viz. स्वरूप, हेतु and फल.

· · ·

उत्प्रेक्षा then is of three kinds viz. स्वरूपोत्प्रेक्षा, हेतूत्प्रेक्षा and फलोत्प्रेक्षा.

· · ·

( 2 ) हेतूत्प्रेक्षा—सैपा स्थली यत्र विचिन्वता त्वां श्वे शृङ्ग मया नूपरमकुर्याम् । अदश्यत स्वचरणारविन्दविश्लेषदुःखादिव बद्धमोनुम् ॥ रघुवंश 13. 23. Here for the silence of the anklet a cause viz. grief is poetically fancied. This is गुणहेतूत्प्रेक्षा, because अन्र दुःखरूपो गुणो हेतुत्वेन उद्रेक्षितः. The stanza ‘उन्मेष यो.’ is also गुणहेतूत्प्रेक्षा, because a quality viz. joy is there fancied as the cause. सुख and दुःख are among the 24 गुणs, mentioned by the Naiyāyikas.

· · ·

(3) फलोत्प्रेक्षा—रावणस्यापि रामास्त्रो मित्र्वा हृदयमाच्छविः विवेश भुवमाव्यातमुरोभ्य इव प्रियम् ॥ रघुवंश 12. 91. Here what is fancied is the fruit or purpose of the arrow going down into the nether world viz. to convey the good news of Ravana's death to the denizens thereof. This is क्रियाफलोत्प्रेक्षा because अन्र आख्यानुमिति भूप्रवेशस्य फलं क्रियारूपमुत्प्रेक्षितम्.

· · ·

These two varieties of उत्प्रेक्षा must be clearly distinguished as there is a possibility of their being confused with each other. Their distinction is the same as the distinction between हेतु or motive and फल or fruit or purpose. A हेतु comes before a certain action or a certain state of affairs, which it causes, while a फल is subsequent to a certain action or a certain state of affairs, of which it is the fruit or purpose. The grief of separation came to the anklet first and then followed its silence. विशेषदुःख is, therefore, a हेतु. On the other hand the arrow shot by Rama entered the ground first and then it

· · ·

इव as उपमावाचक and इव as उत्पेक्षायोतक

· · ·

(1) When the उपमान is such as is well-known in the world, इव expresses similarity and the figure is उपमा. But when the उपमान is such as is specially imagined by the poet, इव suggests probability and the figure is उत्पेक्षा. Thus, 'अस्याः मुखं चन्द्र इव' or 'अस्याः मुखं चन्द्रमिव मन्ये' is an example of उपमा, because चन्द्र as an उपमान is well-known in the world. But 'अस्याः मुखमपरचन्द्र इव' or 'अस्याः मुखमपरं चन्द्रमिव मन्ये' is an illustration of उत्पेक्षा, because though चन्द्र is well-known in the world, अपर चन्द्र is found nowhere except in the imagination of the poet.

· · ·

(2) According to Appaya Diksita इव becomes संभावनपर, when the उपमान is qualified by some adjective or adjectival clause, which serves to indicate संभावना. Thus, 'मुखमपरचन्द्र इव' is उत्पेक्षा, because the उपमान चन्द्र is qualified by अपर.

· · ·

(3) Patanjali, the author of Mahabhasya, furnishes a third test. An उपमान is always a सिद्ध or accomplished entity and a क्रिया is साध्य or in the process of accomplishment. Consequently, whenever इव occurs with a verb, it is संभावनापर and the figure is उत्पेक्षा e.g. पिनष्टीव तरङ्गैः समुद्रः फेनचन्दननम् । तदादाय कैरिन्दुरुलिम्पतीव दिग्ज्ञा: ॥

· · ·

वस्तुत्पेक्षा or प्रतीममानोत्रेक्षा and वाच्योत्प्रेक्षा or उत्प्रेक्षाव्यनी

· · ·

२८२ काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

This may be represented as follows:

· · ·

Stanza 27 - In this stanza a poet describes to a king how his enemies, beholding him in battle wonder whether he is the sun or fire or the god of death. Here the वाच्य or उपमेय is वम् and the उपमान is मार्तण्ड:, कुशानु: or कृतान्तः.. In the first line a doubt as to whether the king is the sun ( मार्तण्ड: ) is first expressed. This doubt is based on the similarity between the king and the sun consisting of their धुनिरीक्ष्यत्व. Then, the difference between them is conveyed by mentioning the sun's characteristic of being accompanied ( इत: = युक्त: ) by seven horses. This is भेदोक्ति, consisting of the mention of a characteristic belonging to the उपमान viz. the sun. For, while the sun has seven horses this is not so with the king who is riding only one. This भेदोक्ति leads to the निश्चय that the king is not the sun. So निश्चय here consists of उपमानभिन्नत्वेन उपमेयस्य अवधारणम्. Though the enemies now know that the king is not the sun, they are far from recognizing him in his true character. That is why they entertain a second doubt as to whether he is fire ( कुशानु: ). The common property between the king and fire is तेजोयुक्तत्वम्. But while the king is moving in all directions on his horse, fire ( एप: = कुशानु: ) spreads in only one viz. the upward direction, 'ordinarily, or in the direction in which the wind is blowing. Thus, सर्वान् दिशु, अप्रसरणम् is a characteristic peculiar to fire. In the mention of this characteristic lies the भेदोक्ति of the second line. So at the end of the second line the enemies know definitely that the king is not fire. But even now they do not know him as king. That is why a third doubt as to whether he is the god of death ( कृतान्त: ) arises in their mind. The common property between the king and Death is चातुल्यव. The king is killing people like Death does. But Death rides a buffalo ( महिषवहन: ), while the king is riding a horse. Thus, महिषवहनत्व, which is peculiar to Death, represents the भेदोक्ति in the third line and leads to the निश्चय that the king is not Death. In this manner hostile warriors ( प्रतिभटा: ) entertain doubts ( विकल्यान् ) about the king.

· · ·

In this stanza the king is successively suspected to be the sun, fire and Death. Thus, there is सङ्ग्राय. Peculiar characteristics of these three are also mentioned in the three lines. Thus, there is भेदोक्ति. Therefore, the stanza is an example of भेदोक्ती संदेह:. This variety is called निश्शयगर्भ:, because it possesses निश्शय in the middle (निश्शय: गर्भे मध्ये यस्य). For, here the opposing warriors begin with a doubt, then attain definite knowledge that the king is not the sun, fire, or Death and at the end remain still in doubt, as they have not succeeded in recognizing the king in his true character. Thus, as there is निश्शय in the middle, this variety is called निश्शयगर्भे.

· · ·

[ Sutra 28 ]

Stanza 28—This is flattering address by a lover to his beloved. Thus, in this stanza there is निश्शय at the end. Here निश्शय means उपमेयत्वेन उपमेयस्य अवधारणम्. This निश्शय proceeds from भेदोक्ति, which consists in the mention of a characteristic peculiar to the उपमेय. For, ललितसबिलासवचनत्व belongs to the face to the exclusion of the moon and a lotus. Therefore, the stanza illustrates भेदोक्तौ निश्शयान्त: संदेह:.

· · ·

It must be pointed out that 'इन्दु: किम्' is not a proper example of निश्शयान्त संदेह. For, in the first half we have निश्शयगर्भ संदेह also. 'कलङ्क:' represents an उपमानगतविशेष. Its mention leads to 'इन्दुभिन्नत्वेन मुखस्य अवधारणम्.' Similarly, 'अम्बु कुत्र गतं', which represents सरसिजगत-विशेष, creates the निश्शय 'सरसिजभिन्नत्वेन मुखस्य अवधारणम्.' Thus, the first half begins with a doubt and ends with a doubt, because as yet there is no knowledge that the face is the face, and possesses निश्शय in the middle. Therefore, it is an example of निश्शयगर्भ संदेह.

· · ·

Udbhata because here i. e. in निश्यान्त ससंदेह the निश्रय that the उपमेय is the उपमान is not suggested (प्रतीयमान) as in निश्रयान्त ससंदेह.

· · ·

मम्मट however feels that though the निश्रय in निश्रयान्त is वाच्य, it possesses a separate charm and deserves to be separately mentioned.

· · ·

Stanza 29—This is Vikramorvasīya i 8 The stanza is uttered by King Purūravas on seeing Urvaśī.

· · ·

This stanza is quoted as an illustration of तद्‌अनुक्तो or शुद्ध ससंदेह, which is found in the first half.

· · ·

(6) रूपकम् or Metaphor

· · ·

Another point to note is that the अभेद in रूपक is आहार्ये or volitional.

· · ·

तद्‌रूपकम्—तद् here is equal to स: (अभेद:).

· · ·

are realized as different and are yet identified. No attempt is here made to conceal the difference between them. अनपह्नुतियोः serves to exclude the figure अपह्नुति from the province of रूपक. In अपह्नुति also there is identification between the उपमान and the उपमेय due to similarity but it is there accompanied by the concealment of the difference between the two e. g. नेद मुखे किन्तु चन्द्रः. Here first the difference between the face and the moon is concealed by declaring that the face is not the face and then the moon is identified with it.

· · ·

रूपक is so called, because here the उपमान endows the उपमेय with its own form by superimposing it thereon. अत्र उपमानं स्वात्मरूपोपाधारोपण उपमेयं रूपयति रूपवन्तं करोति इति अन्वर्थाभिधानं रूपकालङ्कारस्य. p. 249.

· · ·

समस्त...यदा—This Kārikā defines one variety of रूपक viz. समस्तवस्तुविषय. When all the entities, which are superimposed i. e. all the उपमानड ( आरोप्यपदतया: paraphrased in the वृत्ति by आरोप्यमाणानि ), are expressed by means of words like the objects of superimposition i. e. उपमेयड ( आरोपविषय:=उपमेयानि ) समस्तवस्तुविषय variety of रूपक arises. समस्तवस्तुविषय is in short developed when all the उपमेयड and all the उपमानड between which अभेद is established are mentioned. It is so called, because all the entities that are superimposed i. e. all उपमानड are mentioned here. समरस्तानि वस्तूनि उपमानानि शब्दप्रतिपाद्यानी इत्यर्थः विषयः प्रदर्शः यस्य.

· · ·

It must be pointed out that Mammaṭa does not proceed to deal with the divisions of रूपक in a systematic manner. समस्तवस्तुविषय is really one of two sub-divisions of साज्ञ, which is one of three primary divisions of रूपक. Instead, therefore, of giving us first the primary divisions and then, proceeding to sub-divide them, Mammaṭa at once begins with a sub-division itself.

· · ·

रूपक, according to Mammaṭa is, first of three kinds viz. (1) साज्ञ, निरज्ज and (3) परंपरित. साज्ञ means सायवय or possessed of parts. When there is one principal metaphor ( अजिऱुपकम् ), which is possessed of one or more subordinate metaphors ( अज्जरूपकम् ), that is called साज्ञ रूपक. When in a साज्ञ रूपक, all the उपमानड are mentioned by words, that is designated समस्तवस्तुविपय. But when some of the उपमानड are mentioned by words and some are implied ( अर्थे ) or determined from the force of the words ( अर्थैः=अर्थसामर्थ्यादवशेया: अनुमानेन निश्चेया: ), that is known as एकदेशविवर्ति (p. 53). एकदेशविवर्ति is so called, because the metaphor here exists specifically (वि) in one part viz. in that part where the उपमान is mentioned by word. एकदेशे एकावयवे शब्दप्रतिपाद्योपमानरूपे अवयवे

· · ·

इत्यर्थ: विशेषेण शब्दप्रतिपाद्यरूपविशेषण वचनेनाद् एकदेशविवर्ति इति अन्वर्थ नाम अस्य रूपकप्रभेदस्य.

· · ·

साज्जम् (1) समस्तवस्तुविषयम् (2) एकदेशविवर्ति (3) चुद्दम (अमालारूपं केवले (4) मालारूपम् ज्योत्स्नाभस्मचूर्ण यस्य रणान्त:पुरे वा कुरङ्गीवानि सौन्दर्यस्य तरङ्गिणी

· · ·

निरद्म श्लिष्टे वाचके (श्लिष्टशब्दनिबन्धनम्) भेदभाज् वाचके (अश्लिष्टशब्दनिबन्धनम्)

· · ·

(5) मालारूपम् विद्दुमानसहंस (6) अमालारूपम् अलौकिकमहालोक (7) मालारूपमू आलानं जयकुञ्जरस्य (8) अमालारूपम् निरविधि

· · ·

आरोपित:...अविचक्षितम्—Though in defining समस्तवस्तुविषय Mammata uses the word आरोपिता: in the plural, Mammata tells us that the plural is not intended to be stated (विचक्षित) i. e. is not significantly used. This means that समस्तवस्तुविषय is possible with even two metaphors.

· · ·

Stanza 30—This stanza tells us that night wanders from continent to continent. The night is described by means of an elaborate metaphor, which is made of one principal and three subordinate. रात्रिकापालिक्री (रात्रिरेव कापालिक्री) is the principal metaphor. कापालिक्री means a female ascetic belonging to a sect, whose distinctive badge is a garland of human skulls worn round the neck. The subordinate metaphors are ज्योत्स्नाभस्म (ज्योत्स्ना एव भस्म), तारकास्थीनि (तारका एव अस्थीनि) and चन्द्रमुद्राकपालम् (चन्द्र: एव मुद्राकपालम्). These identify certain objects connected with

· · ·

( तत्संस्काराराहक् =तस्य रूपकस्य यः संस्कर: उपमया सह संदेहसंकर: तस्य आराहक् )। Thus, अनन्तर्यानव्यसनरसिक्ल, as an आरोपितधर्मी, turns out to be a favourable reason ( साधकम् ) for understanding metaphors ( रूपकपरिपहे = रूपकाणां परिपहे विज्ञाने ) in the first three lines ( पादत्रये ).

· · ·

श्रौता..विवर्ति तत्—This defines एकदेशविवर्ति रूपक, which arises when some of the उपमानs ( आरोप्यमाणाः ) are directly mentioned and some left to be determined from the power of words ( अर्थो: अर्थसामर्थ्यादवसेयाः ).

· · ·

[ Sutra 31 ]

Stanza 31—This stanza tells us that before a certain king who carries a sword in his hand, hostile army, though eager to fight, retires. This idea is conveyed by means of a साझ रूपक. The battle-field is the harem ( रण एव रणमेव वा अनःपुरम् तस्मिन् ). The creeper-like i. e. long sword ( मण्डलाग्रः खड्गः लता इव ) is the नायिका and रिपुसैना is the प्रतिनायिका.

· · ·

When a प्रतिनाथिका sees the नायक holding the नायिका by the hand, she turns her face away from him, though she may be eager for erotic sport. Similarly, when the hostile army sees the king carrying a sword in his hand, it turns back though eager for fight. रससमूची युयुत्सया वीररसनु-भवितुं सिद्धा ( रिपुसैना ), रिरंसया रक्तारसरसमुपभोगं समुत्सुका ( प्रतिनाथिका ).

· · ·

Here अनःपुरत्व, which is superimposed on रण is श्रौत or शब्दोपात्त i. e. mentioned by word. But नायिकात्व and प्रतिनायिकात्व, which are superimposed on मण्डलाग्रता and रिपुसैना respectively, are determined ( अवसीयते निश्चीयते अनुमानेन इत्यर्थः ) from the power of the words. Thus, as the रूपक exists specifically ( विशेषण शब्दोपात्तरूपत्वेन ) in one part ( एकदेशे रणान्तःपुरे इत्यस्मिन् ), it is called एकदेशविवर्ति.

· · ·

In this stanza रणान्तःपुरे represents the principal metaphor, because it is the most prominent and is easily understood. The other two metaphors are subordinate. The common property in रणान्तःपुरे is सुखसंचारासपदत्वम्. The common property between मण्डलाग्रलता and नायिका is either धीमत् or करग्रहीतत्व and that between रिपुसैना and प्रतिनायिका is पराङ्मुखीभावनम्.

· · ·

By the way it may be noted that मण्डलाग्रः ( मण्डलाग्रः लता इव ) is an example of समासगा वादिर्धर्मलक्ष्य उपमा. But this figure is not here intended ( आविवक्षित ). Otherwise the stanza would have been an example of रूपकोपमयोः संमृष्टि.

· · ·

शुद्ध ( अनूपककामिश्रम् अज्ञातिभावहीनं केवलम् अद्वितीयमित्यर्थः ) तु निरूढम्— This defines निरूढ or Partless Metaphor. It is defined as pure i. e. unmixed with any subordinate metaphor. When only one thing is identified with another, that is निरूढ e. g. मुखचन्द्र उदेति. तु suggests that Mammaṭa now begins the treatment of a new division viz. निरूढ.

· · ·

It should be noted that in ‘शुद्ध निरञ्जम्’ शुद्ध is the definition and निरञ्ज the name of the second main variety of रूपक. Mammaṭa does not give any special name for this variety of निरञ्ज. It may, therefore, be called शुद्ध. Viśvanātha designates it केवल.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 32 ]

This stanza describes three indications from which it is concluded that love has newly sprung in the heart of a certain girl.

· · ·

This stanza is quoted as an example of निरञ्ज रूपक, which is contained in the expression प्रेमलतिकाम् in the fourth line. प्रेमलतिकाम् is dissolved as प्रेम एव लतिका ताम्. Here we have अभेद between the उपमान (लतिका) and the उपमेय (प्रेम). The common property is represented by सेचन. As सेचन primarily goes with लतिका, प्रेमलतिका must be dissolved as प्रेम एव लतिका, not as प्रेम लतिका इव. सेचन in the case of प्रेम signifies वर्धापन or heightening.

· · ·

माला तु पूर्ववत्—This defines माला or मालारूप निरञ्ज रूपक. The definition is पूर्ववत्, which means पूर्वोक्त-उपजाञ्जावत् i. e. मालोपमा वत् and hence paraphrased by Mammaṭa in his Vṛtti by मालोपमवत्. Just as in मालोपमा there are many उपमानs for one उपमेय, similarly in मालारूपक many उपमानs are superimposed on the उपमेय.

· · ·

It may be noted that there is nothing definite in the Kārikā to show that माला is a variety of निरञ्ज. It is, however, supposed to be so for two reasons, First, the example that Mammaṭa quotes for मालारूपक contains a series of निरञ्ज रूपकs. Secondly, his Vṛtti on परम्परित रूपक shows that he regards परम्परित to be of two kinds viz. मालारूप and अमालारूप or केवल. Analogously we suppose

that he must have intended निरञ्ज also to be of two kinds viz. शुद्ध or अमालारूप and मालारूप.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 33 ]

This stanza contains the description of a certain woman, who has been identified with various entities.

· · ·

The idea that Cupid has five arrows is common in Sanskrit literature. These arrows are supposed to be flowers. Sometimes they are regarded as metaphorical.

· · ·

In this stanza on the one उपमेय viz. प्रिया there is the superimposition of many उपमानs viz. तरङ्गिणी, हर्षोन्द्रम: etc., as in a garland there are many flowers woven in one thread. Therefore, this is मालारूपक. The various रूपकs are all independent and stand alone. Hence, this variety is not साङ्ग, but निरञ्ज.

· · ·

मालं तु पूर्ववत्

· · ·

[ Sutra ९ ]

नियतारोपणोपायः कञ्चित् वस्तुन आरोप्यम् आरोपः उपयः हेतुः निमित्तं यत् ईदृशः यः परस्य ( अन्यस्य कस्यचित् वस्तुनः ) आरोपः नतु ( = सः परस्य आरोपः ) परम्परितः स्यात्, वाच्ये ( नियतवाच्ये शब्दे ) ( श्लिष्टे ( श्लेषयुक्त सति ) भेदभाजि ( भेदयुते भिन्नस्थले अभ्लिष्टे )

· · ·

नियतारोपणोपायः

· · ·

परंपरित

· · ·

परंपरितम् and सांझम्

· · ·

Stanza 34—This stanza is an address to a king. विदुषां पण्डितानां मानसं चित्तमेव मानसंस एतदात्मकं सरः। तस्मिन् वल्लभमान हृद्।

· · ·

प्रथमाजिने प्रथमोल्पत्तौ च भीम भीमसेन.

· · ·

This stanza is an example of श्लिष्टे वाचके or श्लिष्टशब्दनिबन्धन मालारूप परंपरित रूपक.

· · ·

As there is a series of six metaphors with reference to one उपमेय viz. वरवीर or प्रभो, the परंपरित is मालारूप.

· · ·

In connection with विद्रुनमानसहंस the Udyota observes as follows :

· · ·

We are unable to accept this view of the Udyota for two reasons: ( 1 ) In अभिधामूलव्यजकनया the sense is complete even without the व्यजक्यार्थ,

· · ·

यथापि... रम्भीयते

· · ·

शब्दालङ्कारs

· · ·

श्लेष

· · ·

वाचके

· · ·

विय्यते च

· · ·

विय्यते च

· · ·

एकदेशविवर्ति हि इदम् अन्यैरभिधीयते

· · ·

संग्रामः एव अमृतसागरः आलोडनोयल्वात्, तस्य प्रमथनं प्रचण्डणमालोडनं तदेव कीडा सुखनिर्वाहोयल्वात् तस्या विधौ संपादने मन्द्रः एतान्निकः पत्तनः

· · ·

मुक्तारत्नम्. (मुक्ता रत्नमिव)

· · ·

[ Sutra 37 ]

चतुर्दशलोकैकवद्ध: भवान्. चतुर्दशलोका: एवं वध्द: तता तस्या: कन्द: मूलम्

· · ·

Between चतुर्दशालोक and वध्द:, उत्तरोत्तरमुपरिगामिल्यत्नं may be regarded as the सा. धर्म. Similarly आलम्बनत्व is the सा. धर्म between भवान् and कन्द: .

· · ·

इति च अमालारूपकमपि परंपरित द्वश्यम्

· · ·

विद्रुमानसहंसि-वरवीर, मानसमेव मानसन्

· · ·

[ Sutra 38 ]

स्यादुपमेयता । तदालंकारिकै: प्रोक्तं रूपकं रशनात्मकम् ॥

· · ·

(करः एव कमलानि तैः) कमल, which is उपमान here becomes उपमेय in कमलमुखै: and मुख which is उपमान in कमलमुखै: becomes उपमेय in मुखेन्दुभिः

· · ·

इत्यादि...न लक्षणम्

· · ·

उपमेयोऽर्थप्रतिपादिनाम् उपमानीकृतानामुपमेयीकरणं तदुक्तप्रतिपादनस्थगनात् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 7 ]

अपह्नुति:

· · ·

प्रकृतं...अपह्नुति:—The figure अपह्नुति arises when a matter in hand viz. an उपमेय is denied i. e. is represented as non-existent or false and another i. e. an उपमान is established in its place e. g. नेऽदं मुखं किन्तु चन्द्रः.

· · ·

प्रकृतं चिंचितं निषिध्य तत्स्थाने अन्यस्य स्थापनम्

· · ·

उपमेयोपमानभाव

· · ·

न प्रज्ञा मुखमेव नृणां भवति न च्छुपी इमे

· · ·

अप + ह्नु + नुते

· · ·

शाब्दी

· · ·

कपट, कैतव, छद्मन्, छल, मिष and वपुषू

· · ·

यत्र अपह्नवपूर्वक: आरोप: and यत्र आरोपपूर्वक: अपह्नव:

· · ·

निषिध्य

· · ·

३००

· · ·

have the same agent, according to 'समानकर्तृकयोः पूर्वकाले' पा. 3. 4. 21 (समानकर्तृकयोर्थे: पूर्वकाले) ।

· · ·

If the gerund निषिध्य is understood in its real grammatical sense, it would mean that in अपह्नुति the निषेध must come first and then the स्थापना i. e- we must always have निषेधपूर्वकः आरोपः.

· · ·

But 'आरोपपूर्वकः अपह्नुति: ' is also regarded as conducing to अपह्नुति. Therefore, it is said that the gerund is not significant.

· · ·

Page 54

· · ·

[ Sutra 39 ]

Stanza 39—This stanza is addressed by Śiva to Pārvati on seeing the dark spot on the full moon. The main idea in the stanza is 'नायं कलङ्कः, किन्तु इयं रजनिरमणी.'

· · ·

Here कलङ्कः which is the प्रकृत or उपमेय is denied and रजनिरमणी, who is अन्यत् or अप्रकृत or उपमान, is established in its place. So अपह्नुति is properly developed in the stanza. The common property between कलङ्कः and रजनिरमणी is of course darkness (श्यामत्वम्).

· · ·

This अपह्नुति is शाब्दी, because the निषेध is expressly by 'अयं न वैव कलङ्को विलसति.'

· · ·

Then again it belongs to the 'अपह्नुपूर्वक आरोप' variety, because here we have first the denial of the spot and then the establishment of the lady-night in its place.

· · ·

रजनिरमणी is a रूपक because रतिश्वान्ता शश्वते goes primarily with रमणी.

· · ·

The common property between रजनि and रमणी is श्लाघ्य or प्रियत्व. The night is the beloved of the moon. Note his name निशापति:

· · ·

[ Sutra 40 ]

Stanza 40—The stanza is addressed by a separated girl to a friend.

· · ·

Cupid is very antagonistic towards people in love, who grow thin in separation.

· · ·

Mango-trees were in blossoms, on which bees were perching.

· · ·

The lady says that Cupid has really put dark poison under the guise of the bees on the blossoms, which are his arrows, in order to cause severe pain to separated lovers.

· · ·

Here the idea (प्रतीति:) that we get from the stanza is 'न [ इमानी ] सङ्क्राणि, सहकाराणि, अपि तु सकालकूटाः शराः.'

· · ·

Thus सङ्क्राणि सहकाराणि are denied and सकालकूटाः शराः are established in their place.

· · ·

These two are related to each other by उपमेयोपमानभाव.

· · ·

Hence we have proper अपह्नुति in the stanza.

· · ·

As the denial of सङ्क्रसहकारः is conveyed by the word छलः the अपह्नुति is आर्थी.

· · ·

As the निषेध of सङ्क्र सहकारः comes first and the स्थापना of सकालकूट विशेषः afterwards, the अपह्नुति once more belongs to the 'अपह्नुपूर्वकारोप' variety.

· · ·

[ Sutra 41 ]

Stanza 41—The stanza is supposed to have been addressed to a voluptuary by the maid of a courtezan, wherein she describes the

· · ·

Here the idea (प्रतिपत्ति:) is ‘न [इयं] रोमावलि:, [अपि तु] धूमशिखा इयम्’.

· · ·

एवमियम् (अपह्नुति: ) भिन्नवतरे: ( भिन्ना-ही = प्रकार: भिन्नान्तरे: = प्रकारान्तरे: ) apि उद्य ( अन्वेता तर्क्या )

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 8 ) श्लेष: or Paronomasia or Pun ]

श्लेष:...भवेत्

· · ·

श्लेष, as we saw before, is of two kinds viz. शब्दश्लेष and अर्थश्लेष.

· · ·

viz. समलं, अभङ्ग and उभयात्मक (पुनर्‍भ्रिधा सम‍ल्लोऽर्थाभङ्गस्तदुभयात्मकः । सा. द. x. 12).

· · ·

अर्थश्लेषः and शब्दश्लेषः

· · ·

यत्र अनेकः अर्थः स श्लेषः

· · ·

words, which are पर्यायपरिवृत्तिसह, while in अर्थश्लेष the so-called double-meaning words are पर्यायपरिवृत्तिसह. It will thus be seen that the assertion that in अर्थश्लेष words are एकार्थप्रतिपादक or स्वभावादेकार्थ is rather flimsy.

· · ·

श्लेष: is derived from श्लिष् श्लिष्यति to embrace, to unite. In शब्दश्लेष two different words of the same form are united in one, while in अर्थश्लेष two different senses are united in one word. That is why these figures are called श्लेष.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 42 ]

—This stanza contains a description of the sun and a king. Thus उदय: = (1) rise; (2) prosperity. दिश्मालिन्यम् = (1) darkness of the quarters (2) misery of the people residing in all directions. निद्रामुद्र = (1) the seal of sleep. The sun puts an end to sleep. (2:) the seal of sleepishness or lethargy. The king inspires people to become energetic. क्रिया: = (1) religious rites ; (2) good actions. स्वैराचार:- (1) wanton conduct such as adultery; (2) wilful conduct. विभाकर:— Both the sun and the king are so called, because they are a mine (आकर:) of lustre. Commentators take विभाकर as the proper name of the king. विभाकर is also a synonym of the sun. That is how it conveys two senses. But with this interpretation विभाकर would be पर्यायपरिवृत्तिसह and hence an example of शब्दश्लेष only.

· · ·

Thus, as the words in this stanza are ordinarily एकार्थप्रतिपादक only and yet convey more than one .i.e. two senses, one going with the sun and the other with the king, the stanza is an example of अर्थश्लेष. As the words are एकार्थप्रतिपादक, they are पर्यायपरिवृत्तिसह. Thus, if we substitute उदयम् by उत्ततिम्, मालिन्यम् by कार्ण्यम्, क्रिया: by कर्माणि etc., the अर्थश्लेष would sill be there. Hence, it is distinguished from शब्दश्लेष by the एकार्थप्रतिपादकत्व or पर्यायपरिवृत्तिसहत्व of words.

· · ·

अत्र अभिधार्थ:...वाच्यौ: — This sentence is intended to point out the distinction between श्लेष: and अभिधामूलव्यंजना (for which vide 2nd Ullasa

· · ·

Kārikā 14). Both these resemble because in both two senses are conveyed. But the distinction between them is as follows. In अभिधामूलव्यञ्जना owing to the presence of some such circumstance as संयोग the expressive power of the double-meaning words is restricted to one sense, which alone is वाच्य or expressed by those words. The second sense is conveyed by means of व्यञ्जना afterwards and thus becomes व्यङ्ग्य. In श्लेष on the other hand the expressive power of words is not restricted owing to the absence of any such circumstance as संयोग. Hence, both the senses, viz. the sun and the king in the present stanza, are conveyed by अभिधा and are, therefore, वाच्य.

· · ·

Difference of opinion exists among rhetoricians as to whether श्लेष is a शब्दालङ्कार or an अर्थालङ्कार. Our author, whom Viśvanatha follows, holds that it is both a शब्दालङ्कार and an अर्थालङ्कार. उद्भट gives श्लेष as an अर्थालङ्कार only. He divides it into two kinds, अर्थश्लेष and शब्दश्लेष, which exactly correspnd to अभिधाश्लेष and समासश्लेष. Vide his काव्यालङ्कारसार pp. 54–57. Ruyyaka also treats श्लेष among अर्थालङ्कारs and divides it into three kinds viz. शब्दश्लेष (=समासश्लेष), अर्थश्लेष (=अभिधाश्लेष) and उभयश्लेष. Vide his अलङ्कारसर्वस्व p. 96.

· · ·

Another point to note with reference to श्लेष is that it enters into combination with many other figures such as उपमा, रूपक, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, समासोक्ति and सहोक्ति as their अनुग्राहक or helper and develops newer and newer charm. Read रसगङ्गाधर p. 402

· · ·

This characteristic of श्लेष has given rise to another discussion viz. whether श्लेष, when combined with other figures, should be regarded (1) as stronger than those figures and thus able to prevent their cognition, or (2) as their equal and thus capable of entering into combination with them, or (3) as weaker than they, and thus liable to be thrown into the background by them. The first is the view of उद्भट and the second that of Mammata, Ruyyaka, Jagannatha and others. Who held the third view is not definitely known. Read रसगङ्गाधर pp, 393–396. Also vide काव्यप्रकाश उज्ज्वल ix. pp. 516–529 (वामनाचायँ); अलङ्कारसर्वस्व pp. 97 ff.

· · ·

[ Sutra (9) ]

समासोक्तिः or the Speech of Brevity परिक्कि. ... समासोक्तिः—This is the definition of समासोक्तिः. Construe श्लेषपूर्ते: (श्लेषपूर्ते: व्यर्थप्रतिपादके:) भेदके: (भेदकैर्न्त व्यवच्छेदैरिति भेदकै: विशेषणैनि तै:) परोक्तिः (परस्य अप्रकृतस्य अर्थस्य उपमानरूपस्य उक्तिः: अभिधानं प्रतिपादनम्) समासोक्तिः.

· · ·

न तु विशेष्यस्यापि सामर्थ्योदित–These words are put in the Vṛtti in order to distinguish समासोक्ति from अर्थान्तरश्लेष, where the substantive also e. g. विभाकरः in stanza 42 above, is either actually श्‍लिष्ट or अनेकार्थप्रतिपादक.

· · ·

[ Sutra 43 ]

The context of this stanza is ' समरपरितं स्वामिनववेश्य वीरपत्न्या इयमुक्तिः ' सुधासागर p. 592. The stanza tells us that the Glory of victory, who used to feel some indescribable pleasure ( उल्लासः आनन्दः ) at the touch of the warrior 's arm, does not shine now, but has grown weak. Here जयलक्ष्मी is प्रकृत and from the use of the distinguishing words ( भेदकैः ) उल्लासः, उज्ज्वला and दुर्बला we obtain the comprehension of some beloved ( कान्ता ), who is पर or अप्रकृत, and who also used to experience supreme pleasure at the touch of her lover's arm and has grown lustre–less and weak in his absence. उल्लासः, उज्ज्वला and दुर्बला are applicable to both जयलक्ष्मी and कान्ता. This double application is brought out by the संप्रदायप्रकाशिनी thus : ' बाहुस्पर्शों दोःसनिधौ पाणिपीडनं च । उल्लास अभित्रोद्भि : हर्षेश । दुर्बला निस्‍थैयोः कृशा च ।' The word जयलक्ष्मी alone, which is the विशेष्य, has no power to express beloved ( कान्तावाचकलवम् ). Thus, as the अप्रकृत कान्ता is conveyed by the sentence, which describes the प्रकृत जयलक्ष्मी, by means of the भेदक words उल्लासः, उज्ज्वला and दुर्बला, but not by means of the substantive जयलक्ष्मी : this stanza is an example of समासोक्ति. छात्र प्रकृतजयलक्ष्मीप्रतिपादकवाक्येन ' उल्लासः ' ' उज्ज्वला ' ' दुर्बला ' इति भेदकमाहात्म्यात्, न तु ' जयलक्ष्मी ' इत्येतस्य विशेष्यस्य सामर्थ्योदित अप्रकृतकान्ताया : अभिधानम् इति समासोक्तिः ।

· · ·

अप्रकृत to the प्रकृत. Though मम्मट has not expressed this, he obviously means it. Then again, paronomastic adjectives are not absolutely necessary for समासोक्ति. In fact, the words उज्ज्वल, उज्वल and दुर्बल cannot be said to be श्रेष्ठ though they convey two different shades of meaning. Further in the expression of अप्रकृतस्य अभिधानं given in the वृत्ति as para- phrase of परोक्ति, अभिधानं does not mean अभिधेया प्रतिपादित but means व्यञ्जनया बोधित or suggested.

· · ·

समासोक्तिः

· · ·

समासोक्तिः and रूपकं Resemblance:-In both औपम्य is ultimately brought out on account of the उपमेयोपमानभाव existing between the प्रस्तुत ( e. g. जयलक्ष्मी and मुखम् ) and the अप्रस्तुत ( e. g. कान्ता and चन्द्रः ). Distinction : (1) In रूपक the उपमान overpowers the nature of the उपमेय by superimposing its own upon it. In समासोक्ति on the other hand the अप्रकृत merely attributes its behaviour to the प्रकृत and thus makes it more charming than before. (2) In रूपक, the उपमान is expressly stated, but in समासोक्ति the अप्रकृत is only suggested on account of certain circumstances such as paronomastic adjectives.

· · ·

समासोक्तिः and श्लेषः Resemblance : In both there are double-meaning words and two senses. Distinction : (1) In श्लेष both the adjectives and the noun ( विशेष्यम् ) are double-meaning ; in समासोक्ति only the adjectives are double- meaning. अधिकृत्य इदमुख्यते। अलंकारसर्वस्व p. 95; नार्थ ( श्लेषः ) समासोक्तिः । (2) In श्लेष both the senses are वाच्य. Both are equally प्रकट. But in समासोक्ति the sense, which refers to the प्रकृत or उपमेय is वाच्य, while the one which brings out the अप्रकृत or उपमान is व्यङ्ग्य.

· · ·

(10) निदर्शना or Illustration

· · ·

निदर्शना

· · ·

निदर्शना is so called, because there is in it the citing of an illustration ( दृष्टान्तकरणम् ).

· · ·

Stanza 44—This is रघुवंश 1. 2.

· · ·

Here the two sentences that comprise this stanza do not seem to have any connection between them.

· · ·

Two things must be noted in connection with these examples of वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना.

· · ·

निर्दशना is found in इदं किलाव्याजमनोहरं वपुःपुष्टपःक्षयं साधयितुं य इच्छति । ध्रुवं स नीलोत्पलपत्रघरया शमीकतां छेछुमुपैति व्यक्तिम्‌ ॥ शाकुन्तल i. 18.

· · ·

[ Sutra 45 ]

शिशुपालवध 4.20

· · ·

इयं च कचिदुपमेयवृत्तस्य उपमाने असंभवेऽपि भवति ।

· · ·

Examples of such निदर्शना are: (1) यौवनुभूतः कुरङ्काक्ष्यास्तस्य मधुरिमाधरे । समास्वादि स मधुरिकारसे रसविशारदैः ॥ सा. द. (2) वियोगे गौडनारीणां यो गण्डतल्पाण्डिमा । अलक्ष्यत स खर्जूरीमञ्जरीगर्भरेण्णु ॥

· · ·

This निदर्शना, with its two varieties, वाक्यार्थ or अनेक वाक्यग and पदार्थ or एकवाक्यग, is known as असंभावद्रस्तुसंवन्ध निदर्शना.

· · ·

स्वस्वहेतुवन्त्वय...सापरा—This gives us the definition of the second निदर्शना that Mammata treats of.

· · ·

When an action itself (क्रिययैव) conveys the connection between itself (स्व) and its cause (स्वहेतुः), this second निदर्शना is developed.

· · ·

The essentials of this निदर्शना are: (1) There is a certain action. (2) It has a certain cause. (3) The connection between this action and its cause is brought out by the action itself.

· · ·

[ Sutra 47 ]

Stanza 47—This stanza tells us how a particle of stone once found a place on the peak of a mountain and how being swept away (घुत) by a gentle breeze it fell down.

· · ·

Here the action is पतन. Its cause is उत्ततपदग्राप्ति.

· · ·

The fact that पतन and उत्ततपदग्राप्ति are related to each other by कार्यकारणभाव is brought out by the पतन itself.

· · ·

This means that the particle of stone as it falls proclaims that an insignificant thing which occupies a high position is sure to come down.

· · ·

Thus, as the पातक्रिया itself publishes the connection viz. कार्यकारणभाव between पतन and its cause viz. लाघवे सति उत्ततपदग्राप्ति, this stanza is an example of अपरा निदर्शना.

· · ·

अत्र पातक्रियया...व्याख्याते—This Vritti once more reveals Mammata's careless writing.

· · ·

After उत्ततपदग्रासिरूपस्य, which is only an adjective, we must supply the word कारणस्य.

· · ·

In that case the word पतनस्य must be replaced by पतनरूपस्य कार्यस्य.

· · ·

All this trouble would have been saved, if Mammata had used उत्ततपदग्राप्ते: instead of उत्ततपदग्राप्तिरूपस्य.

· · ·

संबन्ध: of course means कार्यकारणभावरूप:.

· · ·

The significance of the name in the case of this second निदर्शना lies in the fact that it contains an illustration for the general proposition which it embodies.

· · ·

Thus, in the above stanza the particle of stone supplies an illustration for the general proposition that an insignificant person, who occupies a high position, is sure to fall.

· · ·

तदन्यस्य नाम अप्रस्तुतस्य विशेषस्य वचः ; ( 4 ) विशेषे प्रस्तुते तदन्यस्य नाम अप्रस्तुतस्य सामान्यस्य वचः ; and ( 5 ) तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तदन्यस्य नाम अन्यस्य अप्रस्तुतस्य तुल्यस्य वचः.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 48 ]

This is अमरुशतक 10. It is quoted to illustrate the first kind of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा viz. कार्ये प्रस्तुते अप्रस्तुतस्य कारणस्य वचः.

· · ·

It should be remembered what figure a particular stanza contains very offten depends upon the context in which it is understood. Thus, Mammata tells us that the above stanza is in reply to a query as to whether the young man has given up the idea of going on a journey. Hence we know that here प्रस्थाननिवृत्तिरूपे कार्ये प्रस्तुते प्रियाभाविमरणोल्साह-रुपकारणमभिहितम्. That is why it is an example of ‘ कार्ये प्रस्तुते कारणस्य वचः ’ kind of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा.

· · ·

But अर्जुनवर्मेदेव, the commentator of the अमरुशतक, supplies the following context for this stanza : कश्चिद् देशान्तरगमनोपरकर्म विहाय यथापूर्वमव-स्थितः केनचिद्गमननिमित्तकं पृष्टः प्राह । If the stanza is understood in this context, it would obviously not be an example of ‘ कार्ये प्रस्तुते कारणस्य वचः ’ kind of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. For, according to this new context कारण itself would be the प्रस्तुत here. According to अर्जुनवर्मेदेव this stanza contains the figure उत्तर which consists in inferring question from an answer.

· · ·

As we point out in a foot-note on p. 64 all printed editions read ‘ प्रस्थानात् किमिति निवृत्तोऽसि किम् ’ for ‘ प्रस्थानात् निवृत्तोऽसि किम्, ’ which is our emendation or rather correction. The reading ‘ किमिति ’ is absurd. It suggests that the cause itself is प्रस्तुत. In that case Mammata's words ‘ कार्य प्रस्तुते ’ and his quoting this stanza as an illustration of the

· · ·

of enunciating the intended general proposition as such the particular illustration of a fool, who harboured attachment for a worthless object such as a drop of water is mentioned in this stanza. Hence, this stanza is an example of the third variety of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, which consists in ' सामान्य प्रस्तुते अप्रस्तुतस्य विशेषस्य वचः'.

· · ·

It must be remarked that it is difficult to accept for this stanza the context which Mammata gives. The stanza does not at all strike us as having been uttered when the प्रस्तुत was the topic of ' जडानामस्थाने समत्व-संभावना.' The word 'तस्य' and 'स जड़:' clearly show that that particular fool is the प्रस्तुत in this stanza. However, as it has been quoted to illustrate ' सामान्ये प्रस्तुते विशेषस्य वचः' variety of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, we cannot but accept the context given by Mammata.

· · ·

[ Sutra 51 ]

श्रीकृष्णेन नरकासुरे हते तस्मुहृद्भ ( शाल्वं ) प्रति तन्मन्त्रणः इयमुक्तिः

· · ·

Here Naraka's minister really wanted to tell Sālva that if he would kill Kṛṣṇa, who had put Naraka to death, and thus extinguish the grief of Naraka's wives, he would be worthy of praise. So the प्रस्तुत here is this particular proposition that Sālva should kill Kṛṣṇa, assuage the grief of Naraka's wives and win praise for himself. Instead of stating this particular proposition, the minister makes a general declaration that he who, by wrecking vengeance on the enemy, removes the grief of his dead friend's wives, becomes praiseworthy etc. Therefore, this stanza is an example of the fourth kind of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, which consists in विशेषे प्रस्तुते अप्रस्तुतस्य सामान्यस्य वचः. It may be noted that the device of using this particular kind of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा to suggest to Sālva the necessity of avenging Naraka's slaughter is appropriately used by the minister. For, it is not proper for a minister to suggest to a king what he should do in a direct manner.

· · ·

तुल्ये...हेतुः—This passage tells us that the 5th variety of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा which consists in 'तुल्ये प्रस्तुते अप्रस्तुतस्य अन्यस्य तुल्यस्य वचः' has three further sub-divisions viz. when the cause of the suggestion of a relevant similar from the statement of an irrelevant similar is either ( 1 ) श्लेष or ( 2 ) समासोक्ति or ( 3 ) साङ्कर्यमात्र. What is meant is this : When from an irrelevant similar, another relevant similar is implied, this implication may arise from three causes or sets of circumstances viz. ( 1 ) When both the adjectives and the substantive in the stanza are paronomastic or double-meaning. This happens in श्लेष. So श्लेष is declared to be the first reason for 'तुल्यात् तुल्यस्य आक्षेपः'. ( 2 ) When only the adjectives are double-meaning. This occurs in समासोक्ति. Thus, समासोक्ति is the

· · ·

second reason of the implication of a similar from a similar. ( 3 ) When there is mere resemblance between the two similars.

· · ·

[ Sutra Page 61 ]

Stanza 52 — This stanza is भट्टतशक 79. It is supposed to have been addressed by a minister to his king, who has been deprived of his kingdom by the enemy. The stanza contains a description of Lord Viṣṇu, who with a view to save the world went through certain incarnations that were derogatory to his greatness. The fallen king, it is suggested, should follow the path shown by Viṣṇu in order to save his people.

· · ·

In this stanza the प्रस्तुत is the king. Instead of describing him the poet describes the अप्रस्तुत Viṣṇu, who is similar ( तुल्य ) to that king. From the description of the अप्रस्तुत Viṣṇu, we understand the प्रस्तुत king on account of the paronomastic adjectives ( understood in the wider, not in the grammatical, sense ) such as पुंस्व etc. and the paronomastic substantive ( विशेष्य ) viz. पुरुषोत्तम. Therefore, this stanza is an example of श्लेषहेतुका तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिधानसगा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा.

· · ·

and वाच्य and the king प्रस्तुत and व्यङ्ग्य. In श्लेष both are प्रस्तुत and वाच्य.

· · ·

[ Sutra 53 ]

Stanza 53 — This stanza is an address to the moon.

· · ·

The moon is surely अप्रस्तुत in this stanza.

· · ·

The stanza contains श्लिष्ट adjectives, but the substantives चन्द्र and रवि are not श्लिष्ट.

· · ·

In this stanza the प्रस्तुत is कक्षित अभिमानशून्यः पुरुषः and the अप्रस्तुत is चन्द्रः.

· · ·

[ Sutra 54 ]

Stanza 54 —This stanza is ascribed to भट्टेन्द्रराज by क्षेमेन्द्र in his औचित्यविचारचर्चा, to श्रीकुक in शाङ्गधरपद्धति.

· · ·

The stanza finds fault with the ocean for collecting water from the mouths of rivers on all sides and for turning it saline, sacrificing it in the submarine fire (वडवानलने) and storing it in the cavern of the nether world.

· · ·

The ocean is clearly अप्रस्तुत here.

· · ·

as their actions are concerned. From the अप्रस्तुत ocean we here get the apprehension of the प्रस्तुत thoughtless man from simple resemblance existing between the two. Therefore, this stanza is an example of साध्यमात्रहेतुका तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिधानरूपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा। इयं च कचित् ।—Mammaṭa is here introducing a new principle of division with reference to the fifth variety of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, which consists in 'तुल्ये प्रस्तुते अत्यन्ततया अत्यन्ततुल्यस्य अध्यारोपणम्'. The new principle is प्रतीमानार्थस्य अध्यारोपः: If the वाच्यार्थ, which represents the अप्रस्तुत, is understandable without the superimposition of the व्यङ्गचार्थ, which is प्रस्तुत, on it, we have the first variety according to this new principle. If the वाच्यार्थ cannot be understood without the superimposition of the व्यङ्गचार्थ, on it, we get the second variety. And the third variety arises when the वाच्यार्थ requires such superimposition in one part and does not require it in another in order to be understandable. In fact this new three-fold division means just this viz. whether the वाच्यार्थ is independently possible or understandable, or not possible, or is possible in some part and not possible in another. Note 'वाच्यं संभाव्यसंभाव्योभयरूपतया चिप्रकारा इयम्'। साहिय्यदर्पण

· · ·

Stanza 55—The stanza contains a bold conceit. Many people are able to cross over the ocean in ships. But if by chance the ocean were to become dry, who would be able to look down into the abyss that would thus be exposed?

· · ·

In this stanza the ocean is अप्रस्तुत. The प्रस्तुत is a king who is easily served in prosperity, but grows difficult to be served in adversity. For, adversity makes him bad-tempered and servants find it hard to please him.

· · ·

Thus, between the description of the ocean and the description of the king there is resemblance only. The stanza has no paronomastic words. From the अप्रस्तुत ocean the प्रस्तुत king is suggested. Therefore, the stanza is an example of साध्यमात्रहेतुका तुल्ये ( प्रस्तुते अन्यस्य तुल्यस्य ( अधे: ) अभिधानरुपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा.

· · ·

Here the description of the ocean is understandable in itself without the superimposition of the king on the ocean. Therefore, the stanza exemplifies वाच्ये ( अप्रस्तुते प्रस्तुतस्य ) प्रतীয়मानार्थस्य अनध्यारोपणापि ( अध्यारोपेण विनापि ) अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा.

· · ·

Stanza 56 — this stanza records a dialogue between a tree and a traveller.

· · ·

वामेन—This is उपलक्षण वृत्तौ. वामेन उपलक्षित: इत्यर्थ: वामेन is paronomastic. It means ( 1 ) मार्गौ वामभागेन उपलक्षित: मार्गस्य वामभागे स्थित: इत्यर्थ: situated to the left of the road. ( 2 ) वामेन वामाचरणेन कुलस्त्रीचारण उपलक्षित:.

· · ·

In this stanza the शाखोटक is certainly not the प्रस्तुत. The प्रस्तुत is some low-caste man who is desirous of practising liberality. Though he is desirous of bestowing gifts people would not accept even the smallest gift from him, because he belongs to a low caste. On the contrary they whole-heartedly accept gifts from another, who, though belonging to a higher caste, is characterized by evil conduct. So वृट: stands for उच्चजाति: असत्पुरुष:. Thus, in this stanza from the description of the अप्रस्तुत शाखोटक and वृट we understand the प्रस्तुत दिल्सु: अधमजाति: पुरुष: and उच्चजाति: असत्पुरुष:. The suggestion of the two प्रस्तुत men is had on account of their general resemblance with the two अप्रस्तुत trees. Hence, the stanza is an example of साध्यमात्रहेतुका तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिधानरुपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. Though वामेन is विशिष्ट, it does not materially affect the साध्यमात्र हेतुकत्व of the figure.

· · ·

Now, a conversation of this kind with an inanimate tree is in the very nature of things impossible. Therefore, the वाच्यार्थ in this stanza becomes possi ble only by the superimposition of दिल्सु: अधमजाति: शाखोटक: and उच्चजाति: असत्पुरुष: on वृट:. Hence, the stanza is an example of वाच्ये प्रतियमानस्य अर्थस्य अध्यारोपेणैव अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा.

· · ·

Stanza 57—This stanza is भट्टशतक 18. It is an address to a bee expressing surprise at its obstinacy in resorting to an elephant inspite of the fact that the elephant exhibits characteristics which should really

· · ·

रसनाविपर्ययोस्‌:= ( 1 ) जिह्वापरिवृत्ति: turning of the tongue. वारणपक्षे ।

· · ·

कर्णचापल the वाच्यार्थ does not require the अध्यारोप of the प्रतीमानार्थ to become understandable. For, the flapping of the elephant's ears is a reason why the bee should keep away from it. Otherwise it would be pushed aside by the moving ears.

· · ·

[ Sutra 12 ]

अतिशयोक्ति: or Hyperbole

· · ·

and उपमान, between which of course resemblance exists. Thus, while रूपक ( मुख्य चन्द्र: ) is based on गौण सारोप लक्षणा ( वाचिक: गौ: ), अतिशयोक्ति ( चन्द्र: उदेति ) has for its foundation गौण साध्यवसान लक्षणा ( गामाहय ). But neither 'वाचिक: गौ:' is रूपक, nor 'गामाहय' an अतिशयोक्ति, because the expressions possess no strikingness. Then again, we must note that when we determine the उपमेय to be अभिन्न from the उपमान on account of its having been swallowed by the उपमान, our knowledge must be आहार्य or intentional i. e. we must well be aware of the difference between the two and must consciously determine one as identical with another. But if our knowledge is not आहार्य, the expression would fall within the province of the figure भ्रान्तिमान्.

· · ·

The words प्रकृतस्य and परेण occurring in the Kārikā have been paraphrased in the Vṛtti by उपमेयस्य and उपमानेन respectively. According to 'some', referred to by the Udyota, this unnecessarily limits the province of this kind of अतिशयोक्ति. For, the paraphrase makes it necessary that the entity swallowed an उपमेय. These people are of opinion that प्रकृत and पर being general terms, अतिशयोक्ति should be understood to be present even in those cases where we have introsusception ( अध्यवसाय: ) not based on resemblance. This means not only would गौण साध्यवसान लक्षणा give rise to अतिशयोक्ति, but also शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा ( आयु: पिब ) would do so.

· · ·

For this view read उद्योत p. 58. विश्वनाथ seems to favour this view. प्रस्तुतस्य...अतिशयोक्तिः सा:- These lines define the three other divisions of अतिशयोक्ति. They are: (2) When the matter under description, though the same, is represented or ascertained as another or different. (3) When there is a supposition or assumption of an impossible thing ( कल्पनम् अर्थादसंभविन: अर्थस्य ) as a result of expressing or bringing in the sense of यदि by the use of some such word as यदि and चेत्. (4) When there is an inversion of the order or sequence of the effect and the cause i. e. when the effect is mentioned first in order to bring out the capacity of the cause to produce its result very quickly.

· · ·

कार्यकरणयोः: पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययः: is possible in two ways : (a) When the effect comes into existence before the cause and (b) when it arises simultaneously with the cause. Mammaṭa does not recognise this second sub-division. But it is necessary that we should admit it. One wonders what figure Mammaṭa would say there is in examples of this second sub-division.

· · ·

अतिशयोक्तिः means the statement of excellence. The figure is so called, because here the excellence of the उपमेय is brought out on account of its complete identification with the उपमान.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 58 ]

This is an example निगीर्योभ्यवसानरूप or भेदेऽपि अभेदरूपा अतिशयोक्तिः. Here the उपमानs viz. कमलम्, कवलये and कनकलतिका completely swallow the उपमेय viz. मुखम्, नेत्रे and तनुः, which are consequently ascertained to be identical with the उपमानs. Or though मुखम्, नेत्रे and तनुः are different (भेदेऽपि ) from कमलम् कवलये and कनकलतिका, they are represented as not different from (अभेदः) i. e. identical with them. Hence, the stanza exemplifies the first kind of अतिशयोक्तिः consisting of निगीर्योभ्यवसानम् or भेदेऽपि अभेदः.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 59 ]

This stanza describes the extraordinary beauty of some girl. Her delicacy and glare of body are different from what we find in the world.

· · ·

रेखा line i. e. creation. The metaphor is taken from drawing. For, what an artist draws represents his creation. Hence रेखा stands for creation.

· · ·

The प्रस्तुत in this stanza is सौकुमार्येम् and वर्तनच्छाया. These are stated to be another i. e. different from what we find in the world. Hence, the stanza is an illustration of प्रस्तुतस्य अन्यलरूपा अतिशयोक्तिः.

· · ·

As a matter of fact the सौकुमार्य and वर्तनच्छाया are not different from what we meet in the world, because the lady, who is here described, is herself in the world. So though her beauty is really not भिन्न, it is represented as भिन्न. Hence, the अतिशयोक्तिः here takes the form of अभेदे भेदः.

· · ·

The purpose of representing a thing as different, though it is really not so is to suggest द्वितीयसदृशाव्यवच्छेद or its absolute uniqueness.

· · ·

We have seen before that the purpose of अनन्वय is also द्वितीयसदृशाव्यवच्छेद. But this variety of अतिशयोक्तिः differs from अनन्वय, because it suggests द्वितीयसदृशाव्यवच्छेद by representing a thing as different, while अनन्वय does so by comparing a thing with itself.

· · ·

It will be noticed that अन्यत्वम् in प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्यस्वम् means लोकप्रसिद्धात् प्रस्तुताद् अन्यत्वम् लोकविलक्षणत्वम् इत्यर्थः.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 60 ]

Here in the first half an impossible entity viz. a spotless moon is supposed by the use of the word चेत्. Hence, it is an example of यदर्थोक्तिकल्पनरूपा अतिशयोक्तिः.

· · ·

Now to look at it from another point of view : Though the spot is really connected with the moon, in

· · ·

३६२ काव्यप्रकाशः [Page 64

· · ·

the first half it is presumed that it is not so connected. Therefore, the first half is an example of संभन्धे ( अपि ) असंवन्धरुपा अतिशयोक्ति:. Then again though the spotless face is not connected with the spotted moon in comparison, it is represented to be so connected in the second half of the stanza. Therefore, the second half is an example of असंवन्धे ( अपि ) संवन्धरूपा अतिशयोक्ति:.

· · ·

Stanza 61 — This is दामोदरगुप्त’s कुट्टिनिमत् stanza No. 96. It states that as soon as a certain man, who was a favourite with ladies ( रमणीवश्लभः ), came within the range of Mālati's eyes, love sprang in her heart. This fact is conveyed by saying that her heart was first occupied by Cupid and then by this man who came within her sight. Here रमणी-वशभर्त्रुंके मालतीहृदयाविश्टानम् is the cause and मदनकृते ( कुसुमचापवाणः = मदनः ) मालतीहृदयाविश्टानम् is the effect. As the effect is declared to have arisen before the cause, the stanza is an example of कार्यकारणयोः पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययरुपा अतिशयोक्ति:, where there is कार्यस्य कारणात् पूर्वसूक्ति:. For a similar example cf. रघुवंश 4. 4.

· · ·

It should be noticed that these four or five divisions of अतिशयोक्ति, are not based on any common foundation. Though Viśvanātha gives सिद्ध अध्यवसाय as a general definition of this figure, it would be difficult to demonstrate that सिद्ध अध्यवसाय underlies all the five divisions that he mentions. It would appear that according to the original conception of अतिशयोक्ति, this figure consisted in some startling, extraordinary hyperbolic statement. The definitions and illustrations of अतिशयोक्ति given by the ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin corroborate this .conclusion. Later on rhetoricians realized that extraordinary statements which comprised अतिशयोक्ति could be classed under four or five heads. Thus came the four or five divisions of this figure. Yet modern writers, mentioned by Jagannātha (रसगङ्गाधर p. 313), think that अतिशयोक्ति has just one variety viz. that which is based on अध्यवसाय,

· · ·

Another point to note with reference to अतिशयोक्ति is that in one or the other of its forms it lies at the basis of many figures. Thus, in ‘सैपा स्थली.’ which is an example of हेतूप्रेक्षा, there is अतिशयोक्ति of the ‘भेदेऽपि अभेदः’ kind, because the silence of an inanimate object like the ankle, though distinct from the silence, which an intelligent being assumes through grief, is considered to be identical with it. Similarly in ‘सहार्दरदितेनास्त्या गावने रागभावः प्रियः’, which illustrates सदृशोक्ति, we have अतिशयोक्ति of the same kind at its foundation, because the two राग’s though distinct, are regarded as identical. Then again in ‘जम्बीररस्रियम-

· · ·

घिलर्हच लीलयैव व्यानम्रीकृतकमनोरियहेमकुम्भौ। नीलाम्बरोह्ननयनेषुना कुचौ ते स्पर्धेते खलु कनकचलेन साधेम्',

· · ·

[ Sutra 13 ]

प्रतिवस्तूपमा or Parallel

· · ·

Before we enter upon the study of the figures प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त two technical terms in the science of rhetoric must be learnt. They are वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव and बिम्बप्रतिबिम्भभाव.

· · ·

एकस्यै धर्मस्य सम्बन्धि-भेदेन द्वयोरुदाहृतं वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभावः::

· · ·

Two different words are used to express the same common property, because if the same word is repeated, it constitutes a poetical defect.

· · ·

प्रतिवस्तूपमा तु...स्थिति :-

· · ·

कथितपदत्वस्य (पुनरुक्तशब्दत्वस्य) दुष्टतया (दोषयुक्तत्वेन) अभिहितत्वात —

· · ·

That is why the same word is not to be used. कथितपदत्वम् is defined as 'प्रयोजनान्यत्वे सति समानार्थकसमनुपूर्वीकपदवस्त्वम्' वामनाचार्य p. 341.

· · ·

वस्तुनो वाक्यार्थस्य उपमानत्वात् —

· · ·

From this we have to infer that here a sentence-sense is also the उपमेय. Therefore, explain the name as प्रतिवस्तु ( प्रतिवाक्यार्थः वस्तुशब्देन वाक्यार्थोऽभिधीयते ) उपमा ( उपमा इत्यस्य उपमेयम् उपमानं च अर्थः

· · ·

उपमीयते यथ् उपमीयते अन्यथा इति व्युत्कृत्या) यत्न. Appaya Dikśita explains the name in a different manner.

· · ·

Stanza 62—This stanza is said with reference to a lady who before had been raised to the position of a queen, but who now was being reduced to the status of a servant.

· · ·

This stanza is made of two sentences. The first is the उपमेय sentence and the second the उपमान sentence. The सामान्य or साधारणधर्मे between these is अनौचित्य. It is denoted in the two sentences by means of two different expressions viz. ‘कथं भजतु’ and ‘न खलु’.

· · ·

As it is improper for a precious stone, stamped with the image of a deity, to be used for wearing purposes, even so it is inappropriate for a lady, who has once been a queen, to become a servant.

· · ·

Stanza 63—This is an example of माला प्रतिवस्तूपमा. Here the उपमेय sentence is contained in the fourth line ‘प्रकृतिरेव सतामविषादिता’, because the topic which the poet wants to describe principally is that the good never become disconsolate.

· · ·

The first three lines contain उपमेय sentences. The सामान्य is आश्र्याभाव or अद्भुताभाव, which is expressed in four different ways viz. किमद्भुतम्, कि ततः, सदैव and प्रकृतिरेव.

· · ·

एवमन्यत्रापि अनुसर्तव्यम्. सम्मट tells us here in a general manner that the garland–form of the figure is possible in the case of other figures also.

· · ·

An example of वैधर्म्येण प्रतिवस्तूपमा is विद्वानेव विजानाति गुर्वी प्रसववेदनाम्. कुवलयानन्द

· · ·

प्रतिवस्तूपमा and उपमा

· · ·

Resemblance : Both are based on similarity and in both resemblance between two things is brought out.

· · ·

Distinction : (1) In उपमा we generally have one sentence, in प्रतिवस्तूपमा we always must have two.

· · ·

sentences are independent. (3) In उपमा the resemblance is expressed either directly or indirectly by the use of words like यथा and तुल्य, in प्रतिवस्तूपमा the resemblance is only implied and word like यथा and इव never occur. (4) In उपमा the one common property is generally expressed once, in प्रतिवस्तूपमा the common property must needs be expressed by two different words. (5) In उपमा the resemblance is between two word-senses (पदार्थयोः साम्यम्); in प्रतिवस्तूपमा the resemblance lies between two sentence-senses (वाक्यार्थयो साम्यम्).

· · ·

प्रतिवस्तूपमा and निदर्शना

· ·

·

Resemblance : Both occur in two sentences and ultimately lead to similarity.

· · ·

Distinction : (1) While two sentences are a necessity in प्रतिवस्तूपमा, निदर्शना occurs even in one sentence. (2) In प्रतिवस्तूपमा the two sentences are independent and complete as far as their senses are concerned; in निदर्शना the two sentences are inter-related and are not complete or intelligible from the point of view of their sense, unless the resemblance is admitted. (3) In प्रतिवस्तूपमा there is only one common property, which is expressed in two different words. It is thus based on वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव. In निदर्शना two distinct things are apprehended as similar to each other on account of their juxta-position and the connection that is ultimately understood to exist between them is बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव.

· · ·

(14) दृष्टान्तः or Exemplification

· · ·

दृष्टान्तः….प्रतिबिम्बनम्—In this definition of दृष्टान्त we have to supply 'वाक्यद्वय' from the definition of प्रतिवस्तूपमा. which precedes. दृष्टान्त consists in the reflective correspondence of the common property and others in two sentences. Thus, the two sentences that constitute दृष्टान्त possess, not one property expressed by two different words as in प्रतिवस्तूपमा, but two different properties, between which बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव or reflective correspondence exists i. e. which reflectively correspond to each other i, e. which are similar. The word आदि in साधारणधर्मादीनाम् shows that in दृष्टान्त reflective correspondence exists not only between the properties of the two sentences, but also between the entities, which consequently stand to each other in relation of उपमेय and उपमान, and between other circumstances connected with them, if any.

· · ·

The name दृष्टान्त is significant. अन्त here means determination or ascertainment. The figure is so called, because in it the determination i. e. full comprehension of the matter in hand is seen on account of the illustration given. दृष्टः अन्तः (प्रकृतस्य वस्तुनः उदाहरणदर्शनेन निश्चयः) यत्र स दृष्टान्तः.

· · ·

३२९

· · ·

[ Page 66

· · ·

Page 66

· · ·

Stanza 64—This stanza is addressed by a friend of a नायिका to a नायक and describes how the mind of the नायिका, burning with love, becomes cool at the sight of the नायक, even as a night lotus blooms at the appearance of the moon. Here निर्वाति ( is extinguished, becomes cool ) and विकसति ( blooms ) do not represent one and the same common property expressed by two different words, but two distinct properties, which reflectively correspond to each other i. e. are similar. Then again, there is in this stanza a correspondence between various objects mentioned in the उपमेय sentence and those in the उपमान sentence so that they appear to be related to one another as original reflection. Thus, लमू, सा, मनः, मनोभवज्वलनमू and निर्वाणमू find a reflective correspondence in हिमांशोः, कुसुमद्रती, कुसुममू, (सूर्यकीरणज्चलनमू) and विकसनमू respectively. As the stanza contains एतेषां साधारणधर्मोदीनां सर्वेषां प्रतिबिम्बनमू it is an example of दृष्टान्त.

· · ·

ex Stanza 65—This stanza is an illustration of वैधर्म्येण दृष्टान्त and is addressed to a king.

· · ·

Here the last line, which is the उपमान sentence, speaks of dust remaining firm, while the उपमेय sentence describes hostile warriors running away. Thus, there is वैधर्म्य between the उपमेयवाक्य and the उपमानवाक्य. There is reflective correspondence between भटाः and पांसवः and विशरार्हतागमनमू and अस्थिरताधारणमू as also between त्वमू and वातः. Therefore, the stanza is an example of वैधर्म्येण दृष्टान्तः

· · ·

दृष्टान्तः and प्रतिबस्तूपमा

· · ·

Resemblance : In ;both there are two independent sentences, between which similarity is conveyed.

· · ·

Distinction : ( 1 ) While in प्रतिबस्तूपमा an identical common property is expressed in two sentences by two different words, in दृष्टान्त the properties of the two sentences are only similar to each other and not identical with each other inasmuch as they stand to each other in the relation of the original and the reflection. To speak technically, while प्रतिबस्तूपमा is based on वस्तुनुतिवस्तुभाव, दृष्टान्त is founded on बिम्बप्रति- बिम्बभाव. ( 2 ) In प्रतिबस्तूपमा the reader's attention is centred on the identical common property, which is expressed in two different words and in that lies the charm of the figure. But in दृष्टान्त the strikingness consists not only in the reflective resemblance of the two really distinct properties, but also in the reflective resemblance of other things. such as उपमेय and उपमान and other attendant circumstances.

· · ·

Page 65 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash

· · ·

In connection with the distinction (i) mentioned above, it should be noted that since in both the Alamkāras the property or properties are expressed by different words, difficulty is often experienced in determining the Alamkāra. Whether it contains one property expressed by different words or whether there are two distinct properties will depend upon how you look at it.

· · ·

In this connectien it is interesting to note that Jagannātha is prepared to regard दृष्टान्त and प्रतिवस्तूपमा as two divisions of one figure. Read रसगङ्गाधर pp. 337 and 339

· · ·

दृष्टान्त and निदर्शना

· · ·

Resemblance : In both there are two sentences between which similarity is conveyed and in both this similarity is based on बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव.

· · ·

Distinction : ( 1 ) While निदर्शन is in some cases possible in a single sentence, दृष्टान्त always requires two. ( 2 ) In दृष्टान्त the two sentences are independent and complete, each in itself as far as its sense is concerned. In निदर्शना the sentences, when there are two, are interdependent and the sense of the sentence or the sentences is not complete until similarity between two parts of the sentence or the two sentences is admitted. ( 3 ) In दृष्टान्त after the senses of the two sentences are completely understood, the बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव existing between them is apprehended. But in निदर्शना the बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव or सादृश्य has first to be understood in order to make the sense of the sentence or the sentences complete or intelligible.

· · ·

दृष्टान्त and उपमा

· · ·

The resemblance and the points of distinction between these two figures are the same as those between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and उपमा except point ( 4 ) of distinction for which we should say ( 4 ) in उपमा the common property is one and is generally expressed once. In दृष्टान्त the properties are really different, though similar, and must needs be expressed by two different words.

· · ·

Writers of Sanskrit Kāvyas and Nātakas freely use दृष्टान्त. The Student will be able to multiply examples from almost any author. Kālidāsa alone will furnish scores of illustrations. Vide inter alia रघुवंश 5. 13; 6. 22; शकुन्तल iii. 13; v. 7, 14.

· · ·

( 15 ) दीपक or Illuminator

· · ·

Kārika 17—This Kārikā defines two varieties of दीपक. ( 1 ) When a common property, consisting of an action or a quality, belonging to

· · ·

प्रकरणिकप्रकरणिकानाम्

· · ·

कारक

· · ·

एकस्थैय...दीपकम्

· · ·

दीपक

· · ·

क्रियादीपक

· · ·

कारकदीपक

· · ·

क्रियादीपक गुणदीपक प्रकृतक्रियारूप अप्रकृतक्रियारूप प्रकृताप्रकृतक्रियारूप

· · ·

Page 67 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash ३२९

· · ·

Page 67

· · ·

Stanza 66—This stanza enumerates certain things, which cannot be touched as long as the owners thereof are alive ( अमृत ). Here कुलबालिकानाम् (अर्थोपरिणीतानां) स्तनाः are प्रकृत and hence उपमेय and रूपणानां धनम्, नारीणां कण्ठमणिः and सिद्धानां तनुः are अप्रकृत and hence उपमान. The common property is an action represnted by स्पृश्यन्ते and is mentioned only once. It is connected with both प्रकृत and अप्रकृत. Therefore, the stanza is an example of क्रियादीपकम्.

· · ·

An example of गुणदीपक i. e. the दोपक, where a quality is connected with a प्रकृत and an अप्रकृत is 'श्यामलाः प्राप्तवैभवेऽभिर्दशो जीवोत्पत्तिकित्तिभिः । सुवक्षः शुक्रुमारोमिवचछद्ललराजिभिः ।।' काव्यदर्श ii. 100, where श्यामलाः which represents a quality, is connected with दिशः ( प्रकृत ) and सुवः (अप्रकृत ).

· · ·

Stanza 67—This is an example कारकदीपक where one कर्तृकारक i, e. a case noun in the nominative viz. बधूः is connected with many i. e. eight actions represented by the verbs in the stanza. Or we may say that the one अधिकरणकारक शयने is connected with the many actions. All the actions here are प्रकृत. Hence the stanza illustrates प्रकृतक्रियारूप कारकदीपकम्. 'अत्र अनेकरूपु क्रियासु एकस्य 'बधूः' इति कर्तृकारकस्य , 'शयने ' इति अधिकरणकारकस्य वा, सक्रदुपादानमिति कारकदीपकाङ्कारोयम्. अत्र सर्वक्रियाणां प्रकृतत्वमेव.'

· · ·

An example of अप्रकृतकियारूप कारकदीपक is 'दूरीकरोति कुमतिं विमलीकरोति चेतश्चिरन्तनमर्थं झुलक्रीकरोति । भूतेषु किंच करुणां बहुलीकरोति स नः सतां किं न मङ्गलमातनोति ।।'

· · ·

An example of प्रकृतप्रकृतकियारूप कारकदीपक is 'वसु दातुं यशो धातुं विधातु-मरिमर्दनम् । ज्ञातुं च माहशान राजन् अतीव निपुणो भवान् ।।' अत्र वसुदान-स्वतरणादृपयोः प्रकृतयोः क्रियोः अरिमर्दन-यशोधानयोरपि अप्रकृतयोः एकस्य त्रिपुरुपकारकस्य अन्वयः । वामनाचार्य

· · ·

प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनाम्—It is to be noted that the plural here is not significant. Thus, if we have one प्रकृत and one अप्रकृत connected with a common property, दीपक is developed.

· · ·

Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Vāmana and Rudraṭa divide दीपक into three kinds according as the common property with which many objects are connected occurs in the beginning, middle or end. Viśvanātha rightly remarks that divisions like these are possible in a thousand ways and that he, therefore, does not define them. Jagannātha holds the same view. Mammaṭa apparently was of the same opinion. That is why we do not find these divisions in the Kāvyaprakāśa.

· · ·

A somewhat important question connected with दीपक is whether suggested similarity ( गम्यमौपम्यम् ) is necesssary for it. Bhāmaha,

· · ·

३३९

· · ·

Two Varieties of दीपक

· · ·

[ Sutra 16 ]

मालादीपकम् or Serial Illuminator

· · ·

each succeeding. Thus, the bow distinguishes the arrows in the sense that the bow becomes a विशेषण, not grammatical of course, of the arrows in so far as it gives them additional charm by being connected with them. The arrows on their part distinguish the enemy's head by getting into contact with it and bringing it to the ground and so on. The stanza also possesses the general characteristic of दीपक viz. one property, here consisting of the action समासादन being connected with many objects, such as शराः, अरिघिरः, भूमण्डलम् etc. ( Note that समासादितम् is to be construed with all these mutatis mutandis ). Therefore, the stanza is an example of मालादीपक.

· · ·

This figure is called मालादीपक, because here many objects are linked together by means of one attribute, as many flowers are brought together by means of a string in a garland also because many objects are connected with one attribute, as many objects are illumined by one lamp.

· · ·

But we must note that the word माला in मालादीपक does not possess the same sense as it has in मालोपमा or मालारूपक. There माला means many independent objects ( viz. उपमानs) connected with one other object ( viz. उपमेय ), as many independent flowers are connected with one string. Here माला signifies many objects, not independent, but successively connected, the preceding with the succeeding, being further associated with a single attribute. माला thus possesses the connotation of रझ्झला ( chain ) or रझना ( girdle ). The proper title of the figure would, therefore, be रझ्झलादीपक or रझनादीपक.

· · ·

Jagannātha also does not like the title मालादीपक given to this figure, because it lacks both the characteristics of दीपक proper viz. सादृश्ये and प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मकत्वम्. He considers it as a variety of एकावली.

· · ·

It will thus been that Mammata's treatment of this figure after दीपक is not scientifically accurate. For, between दीपक and मालादीपक there is not much in common, except that one property is connected with many objects in both. The special charm of मालादीपक lies in this that several objects, each helping or qualifying the one that follows, are connected with one attribute. The figure is thus akin to कारणमाला and एकावली and Viśvanātha rightly treats it between these two figures. That is why we regard and number मालादीपक as an independent figuere.

· · ·

[ Sutra 17 ]

तुल्ययोगिता or Equal Paring

· · ·

तुल्ययोगिता arises when definite objects ( नियत) i. e. objects which are either all relevant or all irrelevant are connected with one

· · ·

३३२

· · ·

common property mentioned once. The one common peoperty may either be an action or a quality and the objects connected with it may either be relevant or irrelevant. Thus, तुल्ययोगिता has really the following four varieties :-

· · ·

तुल्ययोगिता

· · ·

प्रकृतानम् अप्रकृतानम्

· · ·

एकक्रियासंवन्ध: एकगुणसंवन्ध: एकक्रियासंवन्ध: एकगुणसंवन्ध: पाण्डु क्षामं वदनं (योगपटृो जटाजालं) अमृतमस्ततरस्मिन् ( त्वद्नमादृशे दृशः )

· · ·

The name तुल्ययोगिता is significant. It suggests that in this figure things are connected with a common attribute. तुल्येन साधारणेन धर्मेण योग: प्रकृतानामप्रकृतानां वा संवन्ध: स अस्ति येषां ते तुल्ययोगिन: , तेषां भाव: तुल्ययोगिता।

· · ·

[ Sutra 69 ]

— This stanza is addressed to a girl who has apparently fallen in love with some one whom it is not possible for her to obtain. क्षेत्रिय means curable in another body, not curable in this birth, but in the next, i. e. incurable.

· · ·

Here वदनम्, हृदयम् and वपु:, which are all प्रकृत, are connected with the one property viz. the action आवेद्न. Therefore, the stanza is an example of प्रकृतानामेक्रियासंवन्धरूपा तुल्ययोगिता. As these three all possess the common property क्षेत्रियरोगावेदकत्वम्, they are mutually similar and the figure is, therefore, based on गम्यौपम्य. For another explanation of how तुल्ययोगिता is developed in this stanza read उद्योत p. 68

· · ·

[ Sutra 70 ]

— This stanza is addressed to his beloved by a gallant. Here in the first line कुमुद ( a white lotus), कमल ( a red lotus) and नीलनीरज ( a blue lotus) are connected with the action of being thrown into the back-ground (तिरस्कृतत्व ), which is implied by the word का. All these are अप्रकृत in so far as they represent उपमानs with reference to the eyes ( दृश् ). Therefore, we have here अप्रकृतानमेक्रियासंवन्धरूपा तुल्ययोगिता. Further, we suppose that कुमुद and others are mutually similar on account of their possessing the characteristic of तिरस्कृतत्व. Thus, the figure has the foundation of गम्यौपम्य. Three kinds of lotuses are mentioned as उपमानs for the eyes, because the eyes are characterized by the three colours viz. white ( in the main portion ), red ( at the corners ) and blue ( in the pupils ). For another explanation of the three colours read उद्योत.

· · ·

सकृदृर्मः

· · ·

तुल्ययोगिता-दीपकम् and उपमा

· · ·

Distinction

· · ·

३३४

· · ·

तुल्ययोगिता and दीपक

· · ·

Resemblance : In both several things are connected with one common property mentioned once.

· · ·

Distinction : (1) In तुल्ययोगिता the things connected with a common property are either all प्रकृत or all अप्रकृत, while in दीपक they are some प्रकृत and some अप्रकृत. (2) On the ground of suggested similarity, which is at the basis of both तुल्ययोगिता and दीपक, another point of distinction is possible. In दीपक the प्रकृत is the उपमेय and the अप्रकृत the उपमान. But in तुल्ययोगिता as all things are either प्रकृत or अप्रकृत, there is nothing to determine which is the उपमेय and which the उपमान so that this determination is left to our option.

· · ·

[ Sutra 18 ]

व्यतिरेकः

· · ·

The figure व्यतिरेक consists in the excellence of the उपमेय (अन्यस्य) over the उपमान. स एवं सः=सा व्यतिरेकः आधिक्यम् उत्कर्ष एव स व्यतिरेकनामालङ्कार इत्यर्थः। The very fact that a certain object is उपमान means that it is superior to the उपमेय. But if a poet somehow shows that the उपमेय is superior to the उपमान, the figure व्यतिरेक arises. The charm or strikingness in व्यतिरेक is just this startling statement that the usually inferior उपमेय is here superior to the उपमान. For example, हृदय हरिण राधाया शशिणं मोहय सादरम् । अकलङ्क मुखं तस्या न कलङ्की विधुर्यथा।।

· · ·

Here the spotless face, which is the उपमेय, is stated to be superior to the spotted moon which is the usual उपमान with reference to the face. The उक्त points out that the word उपमानात् in the definition excludes such a sentence as ‘कमुदादतिरिच्यते मुखम्’ from the province of this figure, because कमुद in not the usual उपमान with reference to the face, but it is so with reference to the eyes. The name व्यतिरेक is significant. व्यतिरेक means excellence or superiority owing to some characteristic (विरोधण अतिरेकः आधिक्यम्‌उत्कर्षः). In this figure the उपमेय is stated to be superior to the उपमान owing to its possession of some characteristic (अकलङ्कत्वम्) or owing to the उपमान possessing some characteristic (कलङ्कित्वम्). That is why the figure is called व्यतिरेक.

· · ·

Before proceeding to deal with the divisions of व्यतिरेक Mammaṭa criticises the view of Rudraṭa (काव्यालङ्कार Vii. 86–90) that व्यतिरेक occurs not only when the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमान is established, but also when the superiority of the उपमान over the उपमेय or when the inferiority of the उपमेय to the उपमान is established. Rudraṭa gives ‘क्षीणः क्षीणोऽपि...’ as an example, where उपमेयादुपमानस्य आधिक्यम् or उपमानादुपमेयस्य न्यूनता is established. Rudraṭa’s idea is. This stanza describes that

· · ·

इत्यादौ...विवक्षितम्

· · ·

३२६ काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

pride and submit to her lover’s desires. Thus, the superiority of youth over the moon, arising from its characteristic of being exceedingly unstable, must here have been intended. And this can be brought out by supposing that यौवनस्थैयँ and शशिस्थैयँ are the उपमेय and उपमान respectively and that the superiority of the उपमेय ( यौवनस्थैयँ ) over the उपमान ( शशिस्थैयँ ) is established. As यौवन is so unstable. it is very precious and consequently superior to शशी.

· · ·

If on the contrary youth and the moon are supposed to be the उपमेय and the उपमान, youth will be inferior and the moon superior. We shall then have उपमानगताधिक्यम् or उपमेयगत न्यूनतम established, as Rudrata holds. But this supposition would be detrimental to the lover’s purpose. For, the lady would then say, ‘Well, youth is after all an inferior thing. Why should I care much for it ? Let it pass away,’ and would not give up her pride. Thus, we find that as Mammaṭa observes Rudrata’s view is not proper ( तदयुक्तम् ).

· · ·

It may be pointed out that Pratīhārendurāja (author of the लघुवृत्ति on उद्दट’s काव्यालङ्कारसंग्रह ), Ruyyaka ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्व ), Vidyānātha ( प्रतापरुद्रीय ), Viśvanātha and Appaya Dīkṣita ( कुवलयानन्द ) follow Rudrata in holding that व्यतिरेक is possible also when उपमानाधिक्यम् or उपमेयन्यूनता is established. On the other hand Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Vāmana, Hemacandra, Vidyādhara ( एकावली ) and Jagannātha maintain, like Mammaṭa, that व्यतिरेक occurs only when the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमान is established.

· · ·

हेतोलः...त्रिरष्ट तस्—This Kārikā enumerates the divisions of व्यतिरेक, which are stated to be thrice eight ( त्रिरष्ट ) i. e. 24. व्यतिरेक consists in the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमान. This superiority may arise from two causes ( व्यतिरेकस्य आधिक्यस्य हेतुः ) viz. a point of excellence ( उत्कर्षकरणम् ) found in the उपमेय and a point of inferiority ( अपकर्षकरणम् ) found in the उपमान. When these two causes are mentioned ( हेतोः उक्तत्वे ), we get one variety of व्यतिरेक. When either or both of the causes are not mentioned, three more varieties arise ( अनुक्तत्र्यम् ). Thus, we get four varieties according as the causes of the व्यतिरेक are or are not mentioned.

· · ·

Now, the similarity ( साम्यम् ) or the उपमानोपमेयभाव, which is at the basis of व्यतिरेक can be either शब्द, अर्थ or आधीष्ट according as it is conveyed respectively by a word such as इव, or by sense or in an implied manner ( अर्थेन क्रमेण in the manner belonging to sense i. e. in the manner of implication ) i. e. by means of a word like तुल्य, or by suggestion ( आधीष्टे आक्षेपेण व्यञ्जनेन प्रतिपादिते ).

· · ·

(1) शब्दे साम्ये (1) हेतुद्रयोक्तौ (2) एकहेतु- (3) अपरहेतौ (4)हेतुद्रया- नुक्तौ e. g. असिमात्रसदृशायस्य (ii) अर्थे साम्ये (iii) आक्षिप्ते साम्ये (ii) and (iii) have the same four sub-divisions each as (i), which makes a total of 12. In श्लेष there are similar 12. Thus we get 24 in all.

· · ·

[ Sutra 72 ]

अत्र राजा उपमेयः, अन्यजनः उपमानम्, अरिपराभवः साधारणो धर्मः, महाद्रुतित्वमुपमेयगतसुल्कर्शननिमित्तं, तुच्छत्वसुपमानगतसंपर्कनिमित्तं च इति द्वौ हेतू उक्तौ, इवशब्दप्रयोगात् साम्यं शब्दम्, न क्रोधि शब्दः श्लिष्टः: इति व्यतिरेकस्य प्रथमः प्रकारोद्यम्. Here स्मयोदस्य, expressed by 'न स्मयोडस्य' can also be regarded as साधारणधर्म. In that case the उपमानोपमेयभाव must be supposed to have been based on वैधर्म्य.

· · ·

अत्रैव...भेदत्रयम्—Here Mammaṭa points out that by dropping तुच्छ and महाद्रुति alternately and simultaneously we shall get the three other divisions included under शब्दे साम्ये, thus (2) नूनमन्यजनस्येव न स्मयोऽस्य महाद्रुते:, where उपमानगतसुल्कर्शननिमित्तं is not mentioned, (3) अन्यतुच्छजनस्येव न स्मयोऽस्य महीपते:, where उपमेयगतसुल्कर्शननिमित्तं is not mentioned and (4) नूनमन्यजनस्येव न स्मयोऽस्य महीपते:, where both the उपमानगतसुल्कर्शननिमित्तं and उपमेयगतसुल्कर्शननिमित्तं are not mentioned. Thus, stanza 72 is made to illustrate in all four varieties.

· · ·

property, we must suppose न सगव्री भवति as the proper common property, in order to make it an action as required by वत् in the sense of तुल्य.

· · ·

The stanza as it stands illustrates अभेषणिबन्धनः हेतुद्रशक्तौ आर्थे साम्ये व्यतिरेकः, which is the fifth variety of व्यतिरेकः. The three other varieties, falling under आर्थे साम्ये would be illustrated by slightly changing the second line as follows : ( 6 ) नूनं नैवान्यजनवत् सगवोऽन्य महाश्रितिः, where उपमानगत अपकर्षण is not mentioned, ( 7 ) नैवान्यतुच्छजनवत् समवोऽन्य महीपतिः, where उपमेयगत उत्कर्षण is not mentioned and ( 8 ) नूनं नैवान्यजनवत् सगवोऽन्य महीपतिः, where both these are not mentioned.

· · ·

Stanza 74—This stanza illustrates the four varieties falling under आक्षिसे साम्ये.

· · ·

अत्र इव्‌ आदि...उपमा—This line explains how उपमा ( comparison or similarity ) is suggested in stanza 74. Words like इव and तुल्य are absent. So the साम्य is neither शब्द nor आर्थे. The verb जयति only suggests similarity. Therefore, the साम्य is suggested here.

· · ·

The stanza, as it stands, is an example of अभेषणिबन्धनः हेतुद्रयोक्तौ आक्षिसे साम्ये व्यतिरेकः. This is thus explained : अत्र आननसुपमेयम्, इन्दुः उपमानम्, अनुक्तसादृश्येन साधारणी ध्रुवः अङ्कलित्लिल्सुमपमेयगतसुत्कर्षणनिमित्ते, कलङ्कद्विसुपमानगतापकर्षणनिमित्ते च इति हेतुद्रयमुक्तम्, इवादीनां तुल्यादीनां वा पदनामभानि जयतिपदेन आक्षितं व्यक्तं साम्यम्, न कोऽपि विशेषः: श्लेषः, इति व्यतिरेकस्य नवमः प्रकारोऽयम्. The three other varieties, falling under आक्षिसे साम्ये are illustrated by changing the second line as ( 10 ) आननेन मनोज्ञेन जयतीन्दुं कलङ्किनम्, where उपमेयगत : उत्कर्षणिमित्त is not mentioned, ( 11 ) आननेनाकलङ्केन जयत्यमृतदीधितिम् where उपमानगत अपकर्षणिमित्त is not mentioned and ( 12 ) आननेन मनोज्ञेन जयत्यमृतदीधितिम्, where both these are not mentioned.

· · ·

So far 12 varieties of व्यतिरेक, not based no श्लेष, are illustrated. Mammata now proceeds to illustrate varieties of व्यतिरेक, based on श्लेष.

· · ·

Stanza 75—This stanza describes some king, who has conquered his senses, who waits upon those who are eminent in learning and whose virtues ( गुणाः ), being deep-rooted, are not fragile like the fibres ( गुणाः ) of a lotus. This means that the king's virtues are permanent and not likely to disappear.

· · ·

The stanza illustrates the four varieties of श्लेषणिबन्धन व्यतिरेक, when the similarity is शब्द. वत् in अर्जवत्=अदस्य इव is used in the sense of इव, according to 'तत्र तस्येव', for which vide p. 370 above. Therefore, साम्य is शब्द or expressed. The word गुण ( virtue, fibre ) is paronomastic.

· · ·

The stanza as it stands is an example of श्लेषणिबन्धनः हेतुद्रयोक्तौ शाब्दे साम्ये व्यतिरेकः. This may be thus explained : अत्र 'अस्य' इत्यनेन निर्दिष्ट: कश्चिद्

· · ·

राजा उपमेयः; अञ्जसमुपमानम्, गुणवत्त्वं साधारणो धर्मः; गाढगुणत्वमुपमेयगतमुक्तौ निमित्तं भवत्पुर गुणत्वमुपमानगतमपकर्षनिमित्तं च हेतुद्रयमुक्तं, इवार्थे वत्रत्ययः तेन औपम्यं शब्दम्, गुणशब्दः श्लिष्टः इति अयं श्लेषनिवन्धनः हेतुद्रयोक्तौ शाब्दे साम्ये व्यतिरेकः

· · ·

The other three varieties, falling under शाब्दे साम्ये, are illustrated by slightly changing the second line as (14) सत्कर्मनिरतस्यास्य नाःकवद् भात्गुरा गुणाः; where उपमेयगत उत्कर्षनिमित्तं is not mentioned, ( 15 ) अतिगाढगुणस्यास्य नाकजवत् सन्ति वै गुणाः; where उपमानगत अपकर्षनिमित्तं is not mentioned and (16) सत्कर्मनिरतस्यास्य नाकजवत् सन्ति वै गुणाः; where both these are not mentioned.

· · ·

This stanza illustrates the four varieties included under अर्थे साम्ये. As it stands it is an example of श्लेषनिबन्धनः; हेतुद्रयोक्तौ अर्थे साम्ये व्यतिरेकः.

· · ·

अत्र पृथिवीपतिः उपमेयः; निशाकरः उपमानं, मण्डलवत्तवं कलावत्त्वं च साधारणगुणे, अखण्डमण्डलत्वमुपमेयगतमुक्तौ निमित्तं कलावैकल्यमुपमानगतमपकर्षनिमित्तं च हेतुद्रयमुक्तं, तुल्यार्थे वत्रत्ययः; तेन औपम्यमार्थं मण्डलकलाशब्दौ श्लेषौ इति अयं श्लेषणनिवन्धनः; हेतुद्रयोक्तौ अर्थे साम्ये, व्यतिरेकः : समदशमः

· · ·

(18) बहुलारिगटोङ्घ्रयेषु श्रीमानुदधिविक्रमः | न निशाकरवज्जातु कलावैकल्यमागतः || अत्र उपमेयगतोत्कर्षनिमित्तस्य अनुक्किः; कलाशब्दः श्लिष्टः | (19) अखण्डमण्डले हि श्रीमानुदधिविक्रमः; न निशाकरवज्जातु व्यतिरेकः || अत्र उपमानगतापकर्षनिमित्तस्य अनुक्किः; मण्डलशब्दः श्लिष्टः | (20) बहुलारिगटोङ्घ्रयेषु श्रीमानुदधिस्वविक्रमः | न निशाकरवज्जातु ज्ञायते वसुधाधिपः || अत्र अखण्डमण्डलव-कलावैकल्ययोः द्वयोरपि हेलोरुक्तिः; बहुलशब्दः श्लिष्टः; बहुलः कृष्णपक्षः विपुलस्त्रि इत्यनया रीत्या अस्य प्रकारस्य कथं अपि श्लेषणनिवन्धनत्वमुपपादनीयम् मालाप्रतिवस्तूपमा वत्...यथा

· · ·

साम्यविहीना पक्षपातिनी ( partial ) दृष्टि: यस्य. The idea is the king is not विषमदृष्टि: or partial, as Śiva is विषमदृष्टि: or odd-eyed i. e. three-eyed. The comparison is based on वैधर्म्य and establishes the king to be superior to Śiva. विधूतवितततृष: (1) विधूत: व्याक्षिप्तं निधनं प्राप्तित: इत्यर्थ: विततो महान् ऋष: ऋषाकार: असुर: येन. The reference here is to Kṛṣṇa's slaughter of a demon who appeared in the form of a bull. (2) विधूत: अनादृत: विततो महान् ऋष: धर्म: येन who sets aside or neglects his great duty. Note 'ऋषो धर्मे बलीवर्दे शृङ्ग्चां पुराशिमेयो: | श्रेष्ठे स्यादुतरस्यक्त्व वासमूषकशुक्ले | ऋषा मूषिकवर्ण्यां च' मेदिनी.

· · ·

[ Sutra 78 ]

Stanza 78 — This stanza makes out a certain king to be superior to the sun in so far as while the king's valour (प्रताप:) is always prominent, the sun's lustre (प्रभा) is shut during the night. Here the word भास्वत् is paronomastic, meaning possessed of lustre and the sun. Implied paronomasia is also present in the word प्रताप and प्रभा. For the suggestion is that the sun is not नियोजितप्रताप and the king is not त्रियमामीलितप्रभ. The word विनिर्जित: suggests साम्य or similarity. नित्योदित-प्रतापत्वम्, which is उपमेयगतसाम्यकारणमित्तम् and त्रियमामीलितप्रभत्वम्, which is उपमानगतमपकर्षणिमित्तम्, are mentioned. Therefore, the stanza as it stands exemplifies श्रेषणबन्धन: हेतुद्र्योकोकौ आक्षिप्ते साम्ये व्यतिरेक:. Page 72 The other three varieties, coming under आक्षिप्ते साम्ये, can be illustrated by changing the first line as (22) समरासक्मनसा त्रियमामीलितप्रभ:, where उपमेयगतसाम्यकारणम् is not mentioned; (23) नित्योदितप्रतापेन पद्मजावलिनन्दन: where उपमानगतमपकर्षकारणम् is not mentioned; and (24) समरासक्मनसा where :उपमानगतसपकर्षकारणम् is not mentioned;

· · ·

पद्यावलिनन्दनः,

· · ·

[ Sutra 79 ]

Stanza 79— We have seen above that साम्य, which is necessary for व्यतिरेक, is either शब्द or expressed by words like इव, or आर्थे or implied by words like तुल्य, or आक्षित or suggested by words like जयति and विनिर्जितः. Mammata quotes this stanza to show that even when words like इव, तुल्य and जयति are absent, suggested comparison or similarity ( आक्षिप्ता उपमा ) is apprehended by means of paronomastic adjectives themselves ( श्लिष्टविशेषणैरैव प्रतीयते ).

· · ·

This stanza contains the description of nocturnal drinking parties in which young men and women freely took part. Young men were drinking wine as well as the mouth of women i. e. were drinking wine and kissing women on the lips. But while wine quenched their thirst, the mouth of their beloveds did not i. e. while they had enough of wine, they could not have enough of kissing.

· · ·

Here आननम् is उपमेय, मधु is उपमान, the paronomastic adjectives represent the common properties and तृष्णया: अहारणम्, which is उपमेयगतसादृश्यकारणम्, are both mentioned. The similarity is suggested by means of the paronomastic adjectives themselves. Therefore, this stanza is an example of श्लेषणनिबन्धनः हेतुद्वयौक्तौ विशिष्टविरोषणैः आक्षिते साम्ये व्यतिरेकः.

· · ·

स्वच्छात्मना° = स्वच्छात्मता निर्मलस्वरूपमेव गुण: तेन समुल्लसंति प्रतिबिम्बितमम् इन्दुबिम्बं यत्र.

· · ·

बिम्बप्रभाधरम् (1) बिम्बस्य बिम्बफलस्य प्रभां रक्त शोभा धरति इति. The wine had the red lustre of the Bimba-fruit. (2) बिम्बप्रभ: अधर: यस्य. The face had the lower lip, which was red like the Bimba-fruit. अकृत्रिमहारागन्धम्—Both wine and mouth possessed natural and attractive fragrance.

· · ·

Here there is only one adjective viz. बिम्बप्रभाधरम्, which is properly विशिष्ट i. e. पर्यायपरित्यसह. Yet Mammata speaks of विशिष्टविरोषणै:. He apparently takes the other two adjectives also, where a double shade of meaning can be found in स्वच्छात्मतागुण and गन्ध, as paronomastic.

· · ·

एवंजातीयका...द्रष्टव्या:——In this passage Mammata refers to certain other varieties, which are possible in व्यतिरेक, but which he says the reader should understand by himself. One such variety arises, when a word, which is fit for a paronomastic expression ( श्लेषोक्तियोग्य ), is separately mentioned. Mammata evidently borrows this variety from Udbhata, mentioned.

· · ·

३४२

· · ·

In all the above examples of व्यतिरेक the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमान is suggested. Sometimes such superiority is actually expressed as in 'इन्दोः पद्मावाधि क मे प्रियाया बदनं मतम् । विलासैर्हैयगवैश्व मधुरैरौष्ठ-पैस्तथा ॥' Sometimes व्यतिरेक shines prominent, throwing into the back-ground some other figure. Thus, in 'निष्कलङ्कं निरातङ्कं चतुः पष्टिकलाधर । सदा पूण मद्रीप चन्द्रौषिति मुख वचः' we have व्यतिरेक, which throws into the background रूपक. In 'प्रियाया बदनेनैव पद्धतिं सदृशं नहि । विलासैः शोभमानत्वाद् विकसिताद् विधु द्वयौ' व्यतिरेक sets aside प्रतिप (for which see p. 120).

· · ·

Out of the 24 varieties into which, according to Mammata, व्यतिरेक is divided six (4,8,12,16,20,24) occur when neither the उपमेयगतौकर्षनिमित्त nor the उपमानगतापकर्षनिमित्त is mentioned. Here one has to note that it is rather difficult to realize the presence of व्यतिरेक in these cases, when neither of these two characteristics that are responsible for bringing out the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमान is present, For, in their absence the stanzas reduce themselves to some negative or positive statement from which the special characteristic of व्यतिरेक cannot be easily had. In the case of श्लेषणनिबन्धन व्यतिरेक especially this becomes very difficult. For, श्लेष usually finds a place in the words which bring out उपमेयोत्कर्ष and उपमानापकर्ष. But when these are not used, how can there be the basis of श्लेष for the व्यतिरेक, even supposing that it is there ? Therefore, it is contended that these six varieties should somehow be accounted for. Read रसगङ्गाधर p. 350;

· · ·

Another point to which attention must be drawn is that the passage on pp. 77–78, which deals with मालाव्यतिरेक, has evidently been misplaced there. Treatment to the भाला form of a figure usually comes after the regular divisions have been disposed of. Here it occurs when 20 out of the 24 varieties have been dealt with and looks abrupt. Therefore, the passage dealing with मालाव्यतिरेक should be read after प्रतीतते on p. 79.

· · ·

(19) आक्षेपः or Paraleipsis

· · ·

The figure आक्षेप arises when there is a denial of something, which is intended to be said, with a view to express some speciality or special meaning. The thing which is intended to be said, is naturally प्रकरणिक or relevant. As such it does not deserve to be relegated to a subordinate position (अनुपसर्जनीकार्ये ). Consequently if it is denied, that denial cannot in the very nature of things be real, but is only apparent (निषेध एव ). This apparent denial has a purpose.

· · ·

३४४

· · ·

Thus, here as the messenger denies what she has actually said, the stanza is an example of उत्तविषय: आक्षेप:. Here the विशेष or special meaning which is intended to be conveyed is that it is well known that such cool things become hot in separation.

· · ·

Two kinds of आक्षेप have thus been illustrated viz. वक्ष्यमाणविषय and उत्तविषय. According to Viśvanātha each of these varieties is again two-fold. Read ‘तत्र वक्ष्यमाणविषये (1) कविकल्पवस्त्वपि सामान्यतः सूचितस्य निषेध: (2) कविविदग्धोक्त्यनन्तरे निषेध: इति तत्र भेदौ. उक्तविषये च (3) कविकल्पवस्त्वहुपेतैव निषेध: (4) कविकल्पवस्त्वक्रथनस्य इति द्वौ भेदौ.' इयाक्षेप स्त्र चत्वारो भेदा: 'l साहिद्यदर्पण. Stanzas 80 and 81 illustrate (1) and (4). The illustrations of (2) and (3) are

· · ·

(2) तत्र विरहे हरिणाक्षी निरिक्ष्य नावमालिकां दलिताम् | हन्त नितान्तमिदानीम्-आ: कि इत-जल्पितैरथवा 'l अत्र 'मरिष्यति' इति अंगो नोक्तः | अत्र नाई दूती तस्थाः प्रियोज्योक्तिन मम व्यापारः सा मरिष्यति तवायश एते धमोक्यरं भणामः | अत्र बालक द्वीतत्वस्य वस्तुनो निषेधः | अत्र द्वीतत्वेपी यथार्थवादित्वं विशेषः | सा. द.

· · ·

Considerable difference of opinion is found among rhetoricians regarding the exact nature of आक्षेप. Bhāmaha, whom Udbhata (p. 29) copies almost verbatim, Mammaṭa and Viśveṣvara Paṇḍita define this figure in exactly the same way.

· · ·

Ruyyaka Viśvanātha, Vidyādhara, define आक्षेप like Mammaṭa, but mention an additional variety which consists in the apparent permission of what is not desired.

· · ·

Dandin's definition of this figure is the widest. According to him आक्षेप is constituted by the statement of a denial and it may have endless varieties according to the endless things that can be denied.

· · ·

Appaya Dīkṣita also admits the वच्याभास variety of this figure.

· · ·

Vāmana defines आक्षेप as 'उपमानाक्षेपवादकल्प:. को. सू. 4.3.27 and his आक्षेप would correspond to Mammaṭa's प्रतीप and समासोक्ति. It will thus be seen that Vāmana's आक्षेप has nothing in common with the आक्षेप of Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha except the name.

· · ·

Jagannātha mentions different views about आक्षेप that are prevalent among rhetoricians, but does not definitely say which view he holds or prefers. But on one point he expresses himself strongly viz. that आक्षेप does not consist in an apparent denial only.

· · ·

In आक्षेप apparent denial is resorted to in order to convey some special sense (विशेषाभिधित्सया). This special sense is only suggested. It is व्यञ्ज्यार्थ, therefore. But it is not principal and does not constitute the charm of the figure. The charm consists in the expressed sense itself which suggests the व्यञ्ज्यार्थ. Consequently, आक्षेप is not उत्तम or ध्वनिकाव्य, but मध्यम or गुणीभूतव्यङ्गच्य.

· · ·

[ Sutra 20 ]

(20) विभावना or Peculiar Causation

· · ·

विमावना arises when even in the denial or absence of a cause (क्रिया), the fruit or the result becomes manifest or arises. It is in the nature of things impossible that a result should arise when its cause is absent. What, therefore, happens in विभावना is that the ordinary well-known cause of an effect being absent, it comes into existence owing to the operation of some special cause, which is not so well known or so easily conceived. Thus, the strikingness of the figure lies in the startling statement that result has been produced without its cause.

· · ·

विमावना is two-fold according as the special cause, which brings about the result in the absence of the ordinary well-known one is mentioned or not mentioned. Read : उत्कानुक्तनिमित्तत्वाद् द्विधा सा परिकीरिता ।...67' साहित्यदर्पण x

· · ·

क्रियाया:= The word क्रिया in the Kārikā means just कारण. क्रियते उत्पाद्यते कार्यमनया इति क्रिया कारणम्. According to the grammarians a cause is always an action ('वैयाकरणमते क्रियैव हेतुरिति क्रियेत्युक्तम्' प्रदीप). That is why the word क्रिया has here been used in the sense of कारण. The use of the almost technical word क्रिया for the simple word कारण once more shows Mammata's partiality towards grammar. सामह, उद्दट and वामन use the same term.

· · ·

The name विभावना is significant. It is explained in four ways : (1) विभाव्यते अनुमीयते कारणान्तरं प्रसिद्धात कारणाद अन्यत कारण यस्याम् (2) विशिष्टतया कार्यस्य भावनात् (3) विरुद्धवेदन प्रसिद्धकारणाभावेऽपि भावना कार्यस्य उत्पत्ति: यस्याम् (4) विगता भावना कारणं प्रसिद्ध कारणं यस्यां सा ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 82 ]

Stanza 82—This stanza contains the description of a woman in separation.

· · ·

Here the effects : रजसदृत्ते, परिवर्तते हृदय and अपूर्णीत have taken place even when the causes, लताहनन, आलिङ्गन and नोलिङ्गनोलने respectively are not present. Of course in all these cases, the special cause is असष्टविरहदृ. Since it is not mentioned, the stanza is an example of अनुक्तानिमित्ता विभावना.

· · ·

अनायासकृशो मध्यमशरीरतले दशो | अभूषणमनोहारी वपुरवयस्य शुषुत्रः ॥' साहिल्यदर्पण

· · ·

[ Sutra 21 ]

विशेषोक्ति:

· · ·

कार्याभाववप्य विशेषोक्तः अस्यामिति विशेषोक्तिः ।

· · ·

असट्ल् of these figures. Only he calls them शाब्द्ल्व and आर्थाल्व respectively.

· · ·

We remarked above that विशेषोक्ति is the exact opposite of विभावना.

· · ·

Similarly, in stanza 83 we may say that the result आलिङ्गनत: अचलन has arisen though its usual causes viz. निद्राप्रगल्भति, धुरत्नायुदय, सखीजनप्राप्ति and मुग्धाल्लेपदाढ़च्य are not present.

· · ·

It is probably from this point of view that some people hold that विभावना and विशेषोक्ति do not deserve to be independent figures.

· · ·

विशेषोक्तिः and विभावना

· · ·

Distinction: (1) While in विभावना an effect arises without its cause, in विशेषोक्ति though the causes are present, the effect does not arise.

· · ·

यथासंख्यम् or Respectivity

· · ·

When things, which are mentioned in a certain order (कमिक) are again connected (समन्वय:) or referred to in the same order, यथासंख्य arises e. g. शत्रुं मित्रं विपत्ति च जय रजय भजय ( चन्द्रालोक ).

· · ·

यथासंख्यम् is an अव्ययीभाव compound formed in the sense of पदार्थोन-तिङ्वित्ति or non-violation of the sense of a word, according to ‘अव्यये विभक्तिसमीपसङ्ग्रहो’ पा. 2. i. 6.

· · ·

order of the things mentioned. Thus, the name of the figure is significant.

· · ·

[ Sutra 86 ]

Stanza 86—This stanza is an address to a king and describes how though one he produces a three-fold effect in the heart of three different people. Thus, by means of his valour, modesty and grace he produces pain, joy and love in the heart of enemies, learned people and beautiful damsels respectively. Here त्रीषां, विदुषां and मृगीदृशां are in the same order or respectively concerned with तापं, समदरसं and रतिं and with शौर्योष्मगा, विनयेन and लीलया. Thus, the ideas we get are त्रीषां चेतसि शौर्योष्मणा तापं पुष्णन्, विदुषां चेतसि विनयेन समदरसंपुष्णन् and मृगीदृशां चेतसि लीलया रतिं पुष्णन्. Hence, we

have यथासंख्य in this stanza.

· · ·

यथासंख्य is rather a prosaic figure. Though ancient rhetoricians like Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa, Vāmana, Rudraṭa and Bhoja define it, its claim to rank as an independent figure has been denied by Hemacandra (काव्यानुशासन pp. 292–293 ) and called into question by Jayaratha (अलंकारसर्वस्वविमर्शिनी pp. 149–150 ) and Jagannātha ( रसगङ्गाधर p. 748 ). It is contended that यथासंख्य does not contain any special charm arising from the exercise of the poet's genius, which is essential for an alankāra. It represents nothing but the absence of the poetical defect called अक्रम or violation of order such as is found in ' रथाङ्गैशूलेऽत्राणौ पातां वः शुश्रूषर्द्धणौ ' or ' कीर्तिंप्रतापौ भवतः सूर्याचन्द्रमसाविव ' Nāgeśabhaṭṭa admits that यथासंख्य does not contain poetical charm of the above description even in a small degree, yet as it possesses the strikingness of many objects being referred to in the same order in one stanza, it has been, he points out, mentioned as a figure by Mammata. Read रसगङ्गाधर p. 478.

· · ·

As regards the essence of the figure it is to be noted that while Bhāmaha says that the things which are connected together in the same order should not be similar ( असदृशर्मणाम् ), Vāmana lays down that they should be related to one another as उपमेयs and उपमानs. Mammata and others do not restrict the scope of the figure either way. यथासंख्य it also known by the terms संख्यान and क्रम.

· · ·

[ Sutra 23 ]

अर्थान्तरन्यास or Corroboration

· · ·

When a general proposition is supported or corroborated or strengthened by a particular or a particular by a general, either through similarity or through dissimilarity, अर्थान्तरन्यास arises. तदन्येन = सामान्यदन्येन विशेष विशेषादन्येन सामान्येन वा । इतरेण = साधर्म्यादितरेण वैधर्म्येण । अर्थान्तरन्यास has thus four varieties, which can be thus represented :

· · ·

(1) सामान्यस्य विशेषण (2) विशेषस्य सामान्येन (3) सामान्यस्य विशेषण (4) विशेषस्य

· · ·

समर्थेनम् e. g. निजदोषा- समर्थनम् e. g. सुसित- समर्थनम् e. g. सामान्येन समर्थनम्

· · ·

वृतमनसाम् वसनालंकारायाम् गुणालंमेव e. g. अहो हि मे

· · ·

Jagannātha : समर्थनं च ‘इदमेवमनेनैव वा स्ताद’ इति संशयस्थ प्रतिबन्धक ‘इतिमिथ्यम्’

· · ·

इति हि प्रयः. निश्चय इति यावत् । ‘रसगङ्गाधर’ p. 471

· · ·

The name अर्थान्तरन्यास is significant. It is thus explained : अर्थेते

· · ·

वर्णनीयतयेन इष्यते इति अर्थः प्रस्तुतम् । अन्यः अर्थः अर्थान्तरम् अप्रस्तुतम् । तस्य प्रस्तुत-

· · ·

समर्थनकत्वेन न्यासः अर्थान्तरन्यासः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 87 ]

Stanza 87 — This stanza illustrates सामान्यस्य विशेषण साधर्म्येण समर्थनरूप:

· · ·

अर्थान्तरन्यासः. The first half enunciates a general proposition, which is

· · ·

supported by a particular illustration supplied by the second. The

· · ·

illustration is similar to the general proposition. Therefore, we have

· · ·

सामान्यस्य विशेषेण साधर्म्येण समर्थनरूपः अर्थान्तरन्यासः. One may note by the

· · ·

way that in शिशुपालवध श्लोकम् we have समासगा वादिहस्ता उपमा.

· · ·

[ Sutra 88 ]

Stanza 88 — This stanza is an example of विशेषस्य सामान्येन साधर्म्येण

· · ·

समर्थनहपः अर्थान्तरन्यासः. It is addressed to a king. It describes how the

· · ·

fame of the king with its conventional white colour, sung by somebody,

· · ·

helped a lovely damsel who. dressed in white and wearing white

· · ·

ornaments, was proceeding at night to keep an appointment of love.

· · ·

Here ‘क नासि शुभप्रदः = सर्वत्र शुभप्रदः सहाङ्ग्यदायकः असि’ is a genral

· · ·

proposition, which supports the particular case of the king’s help to the

· · ·

girl through his fame. The general proposition is similar to the parti-

· · ·

cular. Therefore, the figure here is विशेषस्य सामान्येन साधर्म्येण समर्थनहप

· · ·

अर्थान्तरन्यास.

· · ·

This stanza is also an example of the figure सामान्य.

· · ·

[ Sutra 89 ]

Stanza 89—This stanza exemplifies सामान्यस्य विशेषेण वैधर्म्येण

· · ·

समर्थनहपः अर्थान्तरन्यासः. It is the wickedness of virtues possessed by a

· · ·

leader that brings on him the yoke of leadership. This is a general

· · ·

proposition, which the first half sets forth.

· · ·

It is strengthened by a particular dissimilar illustration contained in the second. The illustration refers to a strong mischievous bull, who is not yoked to a carriage i. e. is not given leadership, but is allowed to sleep happily in the stable, because he does not possess a scar on his neck i. e. has never borne the yoke before. When a bull bears the yoke for some time, a scar is produced on his neck. This scar is a गुण, which makes him fit for bearing the yoke. As the particular proposition which supports the general is thus dissimilar i. e. that of an animal which is not धुरि नियुक्त, the stanza becomes an example of सामान्यस्य विशेषेण समर्थनरूप: अर्थान्तरन्यास:.

· · ·

धुर्य: = धुरं वहति इति. The word literally means a bull who bears the yoke; then a leader who bears the yoke of responsibility. गलि: is a word of uncertain meaning. It has been variously explained by commentators. It appears to be a technical term current among agriculturists. It generally means a strong mischievous bull.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 90 ]

This stanza illustrates विशेषस्य सामान्येन वैधर्म्येण समर्थनरूप: अर्थान्तरन्यास:. It is uttered by some old man who has the misfortune to convey an unpleasant news to his friend. He supports his particular case by a dissimilar general proposition wherein he states that blessed are those who die without seeing the defeat of their friend. Therefore, we have here विशेषस्य सामान्येन वैधर्म्येण समर्थनरूप: अर्थान्तरन्यास:.

· · ·

It will be observed that in all the four examples quoted above the proposition which is to be supported is mentioned first and the proposition which supports it is stated afterwards. But it is possible to reverse this order. Then again, the सामर्थ्यसमर्थकभाव existing between the two propositions, which comprise this figure, may either be directly expressed by such words as हि, यत् and यतः or may be left to be inferred. On these grounds it is possible to have further varieties of this figure. But as Ruyyaka observes there is not much of a charm in such divisions. It is, therefore, well that Mammaṭa does not go in for them. It may, however, be pointed out that ancient rhetoricians like Bhāmaha and Udbhaṭa refer to these characteristics of अर्थान्तरन्यास in their definitions.

· · ·

Viśvanātha, following Ruyyaka, mentions four more varieties of अर्थान्तरन्यास. According to him this figure also occurs when an effect is supported by a cause, or a cause by an effect, either affirmatively or negatively.

· · ·

तदेकदेशे निरूप्य तयोरव्यवायविमर्शः; उच्यमान उदाहरणम्

· · ·

अर्थान्तरन्यास and निर्देशना (Second Variety)

· · ·

अर्थान्तरन्यास: and प्रतिवस्तूपमा

· · ·

अर्थान्तरन्यास: and दृष्टान्त

· · ·

( 24 ) विरोध: or Contradiction

· · ·

३५४

· · ·

were real, it would constitute a defect. As it is only apparent, the

· · ·

figure is also known as विरोधाभास Read, रसगङ्गाधर p. 427

· · ·

When अपि is thus used, the figure is श्लेष. Otherwise it is अर्थ.

· · ·

Jagannatha, however, does not accept this distinction.

· · ·

The name विरोध is significant, because the figure contains an

· · ·

( apparent ) contradiction. The name विरोधाभास would have been still

· · ·

more significant.

· · ·

जातिवाचकु...द्रव्य—These lines enumerate the 10 division of विरोध.

· · ·

In the second Ullāsa we saw that according to the grammarians and

· · ·

words are of four kinds viz. जातिवाचक, गुणवाचक, क्रियावाचक द्रव्यवाचक

· · ·

according as their primary or conventional sense is जाति, गुण, क्रिया

· · ·

and द्रव्य. The ten divisions of विरोध are based on these four kinds of

· · ·

words. Thus, a जाति may be opposed to four beginning with जाति

· · ·

( जात्यैः चतुभिः ) viz जाति, गुण, क्रिया and द्रव्य. विरोध based on जाति, is

· · ·

therefore, of four kinds. Similarly, a गुण, may be opposed to three viz.

· · ·

गुण, क्रिया and द्रव्य, a क्रिया to two viz. क्रिया and द्रव्य and a द्रव्य to द्रव्य only,

· · ·

thus giving rise respectively to three, two and one division, when विरोध

· · ·

is based on गुण, क्रिया and द्रव्य. These divisions in all number 10, which

· · ·

may be thus shown.

· · ·

विरोध

· · ·

(i) जातिमूलक: (ii) गुणमूलक: (iii) क्रियामूलक: (iv) द्रव्यमूलक:

· · ·

( 4 kinds ) (3 kinds ) ( 2 kinds ) ( 1 kind )

· · ·

(1) जातिजात्योःविरोध: (5) गुणगुणयोःविरोध: (8) क्रियाक्रिययोःविरोध: (10) द्रव्यद्रव्योःविरोध:

· · ·

e. g. अभिनवतनूिनी e. g. सततं मुसलसक्ता: e. g. परिळ्छेदतीतः e. g. समदमतङ्गज

· · ·

( 2 ) जातिगुणयोःविरोध: (6) गुणक्रिययोःविरोध: (8)क्रियाद्रव्योःविरोध:

· · ·

e. g. गिरयोर्यनुन्नति e. g. पेशलमपि खलवचनम e. g. अयं वारामेको

· · ·

( 3 ) जातिद्रव्योःविरोध: (7) गुणद्रव्योःविरोध:

· · ·

e. g. शशा कपयम्रिगाह e. g. केशवपद्मरागम

· · ·

( 4 ) जातिद्रव्योःविरोध:

· · ·

e. g. शुजति च जगदिद

· · ·

It may here be noted that when जातिमूलक, it is not necessary to include जातिगुणयोःविरोध: under गुणमूलक. For,

· · ·

the two mean the same thing. The same applies to the विरोध of क्रिया

· · ·

with जाति and गुण and to the विरोध of द्रव्य with जाति, गुण and क्रिया. Read

· · ·

'जातेरुणेनेह विरोधे उक्ते' 'विरोधड्योऽन्योन्यबाधनम्' इति हि श्रा तेनैव गुणस्यापि जात्या सह विरोध: सिद्ध: । अत एव गुणस्य जातिवर्ज त्रयो भेदा: । एवंमन्यत्रापि द्रेयम् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 91 ]

अभिनवानि नलिन्य: किसलयानि पर्णानि ) और ( मृणालानां कमलतन्तूनां वलयानि कडुणानि ) दवदहनस्य ( अरण्याग्रे: राशी: समूह: )।

· · ·

त्वद्रियोगपतिपाते ( त्वदियोग एवं पतिः तस्य पाते )

· · ·

[ Sutra 92 ]

गिरि, मरुत, अर्णिध and विश्वंभरा, अनुत्तियुज: अचल, अगम्भीर and अतिलघु

· · ·

intended to bring out the king's औत्सत्यातिशय, चलस्वातिशय or वेगवत्त्वातिशय, गाम्भीर्यातिशय and गौरवातिशय. Thus, the stanza is an example of जातिगुणयो: विरोध:. As the word अपि is used, विरोध here is शाब्द.

· · ·

( 2 ) 'विश्वशररापि अतिलघु:' cannot properly be an instance of जातिगुणयो: विरोध:, because विश्वंभरा is not a जातिवाचक word, but a द्रव्यवाचक, in as much as the earth is one. So 'विश्वशररापि अतिलघु:' would illustrate गुणवद्यो:विरोध:' Against this Kamalākarabhaṭṭa points that विश्वंभरा may be regarded as a जातिवाचक word in view of different creations or of the different continents of which the earth is made. As regards मरुत् there is no difficulty about its being a जातिवाचक word. For, winds are said to be 49 in number according to the statements in the Purāṇas. (3) It should be noted that विरोध here is based on श्लेष. For, the words उत्सति, चल, गम्मीर and लघु possess two senses according to as they are construed with the king and with mountains'.etc.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 93 ]

This stanza is addressed to a king and describes what happens when he goes to the field of battle to fight with his enemies.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 94 ]

This stanza expresses surprise that Lord Viṣṇu, who creates, protects and destroys the world with ease, became a fish

· · ·

( शफरः मत्स्यः जातः इति पूरणीयमत्र ),

· · ·

[ Sutra 96 ]

सतत्त्वविदाम् = नतत्त्वविदाम् । तत्वसतत्त्वशब्दौ पर्य्याये गोत्रसगोत्रशब्दवत् ।

· · ·

विरोधः and रूपकम्

· · ·

रूपक it is the end itself. To explain : In विरोध the identity is used to show the ultimate incongruity that is involved in such identity. Thus, to say that leaves of lotus-plants and coils of lotus-fibres are a heap of forest-fire to her at once brings to our mind the incongruity of the former being the latter, an incongruity which is removed when we remember that we have here the description of a lady in separation. But in ‘मुखं चन्द्रः’ the identity between the two is exactly what we aim at owing to the extreme resemblance between the face and the moon. The incongruity involved in the assertion that the face is the moon does not strike us at all. (2) In विरोध the strikingness lies in the incongruity between the two objects identified; in रूपक the charm lies in the similarity of the two objects concerned. (3) In विरोध the sense of अपि, whether mentioned as in शंकरचूडामणौ अपि कालिंदी, or implied as in नलिनीकीसलयमृणालवलयादि ( अपि ) दवदहनराशि:, which ( sense ) brings out the contradiction, is always present. In रूपक the sense of अपि has no scope, as contradiction is by no means prominent.

· · ·

३६०

· · ·

[ Sutra 25 ]

स्वभावोक्तिः

· · ·

Stanza 101—This stanza occurs in the third Ucchvāsa of Bāṇa's

· · ·

वक्रीभवनं विततं विस्तारख्य यस्मिन् कम्मणि यथा तथा।

· · ·

स्वभावोक्ति.

· · ·

स्वभावोक्तौ इति केचित् प्रचक्षते । अर्थस्य तदवस्थं स्वभावोक्तिभिहितो यथा ॥ ii. 93

· · ·

स्वभाव by Bhāmaha (ii 93) and Keśavamiśra (अलङ्कारशेखर p. 35) and स्वरूप by the Agnipurāṇa (344.3). Dandin gives it the name जाति in addition. Rudraṭa (vii. 30), Bhoja (iii. 4), Hemacandra (p. 275) and Vāgbhaṭa (वामनालङ्कार iv. 47) style it जाति. Bāṇa mentions जाति prominently in two places viz. introductory stanza 9 of the Kādambarī and stanza 5 of the Harṣacarita.

· · ·

(26) व्याजस्तुति: or Artful Praise

· · ·

उक्ता व्याजस्तुतिः पुनः । निन्दास्तुतिभ्यां वाच्याभ्यां गम्यत्वे स्तुतिनिन्दयोः ॥ 60’ साहित्यदर्पण x

· · ·

व्याजेन व्याजरूपा वा स्तुतिः—

· · ·

two varieties. (1) व्याजेन निन्दामिषेण स्तुतिः व्याजस्तुतिः। तृतीयातपुरुषः

· · ·

(2) व्याजरूपा स्तुतिः व्याजस्तुतिः। शाकपार्थिवादिः: मध्यमपदलोपी वा समासः। अयं च समासः कर्मेधारयात्नभूत एष।

· · ·

The printed editions here read 'व्याजरूपा व्याजेन वा स्तुतिः । ' These explanations break the order of the two varieties mentioned in the Kārikā, the order which is followed in giving the illustrations.

· · ·

It appears to us that व्याजरूपा was placed first instead of व्याजेन owing to the carelessness of some scribe and that Mammaṭa originally wrote 'व्याजेन व्याजरूपा वा स्तुतिः । '

· · ·

This is clear from the fact that the Pradīpa knows 'व्याजेन व्याजरूपा वा' only and not 'व्याजरूपा व्याजेन वा '.

· · ·

That is why we have restored the text against all printed editions.

· · ·

But on the principle of 'स्थितस्य गतिः किन्नेया ' commentators point out that Mammaṭa placed व्याजरूपा first deliberately, because the कर्मेधारय compound occurs to us first and is to be preferred.

· · ·

Read साहिल्यचूडामणि.

· · ·

[ Sutra 102 ]

Stanza 102—This stanza exemplifies the first variety of व्याजस्तुति viz., व्याजेन स्तुतिः i. e. मुखे निन्दा पर्यवसाने तु स्तुतिः.

· · ·

Here a king is charged with being exceedingly indifferent towards Ramā or Wealth. Though she goes to him in a hundred ways and resorts to him, the king abandons her.

· · ·

आश्रितपरित्याग is unworthy of a great man. But the king is guilty of it. Thus, we have apparent censure or dispraise.

· · ·

But this apparent dispraise ultimately leads to praise viz. that the king spends in charity or liberality all the money that comes to him from a hundred sources.

· · ·

Similarly, Ramā is apparently censured as being a most shameless woman in so far as she resorts to the king alone inspite of the repeated humiliation of abandonment that she receives at his hands.

· · ·

But this censure ultimately means praise in so far as it suggests that Ramā chooses for her abode a proper person.

· · ·

Thus, the stanza is an example of व्याजेन स्तुतिः i. e. मुखे निन्दा पर्यवसाने तु स्तुतिः.

· · ·

[ Sutra 103 ]

Stanza 103—This stanza illustrates the second variety of व्याजस्तुतिः viz. व्याजरूपा स्तुतिः i. e. मुखे स्तुतिः पर्यवसाने निन्दा.

· · ·

It is addressed to the ocean. The desert of Marwar (मरु) offers no water to thirsty travellers.

· · ·

Therefore, it incurs infamy. In shouldering the burden of this infamy the ocean offers help to the desert, because the ocean also gives no water.

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 27 ) ]

सहोक्ति:

· · ·

श्वासदण्डा: and indirectly with दिवसनिशाभि: through the force of the sense of सह. दीर्घो:, which is एकार्थाभिधायक i. e. expresses the length belonging to श्वासदण्डा:, thus becomes द्विवाचक i. e. expresses the length belonging to days and nights in addition owing to the force of the sense of सह. That is how we have the figure सहोक्ति in the first line. As दीर्घो: is directly connected with श्वासदण्डा:, the length belonging to them is declared by Mammata to have been expressly stated (शाब्द). But the length belonging to days and nights is not directly expressed, but is understood indirectly through the force of the sense of सह. The second and the fourth lines also contain examples of सहोक्ति, which are to be similarly explained.

· · ·

The following stanza is not an example of सहोक्ति, because there is no अतिशयोक्ति at the basis : 'अनेन साधे विद्धराम्बुराशौस्तीरेषु तालीवन्मर्मरेषु | द्वीप-नतान्तलवङपुष्पैरपाकृतवेदलवा मरुद्भिः ||' रघुवंश 6. 57

· · ·

युक्तं अतिशयोक्तिरेव अत्र चमत्कृत्याधायकत्वेन साहाय्येनैवमात्रत्वात्

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 28 ) ]

विनोक्तिः

· · ·

विनोक्ति occurs in two ways viz. (1) यत्र अन्येन विना अन्यः सन् शोभनः न, किं तु अशोभन एव where a thing is represented as not being good i. e. as being bad or disagreeable without i. e. in the absence of another; and ( 2 ) यत्र अन्येन विना अन्यः इतरः असन् अशोभनः न, किं तु शोभन एव, where a thing is represented as not being otherwise i. e. as not being not-good i. e. as being good or agreeable in the absence of another.

· · ·

यत्र केनचिद् विना कस्यचिद् अशोभनत्वं प्रतिपाद्यते सा एका विनोक्तिः । यत्र केनचिद् शोभनत्वं प्रतिप्राय्यते सा द्वितीया विनोक्तिः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 105— ]

This stanza illustrates the first variety of विनोक्तिः, three examples of which occur herein. First, the moon is represented as being lustre-less (अरुचिः अद्दोसिः from रत्न to shine) without the night.

· · ·

अत्र अन्यः (रशिमः) अन्येन (निशा) विना सन् न, शोभनः न, अशोभनः अरुचिः प्रतिपादितः इति प्रथमा विनोक्तिः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 106— ]

This stanza describes a certain prince who is represented as विचित्र...

· · ·

प्रगल्भः i. e. शोभनः in the absence of a certain woman and once again as अमृत... राज्ञः i. e. शोभनः in the absence of a certain friend.

· · ·

अत्र अन्यः (नरेन्द्रसुतः) अन्येन (मृग लोचनया शुद्धा च ) विना इतरः अशोभनः न किं तु शोभन एव, इति प्रतिपादितः । तेन द्वितीयाया: विनोक्तिः उदाहरणद्वयमेतत् ।

· · ·

विचित्रे वयवहारेपु कार्येपु या प्रतिभा झटितिस्कुरित्ति: तस्याः प्रमया प्रगल्भः दृप्टः ।

· · ·

अमृत्युतिः चन्द्र इव सुन्दरः आशयः अन्तःकरण यस्य.

· · ·

[ Sutra 29 ]

परिवृत्ति:

· · ·

परिवृत्तिरलङ्कार :

· · ·

३६८.

· · ·

receive the glances (हस्मम्) of travellers i. e. from them and give to them in return the mixture (व्यतिकरः) of pang (आधि:), disease (व्याधि:), delusion (श्रमः), weeping (रदितम्) and swoon (मोहः). As this mixture which is given by the creepers to the travellers is inferior, the second half illustrates न्यूनस्य (आधि...व्यतिकरस्) उत्तमेन (दशा) विनिमयः.

· · ·

[ Sutra 108 ]

This stanza describes how a certain king killed his enemies in battle (संग्रहारे = युद्धे) and conquered their lands. Here hostile warriors receive from the king strokes (प्रहारान्), which represent a न्यून वसु, and give to him वसुन्धरा, which is उत्तम. Thus, we have here उत्तमस्य (वसुन्धराया:) न्यूनैन (प्रहारै:) विनिमयः.

· · ·

विनिमय or exchange is the essence of this figure. here is, however, some difference of opinion among rhetoricians as to what exactly constitutes exchange. Ordinarily exchange requires two persons. So विनिमय is स्वकीयेन किश्चित् परस्मै दत्वा तस्मात् परस्मात् तदीयस्य कस्यचिद्दानम्. Though Mammata does not say so definitely, we infer that this is his idea of exchange as gathered from his illustrations. Jagannātha agrees with Mammata. His definition of परिकृति: is quite definite on this point. Read रसगङ्गाधर, p. 481

· · ·

Dandin, Rudrata and Viśveśvara also hold the same view.

· · ·

The opposite view is held by Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa, Vāmana, Bhoja, Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha. According to them mere परिवर्तन or व्यतियय i. e. the giving up of a certain thing and the taking of another is enough to constitute परिकृति. It is not necessary that the thing given away should have been given to some one and the thing received should have been received from that some one. Ruyyaka therefore, says 'विनिमयोग्न किचित्कस्यचिद्दानम्' अलङ्कारसर्वस्व p. 152. Bhāmaha further lays down that परिवर्तन should also be accompanied by अर्थान्तरन्यास. According to these writers परिकृति covers a wider field. As such it will extend not only to those cases which contain a proper exchange and which, therefore, are परिवर्तन according to Mammata, Jagannātha and others, but also to those others where there is a विनिमय as defined by Ruyyaka and where according to Mammata the figure परिवर्तन would not be present. One such case is तस्य न प्रवयसो जटायुष: स्वर्ण: किमिव शोच्यते हि तुच्: । येन जरठकेलेःरवक्य्यात् कीर्तिमिन्दु-किरीणौज्वलं यशः ॥ अलङ्कारसर्वस्व. Here Jaṭāyu exchanges his shattered body for spotless fame. But he is not represented as having given his body to some one and as having received fame from that some one.

· · ·

Therefore, this is not परित्ति according to Mammața and others. But according to Ruyyaka and others it is, because here there is लोनिमय in the sense of किंचित् त्यक्त्वा कस्यचिदानम्.

· · ·

Another point to note in connection with this figure is that the barter or exchange must not be real, though striking, but must have been poetically imagined. Thus, कीणन्ति प्रविकचलोचना: समन्तानुपूाभिवन्दरफलानि यत्र बाला: is not an example of परित्ति, because here the barter is real.

· · ·

[ Sutra 30 ]

भाविकम् or vision

· · ·

भाविक occurs when things past and future are depicted as though present. It has thus two varieties viz. (1) यत्र भूताः: भावाः: प्रत्यक्षा इव क्रियन्ते प्रतिपाद्यते । (2) यत्र भाविनः ( उत्तरकालिकाः ) भावाः प्रत्यक्षा इव क्रियन्ते ।

· · ·

The name भाविक is significant and is explained in four ways according to the sense given to the word भाव viz. (1) भावः कवेरभिप्राय: भूतभाविनमर्थीनां प्रत्यक्षत्वेन प्रतिपादनेच्छा अस्ति अत्र ( मम्मट ). There is in this figure the intention of the poet to depict past and future things as present. This explanation is very tame and is applicable to every other figure. Thus, उपमा may also be designated भाविकम्, because अत्र कवेः भावः अभिप्रायः उपमानोपमेयोः साधर्म्यप्रतिपादनेच्छा अस्ति. (2) भावः कवेरभिप्राय: यत्र वाचके श्रोतरि वा प्रतिबिम्बितः अस्ति.

· · ·

Here the description is so vivid that the intention of the poet is actually reflected in the reader or hearer. Vide प्रतीहारेनदुराज's लघुवृत्ति on उद्दट p. 74. (3) भाव = भावना or continuous meditation, such as is practised in Yoga. Such भाव makes us visualize past and future objects as present in this figure. (4) 'भावाय साक्षात्काराय प्रभवतीति भाविकम्' आशाधरभट्ट. In this figure the reader obtains realization of past and future things as present owing to the vividness of the description.

· · ·

Stanza 109—This stanza illustrates both the varieties of भाविक. In the first half collyrium, which is a matter of the past and in the second a load of ornaments, which belongs to the future, are perceived ( दर्शयन् ) as present. Thus, we have here भूतस्य ( अज्ञानस्य ) भाविनो ( भूषण-संभारस्थ ) च प्रत्यक्षकरणं प्रत्यक्षतया प्रतिपादनम्, अतो भाविकालङ्कारः. The ultimate idea is that the absence of collyrium and ornaments does not in any way lessen the attraction of the girl.

· · ·

It should be noted that भाविक consists in describing past and future things as present. Thus, it is held that if present things are vividly described so as to make them stand before our eyes, the figure

· · ·

अनागतपत्‍रोद्यतलक्ष्यते सितातपत्रैरिव सर्वतो वृतः । अचामरोपेक्ष सदैव वीज्यते विलासवालव्यजनैः कोऽप्ययम् ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra 31 ]

काव्यलिङ्गम्

· · ·

काव्यलिङ्गं हेतुहेतुमद्भाव or कार्यकारणभाव.

· · ·

एतदपदम् युष्मत्सर्पयि...च्छेदिनि

· · ·

५८२

· · ·

हेतु

· · ·

that अर्थान्तरन्यास occurs in those cases only, which are based on सामान्य-विशेषभाव and that all cases of causation should be relegated to either काव्यलिङ्ग or अनुमान.

· · ·

काव्यलिङ्गम् and अर्थान्तरन्यास:

· · ·

Distinction : (1) While the समर्थ्यसमर्थकभाव in काव्यलिङ्ग proceeds from कार्यकारणभाव, that in अर्थान्तरन्यास proceeds from सामान्यविशेषभाव. (2) In काव्यलिङ्ग the two sentences are interdependent and the sense of the one is not properly understood without that of the other. In अर्थान्तरन्यास on the other hand the two sentences are independent and each is complete in sense by itself. (3) In काव्यलिङ्ग a productive cause is understood from the sense of the sentence. In अर्थान्तरन्यास one proposition is used for the purpose of making the other thoroughly understood.

· · ·

[ Sutra (32) ]

पर्यायोक्तम् or Round about Speech or Circumlocution

· · ·

पर्यायोक्तम् is defined as the statement of a certain thing without the relation of वाच्य and वाचक existing between it and the words which convey it. This means that the thing is conveyed by the words, not through the process of अभिधा, which necessitates वाच्यवाचकभाव, but through the process of suggestion ( अवगमनव्यापारेण = व्यञ्जनाव्यापारेण ). This is explained as follows:

· · ·

In पर्यायोक्त there is a certain thing, which is intended to be expressed or conveyed. We may call this परमार्थतो वाच्य. Now in order to express this वाच्य we do not adopt the usual procedure of using words which can express it by means of अभिधा, but resort to a different mode ( भङ्ग्यन्तरम् ), wherein we use other words that apparently mean a different thing. These other words, for the reason that they apparently mean a different thing, convey the परमार्थतो वाच्य, not by means of अभिधा, but by means of व्यञ्जना. The परमार्थतो वाच्य, thus becomes व्यङ्ग्य on

· · ·

व्यङ्ग्यमपि शब्देन उच्यते ( अभिधया प्रतिपाद्यते )

· · ·

इत will thus be seen that in पर्यायोक्त the व्यङ्ग्य and वाच्य are identical, because the व्यङ्ग्य ( परमार्थतो वाच्य ) and वाच्य ( आपाततो वाच्य ) of the actual words used are practically the same. That is why Mammata says ' तेन यदेव उच्यते तदेव व्यङ्ग्यम्.' But Mammata at the same time points out that the व्यङ्ग्य and वाच्य, though thus practically identical, are not exactly of the same form ( यथा तु व्यङ्ग्यं न तथा उच्यते ). For the form of the व्यङ्ग्य is ' ऐरावणशक्रो मदमानसुक्तो जातौ ' and that of the वाच्य is ' मदमानाभ्यामैरावणशक्रमुखहृदयोरिनिवासप्रतिहतिज्जिता '. यथा गवि शुक्ले...विलपयति—We have seen above that the peculiarity of पर्यायोक्त is that व्यङ्ग्य and वाच्य are therein identical. But here one may object; How can one and the same thing be both व्यङ्ग्य and वाच्य ? Mammata answers this objection by adducing an example from the theory of perception held by the Naiyāyika—Vaiśeṣikas and the Bauddhas.

· · ·

The cognition of गो or गोज्ञान is made of two elements viz, गोत्व and गोव्यक्ति. गोत्व is विशेषण and गोव्यक्ति is विशेष्य. गोज्ञान thus represents a विशिष्ट—

· · ·

Therefore, his words 'यथा गवि शुक्के चलति हस्ते गौः शुक्कश्वलति' इति विकल्पः mean यथा गवि गोत्वे तदाश्रये गोव्यक्तौ, शुक्के शुक्कश्वगुणे तदाश्रये गोव्यक्तौ च, चलति चलनक्रियायां तदाश्रये गोव्यक्तौ च, हृश्टे परस्परासंबद्धत्वेन निर्विकल्पकप्रत्यक्षविषयीभूते, 'गौः शुक्कश्वलति' इति विकल्पः गोत्वजाति-शुक्कल्वगुण-चलनक्रियाविशिष्टगोव्यक्तिः इति सविकल्पकप्रत्यक्षं जायते.

· · ·

यदि हृश्टं... तथा -- This sentence explains how दर्शन् (निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष) and विकल्प (सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष) possess the same विषय but in a different form ( न तु यथा हृश्टं तथा ). Explain this sentence as यदेव (याति गोव्यक्तौ-गोत्वशुक्कत्वचलनानि एव) हृश्टं (परस्परासंबद्धत्वेन निर्विकल्पकप्रत्यक्षविषयीभूतानि) तदेव (तानी गोव्यक्तौ-गोत्वशुक्कत्वचलनानि एव) विकल्प्यति (परस्परासंबद्धत्वेन सविकल्पकप्रत्यक्षविषयीकरोति), न तु यथा (परस्परासंबद्धत्वेन) हृश्टं तथा (विकल्प्यति, विकल्पे परस्परासंबद्धत्वात्) तेषां प्रतीतत्वात्).

· · ·

यतो...विकल्प्यति--It was said in the preceding sentence that the विषय of दर्शन् (निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष) and विकल्प (सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष) was the same, but not of the same form ( न तु यथा हृश्टं तथा). This latter statement is being explained in this sentence. This sentence 'यतो...विकल्प्यति' refers to two different views regarding the relation that exists between व्यक्ति and its attributes जाति-गुण-क्रिया.

· · ·

The Naiyāyika-Vaiśeṣikas on the other hand hold that संसर्ग (connection or association) is the relation between व्यक्ति and जाति-गुण-क्रिया. गोव्यक्तिः is the विशेष्य and जाति, गुण and क्रिया are associated with it as its विशेषणs.

· · ·

जातिगुणक्रियाभिः संसर्गः as unconnected with each other i. e. जातिगुणक्रियाभिरसंयुक्तं वस्तु and that of विकल्प is व्यक्ति and (जातिगुणक्रियाभिः) संसर्गः as संयुक्तं वस्तु.

· · ·

३७८

· · ·

पर्यायोक्तम् and ध्वनि:

· · ·

वाच्यार्थ and a व्यङ्ग्यार्थ. In ध्वनि or उत्तम काव्य also there is a वाच्यार्थ and a व्यङ्ग्यार्थ. Hence, the two resemble.

· · ·

Distinction : (1) In पर्यायोक्त though the भङ्ग्यनतर technically possesses two senses, these two are practically one, as the वाच्य represents merely another way of expressing the व्यङ्गच. In ध्वनि the two are distinct.

· · ·

(2) In पर्यायोक्त out of the two senses वाच्य and व्यङ्गच, the वाच्य, which is expressed by the भङ्ग्यनतर, is striking and contains the charm of the figure. The व्यङ्गच is a mere plain statement and has no importance. In ध्वनि on the other hand the charm lies in the व्यङ्गच sense, which subordinates the वाच्य.

· · ·

पर्यायोक्तम् and अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

· · ·

Resemblance : पर्यायोक्त resembles कारणे प्रस्तुते अप्रस्तुतस्य कार्यस्य वचोभिरप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, such as is exemplified in ‘राजन् राजसुता’ (stanza 49). For, in the present example of पर्यायोक्त viz. ‘य इे प्रेश्य चिररुहापि’, one can easily say that what is प्रस्तुत is the fear created in Śakra and Airāvana at Hayagriva's sight and that this fear is suggested to us by describing its effect viz. loss of pride and ichor by Indra and the elephant.

· · ·

Distinction : While in अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा the cause is प्रस्तुत, and the effect अप्रस्तुत, in पर्यायोक्त the effect along with the cause is प्रस्तुत, as it serves to bring out the greatness of the person under description. But the reason why the effect is stated instead of the cause is that special strikingness attaches to the effect, which thus becomes more charming and deserves to be described for its own sake.

· · ·

It will thus be seen that in an अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा of this kind if one argues that the effect is प्रस्तुत, because it is more charming, is worthy of being described and brings out the greatness of the subject under description, the stanza will be an instance of पर्यायोक्त. As a matter of fact Viśvanātha quotes ‘राजन् राजसुता’ as an example of पर्यायोक्त on this very ground.

· · ·

Note ‘न चेदं (पर्यायोक्त) कार्यात् कारणप्रतीतिरुपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा । तत्र कार्यस्य अप्रस्तुतत्वात् । इह तु वर्णनीयस्य प्रभावातिशयबोधकत्वेन कार्यमपि कारणवत् प्रस्तुतम् ।’ साहित्यदर्पण under x. 61 ab.

· · ·

(33) उदात्तम् or the Exalted

· · ·

उदात्त occurs in two ways viz. (1) when there is a description of the prosperity or abundance (सम्पत्) of a certain thing and (2) when the great are subordinated (उपलक्षणम् = अन्तर्भावः: गुणभावः:) to the object which is to be indicated i. e. which is the matter under description.

· · ·

and which hence is principal ( उपलक्षणीये अर्थे उपलक्षणेन प्रदर्शनीयेये वर्णनीयेये

· · ·

The name उदात्त is significant. It is a past passive participle from उद् + आ + दा ददाति-दत्ते and means literally taken up or high, raised, exalted. The figure is so called, because here by the description of the plenty of a thing we ultimately exalt the greatness or by subordinating great men we exalt the greatness of the object under description.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 114 ]

—This stanza describes the wonderful liberality of King Bhoja towards the learned at his court.

· · ·

In this stanza we have a description of the abundance or plenty (मप्त्रत्) of pearls in the houses of the learned. Hence it is an example of the first kind of उदात्त. Here ultimately the greatness of King Bhoja is suggested.

· · ·

In connection with this stanza the Udyota points out that उदात्त here is based on अतिशयोक्ति. For, though there can really be no prosperity of this kind in the houses of the learned under Bhoja, such prosperity is represented as being connected with them. So this is one more example of अतिशयोक्ति being at the basis of other figures.

· · ·

The mention of Bhoja in this stanza is indicative of Mammata’s date. Bhoja’s reign is known to have extended from 1005 A. D. to 1054 A. D. So Mammata must have flourished after 1005 A. D.

· · ·

Mammata paraphrases संगत् of the Kārikā by समृद्धियोग:. This latter would mean (1) connection with abundance or plenty (of an object such as wealth, bravery etc.) i. e. the abundance or plenty of such an object as wealth, bravery etc. वस्तुनः (धनशौर्योॆदे:) समृद्धया (सह) योगः समृद्धधनशौर्यादियोग:. (2) The connection of the plenty (of an object with another thing) वस्तुनः (धनशौर्योॆदे:) समृद्धेः (ग्रहणुप्रवादिना) योगः.

· · ·

The difference between the two interpretations is that according to the first the description of the mere plenty of a certain thing is enough to constitute this figure. But according to the second this is not enough. The plenty must further be shown to be connected with another object. Thus, in ‘मुक्ता: केलिवनसुत्र.’ the fact that the abundance of pearls is described therein constitutes the figure according to the first interpretation. But according to the second the figure consists in describing that the abundance of pearls is connected with the houses of the learned.

· · ·

The first represents the view of the Udyota and the second that of the Pradipa and the Prabhā. The first is to be preferred to the second, because the second unnecessarily brings in a qualification, which to a certain extent limits the scope of the figure.

· · ·

It should, however, be noted that though these two interpretations essentially differ in their way of looking at the stanza, we can easily show that the first will always include the second. Whenever the plenty of a thing is described, it must always be in connection with some other thing. For, it is impossible to give a description of the plenty of an object out of all context and in a perfectly unconnected way.

· · ·

Stanza 115—This is a description of the Daṇḍakā forest, where Rāma, devotedly abiding by the words of Daśaratha, lived and destroyed the demons with the help of his arms. Here Rāma, who is great, is made subordinate to the description of the forest, which is वर्णनीय and प्रस्तुत. Hence, the stanza is an example of the second kind of उदात्त. Ultimately the stanza brings out the greatness of the forest.

· · ·

न चात्र...अङ्गत्वात्—One may here object : This stanza contains the heroic sentiment. उत्साह or energy is the permanent mood ( स्थायी भाव:) from which वीररस arises. Here the energy of Rāma is revealed by his slaughter of the demons merely with the help of his arms. Thus, the heroic sentiment, being here striking, the stanza is an example of ध्वनि or उत्तमकाव्य. How can it be quoted here as an example of a figure i. e. as a चित्र or अवर काव्य ?

· · ·

The answer is that the heroic sentiment is here subordinate (अङ्गत्वात्) to the description of the forest. Hence it cannot determine the nature of the stanza. What Mammata probably means is that though there may be the suggestion of the heroic sentiment here, or though there may be the suggestion of भाव in the form of devotion to Rāma, both these being very subordinate are not intended and are therefore, not to be taken into consideration. Thus, here there is one more case of 'रसादिसु व्यङ्गचर्थोड...अङ्गणयित्वै तद् अलङ्कारा उदाहता:'

· · ·

The words न चात्र वीरो रसः । तथेहाङ्गत्वात् suggest that when a sentiment is subordinate in a stanza, the second kind of उदात्त arises. We have seen before that when a sentiment occupies a subordinate position in a stanza, the figure रस or रसवत् occurs. Mammata does not admit this figure रसवत्. It would thus appear that what others designate as the figure रसवत् would by Mammata be included under

· · ·

३८२

· · ·

TOX

· · ·

[ Page 87

· · ·

the second kind of उदात्त. In that case महत्ताम् in ' महतां चोपलक्षणम् ' must be explained as ' महतां पुरुषाणां रसानां च '.

· · ·

Though it is possible to interpret Mammata's words in this manner and make his second kind of उदात्त wide enough to include the

· · ·

रसवत् of other rhetoricians, we do not think such a meaning is intended.

· · ·

We think by 'अङ्गत्वात्' Mammata means that as the heroic sentiment is subordinate and hence not striking, it is not to be taken into

· · ·

consideration in looking upon this stanza as an example of उदात्त.

· · ·

With reference to the two kinds of उदात्त Mallinātha rightly points out that they are really two different figures of speech and that

· · ·

except the name there is nothing common between them. The first is called उदात्त, because there is in it the description of exalted or

· · ·

abundant prosperity, while the second is so called, because it is connected with the doings of exalted personages.

· · ·

By the way it may be noted that Bhatti ( 10. 51-53 ) and Rudrata ( vii. 103-105 ) designate this figure by the terms उदात्त and

· · ·

अवसर respectively. Hemacandra does not admit it as an independent figure at all. He remarks that it is included in अर्थश्लेषोक्ति, जाति or वृत्ति.

· · ·

उदात्त and स्वभावोक्ति-भाविकम्

· · ·

Resemblance : The first kind of उदात्त resembles स्वभावोक्ति and भाविक because all three contain simple descriptions of things.

· · ·

Distinction : While स्वभावोक्ति and भाविक contain descriptions of things 'as they are, उदात्त consists of an imaginative description of

· · ·

some impossible kind of prosperity. Read ' स्वभावोक्तौ भाविके च यथावदस्तु-

· · ·

वर्णनम् । तद्विपरीतस्त्वेन आरोपितवस्तुत्वात् उदात्तस्य अवसरः । तत्र असंभाव्यमानविभूतीयुक्तस्य

· · ·

वस्तुनो वर्णने कविभ्रतिमोक्त्यातिपितमैश्वर्यलक्षणमुदात्तम् ' अलङ्कारसर्वस्व pp. 183-184.

· · ·

[ Sutra 34 ]

समुचयः or Conjunction

· · ·

समुचय occurs where one cause sufficient for the accomplishment or production of a certain effect, which is relevant (तत्स्विद्धेतौ तस्य प्रस्तुतस्य

· · ·

कार्यस्य सिद्धौ: हेतौ साधके कारणे सिथते सति इत्यर्थः), being present, another capable of producing the same effect (तत्करे तत्स्य कार्यस्य साधक-

· · ·

मन्यते कारणम् ) is also present. There is a certain result which is intended to be produced. One cause capable of producing that result

· · ·

exists. But simultaneously with it other causes, also capable of producing the same result, are mentioned. When this happens, समुचय arises.

· · ·

समुचय thus consists in the simultaneous operation of many causes, each of which is severally capable of producing the intended result.

· · ·

अन्यत् तत्करम्

· · ·

The name समुच्चय is significant.

· · ·

अत्र उपात्तम्

· · ·

एष एव...लक्ष्यते

· · ·

combined with one bad thing viz. खल:. According to the second interpretation सदसद्योग arises when there is a combination of things, which are both good and bad, good in one aspect or intrinsically and bad in another or owing to some extraneous circumstance. Thus, in the present stanza the first six things viz. शशी, कामिनी etc. are good in themselves, but become bad when they grow दिवसदूषर, मलिन्यौषन etc.

· · ·

The first is the view of the Pradīpa, the second that of the Udyota and the Prabhā. Mammata does not say definitely which view he holds as regards how सदसद्योग

arises in the case of the third variety of समुच्चय.

· · ·

Ruyyaka favours the interpretation, which involves कर्मधारय. Viśvanātha merely states both the views without definitely preferring the one to the other. But his inclinations seem to lie towards the second view. Vide साहित्यदर्पण under x. 85.

· · ·

To us the second view appears preferable for the following reasons: (1) The mere stringing together of things, good and bad, possesses no charm. On the contrary it involves the poetical defect called सहरचरभिन्नता or diversity of companions. (2) The last line, which speaks of all the seven objects as darts i. e. poignant afflictions of the mind, shows that the interpretation with the द्वन्द्व compound is not intended. For, if शशी, कामिनी etc. are good and खल is bad, how can they all be declared as mental darts? The last line thus shows that शशी etc. cannot be regarded as good. Hence, the interpretation with the द्वन्द्व compound must be rejected. (3) As Viśvanātha points out the charm of सदसद्योगे समुच्चय: lies in the special strikingness that paleness, loss of youth etc., which overtake the otherwise desirable moon, passionate woman etc. and render them unacceptable, are extremely improper. This charm is brought out only by the interpretation with the कर्मधारय compound.

· · ·

If the second interpretation with कर्मधारय is accepted the following difficulty arises: In the stanza ‘दुवीरा: स्मरमार्गण:' o ' we find that प्रियतम:, even like शशी, is really good, but becomes bad on account of being away. The two examples would thus appear to be on a par and would illustrate either असयोग or सदसद्योग.

· · ·

The answer is that the two examples can be easily distinguished as follows: (1) What is intended to be conveyed in ‘दुवीरा: स्मरमार्गण:' is that certain things, ( whether in themselves good or bad, that is not material for the purpose in hand, ) become bad in the case of a

· · ·

का. ३५

· · ·

समुच्चयः and काव्यलिङ्गम्

· · ·

अन्यः समुच्चयः or Another or Second Conjunction

· · ·

गुणक्रिया:

· · ·

धुनोति चासि' ... इति च न वाच्यम्

· · ·

is 'दैवादहमत्र तया चपलायतनेत्रया वियुक्तलक्ष्म्। अविरलविलोलेन्दुलजालैः कालः समुपागतस्वायाम्॥'

· · ·

Against this Mammata points out that this kind of समुच्चय is found both in व्यधिकरण i. e. when the qualities and actions belong to different abodes and in एकदेश or समानाधिकरण i. e. when the qualities and actions belong to the same abode.

· · ·

On the other hand in 'कृपाणपाणिः...सुरालये' which illustrates गुणयोगपदार्थः समुच्चयः, the two qualities कृपाणपाणित् and सुरालये are व्यधिकरण i. e. belong to different abodes viz. भवान् and सुराः respectively.

· · ·

Mammata's words 'व्यधिकरणे इति' are, as will be seen from above, directed against Rudrata.

· · ·

समुच्चयः and कारकदीपकम्

· · ·

Distinction : (1) While in समुच्चय the actions are depicted as simultaneous, in कारकदीपक they are successive.

· · ·

( 35 ) पर्यायः or Succession

· · ·

It occurs when one thing ( a ) is in many places in succession, or ( b ) is made to be in many places in succession.

· · ·

The name पर्याय is significant.

· · ·

भवति and क्रियते—The difference between these two cases is that in भवति external causal agency is not mentioned while in क्रियते such external causal agency is mentioned. They do not mean natural existence and artificial existence respectively.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 122— ]

This stanza is भट्टनायक 4. It tells us how the deadly poison Kālakūṭa successively came to occupy different places, each better than the other. प्रथमं हृदये, ततः कण्ठे, ततो वाचि (मुखे) इति उत्तरत्तरं पदस्य विशिष्टत्वम्. Here as Kālakūṭa is described as occupying three different places successively and no causal agency is mentioned, the stanza is an example of एक क्रमेण अनेकस्मिन् भवति इत्याकारक: पर्याय:.

· · ·

It may here be noted that पर्याय in this stanza is based on भेदोऽपि अभेदरूपा अतिशयोक्ति:. For, the कालकूट, which was extracted from the heart of the ocean and which remains in the throat of Śiva, is different from the कालकूट, ( evil-producing capacity ) which is found in the speech of the wicked.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 123— ]

This is an example of the same sub-division. Here राग (redness; love) is described as successively occupying two places viz. बिम्बोष्ठ and हृदय. No causal agency is mentioned. Hence the stanza is an example of ‘एकमनेकस्मिन् भवति’—रूप: पर्याय:.

· · ·

रागस्य...अविरुद्धम्—The first sub-division requires ‘एकमनेकस्मिन् भवति. But in ‘बिम्बोष्ठ एव०’, not one, but two things viz. redness and love are depicted as occupying two different places. How can this then be an example of ‘एकमनकस्मिन् भवति’? Mammata's answer to this is that though राग with its two senses is really different, it is definitely ascertained (अध्यवसित) as one owing to paronomasia (श्लेष:). Hence there is nothing contradictory if we look upon it as one. This means underlying पर्याय in this stanza there is श्लेषमूलका भेदोऽपि अभेदरूपा अतिशयोक्ति:.

· · ·

Note that बिम्बोष्ठ itself would be an example of वाचकलक्ष्या उपमा, the common property being supplied by राग:.

· · ·

The essence of पर्याय lies in one thing successively occupying many places. This naturally means that when a thing goes to a second place, its connection with the first comes to an end. From this point of view ‘बिम्बोष्ठ एव०’ would not be a proper example of पर्याय. For, when राग (love) goes to हृदय, its connection with बिम्बोष्ठ does not end. When love springs in the heart of the tender girl, her lip does not cease to be red. Even नन्वाश्रयासिद्धि०’ is not free from this defect. For, though the connection of कालकूट with अर्णवहृदय comes to an end, when it goes to नृपलक्ष्मकण्ठ, its connection with the throat of Śiva does not

· · ·

श्रोणीवन्यस्त्यजति ततुरतां सेवते मध्यमाभः पदस्यां युक्तास्तररगमतयः संस्थितिः लोचनाभ्याम्। धत्ते वक्रोक्तिचर्वितमद्वितीयां च वक्रोक्तित्राणां गुणविनिमयः कल्पितो यौवनन ॥

· · ·

The Prakrit सिरिसहोअरअणाहारणम्मि is also translated as श्रीसहोदररत्न-

· · ·

It must be pointed out that this stanza is also not a happy illustration of एकमनेकस्मिन् क्रियते.

· · ·

अन्य: पर्योय: or Another or Second Succession

· · ·

[ Sutra 125 ]

Stanza 125—This stanza tells us how the words of the wicked at first reveal ample nectar i. e. appear very charming and agreeable, but then manifest deadly poison i. e. prove disastrous in the end.

· · ·

[ Sutra 126 ]

Stanza 126 — This stanza is quoted from आनन्दवर्धन's ध्वन्यालोक pp. 158—159.

· · ·

३९७

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

been connected with the Brāhmaṇa by days. Hence, it is an example of 'अनेकस्मिन्नेकस्मन् क्रियते'—रूपः पर्यायः.

· · ·

अनेकस्मिन्नेकस्मन्—We have seen that the second kind of पर्याय consists in many things residing in succession in many places. But there is some ambiguity about the exact connotation of the word अनेकम्. Two explanations are possible. Thus 'अनेकस्मिन्नेकस्मन्' may mean that more than one thing successively reside in one place, though it does not matter if the place is at one time occupied by one entity only. Thus, in stanza 125 nectar and poison, which together are अनेक reside successively in one place viz. खलवचसू. Here we find that at any one time only one entity viz. either nectar or poison occupies the abode. A similar example is 'अधुना पुलिनं तत्र यत्न श्रोतः पुराजनि' चन्द्रालोक p. 121.

· · ·

Another explanation of अनेकम् is that the entities, which successively occupy the same place should not only be many, when taken together, but should also be many in themselves when occupying that place i. e. at one time the abode should be occupied by more than one entity. An example according to this explanation is विचरन्ति विलासिन्यो यत्र श्रोणिमरालसः। वृककाकादिवसतनं धावन्र्यरिपुरे. तव ॥ साहियदर्पण. In this illustration the entities that occupy the a bode (अरिपुर and राजपथ) at each successive period of time are many viz. women and wolves, crows and jackals, and women and jackals.

· · ·

अत्र एकस्यैव ... न परिदृत्ति:—This sentence is meant to distinguish पर्याय from परिदृत्ति. It is capable of yielding, and is intended to yield, two senses according as एकस्य is taken as कर्तरि षष्ठी or कर्मणि षष्ठी. The former interpretation would distinguish the first kind of पर्याय from परिदृत्ति and the latter the second.

· · ·

In the first kind of पर्याय (एक कर्मणि अनेकस्मिन्) though one and the same thing (viz. कालकूट) is abandoned (हानम्) by one (viz. अर्णव) and is accepted (उपादान) by another viz. ग्रहलक्षणम् i. e. though there is एककर्मक (but मितकर्मक) हान and उपादान, the party abandoning (viz. अर्णव) does not receive anything in return and the party receiving (viz. ग्रहलक्षण) does not abandon anything in exchange for the thing received i. e. there is no एककर्मक (but मितकर्मक) हान and उपादान. For परिदृत्ति both एककर्मक (but मितकर्मक) हानोपादान and एककर्मक (but मितकर्मक) हानोपादान are necessary. But as explained above, in the first kind of पर्याय there is only एककर्मक हानोपादान. Hence, it is not परिदृत्ति.

· · ·

For this interpretation एकस्य must be taken as कर्तरि षष्ठी. The sentence can then be translated as follows : Here (i. e. in the first

· · ·

kind of पर्याय. where ( एकं कमेण अनेकस्मिन् भवति क्रियते वा ) as the abandonment ( of one thing ) and the receipt ( of another ) by one and the same agent are not intended, there is no परित्रित्ति.

· · ·

Now in the second kind of पर्याय (अनेक कमेण एकस्मिन्) though one and the same individual (viz. द्विज) abandons one thing viz. ( गेह ) and accepts another (viz. मन्दिर) i. e. though there is एककर्मक ( but मिश्रकर्मक ) हानोपादान, the thing abandoned (viz. गेह) is not taken by any other person and the thing received (viz. मन्दिर) is not received from any one i. e. there is no एककर्मक (but मिश्रकर्मक) हानोपादान. For परित्रित्ति both एककर्मक हानोपादान and एककर्मक हानोपादान are necessary, But as in the second kind of पर्याय there is only एककर्मक हानोपादान, it is not परित्रित्ति.

· · ·

For this interpretation एकस्य must be taken as कर्मणि षष्ठी. The sentence can then be rendered as follows : Here (i. e. in the second kind of पर्याय, where अनेक कमेण एकस्मिन् भवति क्रियते वा) as the abandonment (by one person) and the receipt (by another) of one and the same thing are not intended, there is no परित्रित्ति.

· · ·

All this may again be explained as follows : (1) एककर्मक (but मिश्रकर्मक) हानोपादाने i. e. आमोद is abandoned by creepers and received by the wind.

· · ·

(2) एककर्मक (but मिश्रकर्मक) हानोपादाने i. e. the creepers abandon आमोद and receive लास्य or the wind abandons लास्य and receives आमोद.

· · ·

(1) एककर्मक (but मिश्रकर्मक) हानोपादाने i. e. कालकूट is abandoned by अनङ्गहदय and received by वृषलक्ष्मणकण्ठ.

· · ·

(2) एककर्मक (but मिश्रकर्मक) हानोपादाने i. e. the द्विज (अनेकमेकस्मिन्) abandons गेह and receives मन्दिर.

· · ·

Both these are necessary for परित्रित्ति. Vide stanza 107.

· · ·

First पर्याय (एकमनेकस्मिन्) contains only this and not (2)

· · ·

Second पर्याय (अनेकमेकस्मिन्) contains only this and not (1).

· · ·

The ancient rhetoricians भामह, दण्डिन्, उद्भट and वामन do not define पर्याय. रुद्रट is the first rhetorician who admits it. Vide his काव्यालङ्कार vii. 42–46

· · ·

Resemblance : The two varieties of पर्याय, where one thing successively resides in two places (stanza 123) and where many things

· · ·

धर्मिणि ( हेतुमत्स्वरूपधर्मवति पक्षे पर्वतादौ ) अयोगव्यवच्छेद: ( न योग: अयोगसंबन्धभाव: तस्य व्यवच्छेद: : व्यावृत्ति: नाम योग: सम्बन्ध: इत्येव । अशोगव्यवच्छेद इत्यस्य सम्बन्धाभावो वा योग: इत्यर्थ: । ) ‘त्रो नवाह: प्रकृतार्थ सर्विशेष योक्तव्य:' इत्थं न्यायेन निश्चितान् निबन्धान् वा योगान् इत्यर्थ: ।

· · ·

३९६ कारिकाप्रकाशः

· · ·

indicate उत्प्रेक्षा। It is, therefore, pointed out that when साध्य and साधन are present in a stanza, these words convey अनुमान। When these words are used on account of similarity, they reveal उत्प्रेक्षा। When again the inference is indicated by words like वक्ति and कथयति, अनुमान is लध्या And when the inference is suggested by the साध्य and साधन without the use of any of these words, अनुमान is प्रतीमान।

· · ·

[ Sutra 127 ]

Stanza 127—This stanza describes the power of women’s fascinating glances. Wherever they cast their glances, there invariably fall vital-cutting arrows. From this it is inferred that Cupid, with a ready bow and obedient to their command, runs in front of them। Here the first half contains the statement of the साधन and the second that of the conclusion drawn from it. Therefore, the stanza is an example of the figure अनुमान।

· · ·

साध्यसाधनयो: न तथा दर्शितम्—The regular order (पौर्वापर्यम्) of साध्य—साधन is that a साधन is mentioned first and then a conclusion is drawn therefrom. This order is followed in stanza 127. But it is not necessary that this order be always adhered to in अनुमानालङ्कार। Thus in ‘मधु तिष्ठति वाचि योषितां हृदि हालाहलमेव केवलम्। अत एव निपीयते डहृरौ हृदयं मुष्णिभिरेव तादृशते।’ (शृङ्गारतक), the conclusion is stated first in the first half and the reason is mentioned afterwards in the second half. So this stanza is an illustration of अनुमान, where there is an inversion (विकल्प: = विपर्यय: वैपरीत्य वा) of the regular order of साध्य-साधन।

· · ·

Mammata says he has not indicated a second variety of अनुमान, based on साध्यसाधनयोः पौर्वापर्य—विकल्पः, because there is in such variety no charm whatsoever.

· · ·

This remark of Mammata is evidently meant against Rudrata, who holds अनुमान to be of two kinds according as the natural order of साधनं and साध्य is followed or reversed. Read काव्यालङ्कार vii. 56

· · ·

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not admit अनुमानालङ्कार। Rudrata is the first to define it.

· · ·

Resemblance : The presence of both these figures is indicated by words like मन्ये, शङ्के etc. and वक्ति, कथयति etc.

· · ·

Distinction : (1) In उत्प्रेक्षा there is no certainty of knowledge. It represents a mere probability, as it is based on उत्कटकटकोटिक: संशय:। In अनुमान the conclusion arrived at is certain, because it is deduced from a poetically sound reason. (2) उत्प्रेक्षा is based on साधर्म्ये or similarity. The two things brought into juxta-position by words like मन्ये etc. stand to each other in the relation of उपमेय and उपमान। In अनुमान the basis is हेतुहेतुमद्भाव।

· · ·

अनुमानम् and काव्यलिङ्गम्

· · ·

Distinction : (1) While in अनुमान the reason is a ज्ञापक हेतु or an informative cause, in काव्यलिङ्ग is a कारकहेतु or a productive cause. (2) In अनुमान the stanza is so worded that the poet or the speaker himself draws the conclusion and thus makes the relation of साधन and साध्य between the two statements clear. In काव्यलिङ्ग the poet merely states the facts and leaves the inference to the reader who has thus to determine the relation of साधन and साध्य. Read रसगङ्गाधर p. 469

· · ·

[ Sutra (37) ]

परिकरः or the Significant

· · ·

The name परिकर is significant. It is explained in two ways. (1) परिकरः means a retinue. Attendants occupy a subordinate position. This figure is so called, because here the suggested sense is subordinate to, and serves to embellish, the expressed sense. (2) परिकर means decoration or embellishment. Here the suggested sense embellishes the expressed sense. Hence, the figure is called परिकर.

· · ·

Stanza 128—This stanza is भारवि's किरातार्जुनीय 1. 19. It describes the warriors (धनुर्धृतः धनुर्धारिणो भटा: योद्धारः) who desired to serve Duryodhana even with their lives. For this purpose six adjectives are used and they are all significant. Thus, the figure परिकर is developed.

· · ·

माहौजस: इत्येन पराकृतमभिभवं ते न कदापि सहिष्यन्ते इति व्यज्यते। मानधना इत्यनेन न ते अर्थस्य दासाः; न धनार्थमेव सेवां कुर्वन्ति इति ध्वन्यते। धनाचिताः इत्यनेन तेषां संतोष: अभिव्यज्यते। संयति लघुकीर्त्तीयः इत्यनेन तेषां युद्धज्ञानं केवलं तात्त्विकं, किंतु प्रत्यक्षयुद्धे लघुजयास्ते इति सूच्यते। न संहता इत्यस्य स्वार्थसाधनाय तने मिलिता इत्यर्थः। एतैव तेषां नि:स्वार्थता उपन्यास्यते । न मेदवृतय: इत्यनेन कंस्मिश्चित् अपि कार्ये तेषां सदैव ऐकमत्यं स्यादिति संसूच्यते ।

· · ·

यथा...गणितः—This passage is intended to answer the following objection : It is a general rule that adjectives should be पुष्टार्थ or such as nourish, or are useful to, the main purpose. If an adjective does not possess this characteristic, it gives rise to a poetical defect called

· · ·

अपुष्टार्थत्व.

· · ·

न चैवापह्नुति:...इहासंभावात्

· · ·

अत्र पुलकवैपथ्य....प्रयोज्यते

· · ·

that Śiva's love for Pārvati is the basis of व्याजोक्ति here. This love can be regarded as previously concealed, because Śiva did not want it to be thus made public. It was then somehow divulged against his desire through horripilation and tremor. Then Śiva tried to conceal it again by referring these indications thereof to the coolness of the Mountain's hands. This Vṛtti is, therefore, another example of Mammata's careless writing.

· · ·

व्याजोक्तिः and अपह्नुति:

· · ·

Resemblance : In both there is concealment of a thing and establishment of another in its place. Thus, in अपह्नुति (नेदं मुखं किंतु चन्द्रः) the face is concealed and the moon is established in its place. Similarly we may say that here there is a concealment of रति and establishment of शैल्य as the cause of horripilation and tremor.

· · ·

Distinction: (1) अपह्नुति is based on similarity between the object concealed and the object established in its place the two stand to each other in the relation of उपमेय and उपमान. But as Mammata points out above, in व्याजोक्ति no such similarity is possible. For, while 'नेदं मुखं किंतु चन्द्र:' ultimately gives us the idea of the extreme resemblance of the face to the moon, the stanza 'शैलेन्द्र...' does not purport to establish similarity between रति and शैल्य. (2) While in अपह्नुति the two objects represent उपमेय and उपमान, thus making the one प्रस्तुत and the other अप्रस्तुत, in व्याजोक्ति both are equally प्रस्तुत. Thus, in 'शैलेन्द्र...' both रति and शैल्य are प्रस्तुत, as both are present on the occasion (3) In अपह्नुति the thing concealed is directly mentioned by the person concealing it, as in 'नेदं मुखम्'. But in व्याजोक्ति the individual seeking to conceal a thing does not mention it himself. It is left for the reader to imagine. Thus, in 'शैलेन्द्र...' Śiva merely refers to शैल्य. But the reference is made in such a way that we easily guess the thing he seeks to hide viz. his love for Pārvati. (4) In अपह्नुति the उपमेय is denied and the उपमान established in its place. In व्याजोक्ति nothing is denied, but something is represented as being due to cause other than the real one.

· · ·

The उद्योत points out that निगूहनम्, occurring in the definition of व्याजोक्ति, means any action on the part of the person concealing and not merely speech as the name व्याज-उक्ति may perhaps suggest.

· · ·

Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Udbhata do not define this figure. Vāmana is the first writer who does so. He further tells us that some call it मायोक्ति ( यां मायोक्तिरित्याहुः' under का. सू. 4. 3. 25 ). Who these some are cannot be known. Jagannātha also does not treat of व्याजोक्ति.

· · ·

का. २६

· · ·

example of अपूर्वविधि: (अपूर्वस्य पूर्वज्ञातस्य विधि:) or विधि:.

· · ·

नियमविधि: ( injunction of restriction ) or नियम: ( restriction )

· · ·

नियम is 'समे देशे यजेत'

· · ·

'समे देशे यजेत' is therefore, a नियमविधि or नियम.

· · ·

It will be seen from the above that नियम works when a wrong alternative, or an alternative other than the one which it wants to lay down, is chosen.

· · ·

But when the proper alternative is chosen नियम does not work, but remains indifferent.

· · ·

The distinction between विधि and नियम may be thus stated : Both विधि and नियम enjoin things, which are अप्राप्त.

· · ·

But while विधि enjoins a matter, which is अत्यन्तमप्राप्त or प्रमाणान्तरेण अप्राप्त (not known from any other source), नियम lays down a matter, which is only पक्षे अप्राप्त (not accruing in the alternative i. e. when we proceed to do the thing by choosing the improper alternative ).

· · ·

Secondly, विधि represents an injunction, pure and simple, of a matter not known from any other source.

· · ·

नियम on the other hand asks us to perform a thing, already known from another source, in some special manner.

· · ·

Thirdly, विधि performs a single function viz., enjoining a thing, unknown before.

· · ·

But नियम performs two really, because it restricts us to one of the many alternatives and excludes the others.

· · ·

परिसंख्याविधि: ( injunction of exclusion ) or परिसंख्या ( exclusion ) is that injunction, which excludes one of the two alternatives that have become simultaneously available or possible and thus either allows us to adopt the other, which is not excluded, or enjoins us to resort to the other.

· · ·

The standard example of परिसंख्याविधि or परिसंख्या is 'पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्या:' (Five five-nailed animals should be eaten ).

· · ·

When we feel hungry, we can satisfy our hunger by both पञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण and अपञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण or पञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण and अपञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण are, therefore, युगपत्प्राप्त or simultaneously possible.

· · ·

Under these circumstances what the परिसंख्या in 'पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्या:' does is to exclude अपञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण.

· · ·

This means पञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण is allowed.

· · ·

other similar things. The things which are excluded are not stated, but are suggested. Hence, the stanza is an example of प्रश्नपूर्विका प्रतीममानव्यपो-व्यामाना परिसंख्या.

· · ·

[ Sutra 131 ]

Stanza 131—In this stanza also statements of well known things are preceded by questions, but the things excluded viz. रत्नम्, दोष: and नेत्रम् are वाच्य or expressed. Hence, it is an example of प्रश्नपूर्विका वाच्यार्थपोव्यामाना परिसंख्या.

· · ·

[ Sutra 132 ]

Stanza 132— This stanza is ऋट्ट vii. 81. Here certain well known facts are stated and these statements lead to the exclusion of similar things. But the statements are not preceded by questions and the things excluded are not expressed, but suggested. Hence, the stanza is an illustration of अप्रश्नपूर्विका प्रतीमानव्यपोव्यामाना परिसंख्या.

· · ·

It will be noticed that परिसंख्या in this stanza is based on श्लेष. Thus, there is शब्दश्लेष in राग: and अर्थश्लेष in कौटिल्यम्, कौटिन्यम् and तरलत्वम्.

· · ·

[ Sutra 133 ]

Stanza 133—This stanza contains statements of certain well known things, which lead to the exclusion of other similar things.

· · ·

४०द्

· · ·

viz. विभवः, युवतिरामृद्रम् and बपुष् are expressed. Therefore, the stanza is an example of अप्रश्नपूर्विका वाच्यव्यपोहमाना परिसंख्या.

· · ·

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Danḍin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not mention परिसंख्या. Rudraṭa is the first rhetorician to define it.

· · ·

Page 96

· · ·

[ Sutra 40 ]

कारणमाला

· · ·

or Garland of Causes

· · ·

When each preceding object becomes successively the cause of each succeeding one, the figure कारणमाला arises. यथोत्तरम् is explained as उत्तरोत्तरम् प्रति. This means that यथा in यथोत्तरम् has the sense of बीज or repetition.

· · ·

The name कारणमाला is significant, because in this figure there is a series of inter-connected causes. But it should be noted that माला here does not possess the sense that it has in मालोपमा or मालारूपक. माला here is equal to रजना or शृंखला and signifies inter-connection.

· · ·

Stanza 134—This stanza states that जितेन्द्रियत्व is the cause of विनय, विनय the cause of गुणप्रकर्ष, गुणप्रकर्ष the cause of जनानुराग and जनानुराग the cause of संपद्. Thus, as each preceding thing is declared to be the cause of each succeeding, the figure कारणमाला is developed here.

· · ·

This stanza is found fault with on the ground that it contains a defect called भग्नप्रक्रमत्व. The poet begins with the statement that जितेन्द्रियत्व is the कारण of विनय. The expectancy created after this is ‘What is the कारण of जितेन्द्रियत्व ?’, or ‘Of what is विनय the कारण ?’ Though the latter expectancy is satisfied by ‘गुणप्रकर्षो विनयाद् जायते’, it is not directly satisfied, but only indirectly. If the poet had said in the next clause ‘विनयो गुणप्रकर्षस्य कारणम्’ and further ‘गुणप्रकर्षो जनानुरागस्य

· · ·

कारणम्' and 'जनानुराग: संपदां कारणम् '

· · ·

Hence, Jagannātha points out that if in this figure we begin with the statement that something is the cause of another thing, then we must continue the same form and proceed to speak of that another things being the cause of something else and so on. If on the other hand we begin with the statement that something is the effect of another thing, then we must continue in the same strain and say that that another thing is the effect of something else. Only in this way strikingness is secured. Otherwise, भमप्रकत्व would result. Read रसगङाधर p. 462.

· · ·

Jagannātha further points out that the repetition of the same word is not a fault in this figure. On the contrary if a synonym be used to convey its sense, it becomes difficult to recognize that sense even as it is difficult to make out an actor in another dress. Therefore, if we employ two different words to convey a sense, that would give rise to a fault. Read रसगङाधर p. 862

· · ·

We have seen that कारणमाला occurs when each preceding thing is stated to be the cause of each succeeding. But Jayaratha ( विमर्शिनी on the अलङ्कारसर्वस्व p. 141 ), Jagannātha, Appaya Dīkṣita ( कुवलयानन्द p. 117 and Nāgeśa maintain that कारणमाला is also developed when each succeeding thing becomes the cause of each preceding.

· · ·

None of the ancient rhetoricians viz. Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin Udbhaṭa and Vāmana mention कारणमाला. Rudraṭa is the first rhetorician to define it.

· · ·

'हेतुमता सह:...वैचित्र्यभावात्'—Mammaṭa is here criticizing Rudraṭa, who admits हेतु as an अलङ्कार and remarks that it is distinct from other figures of speech. Read 'हेतुमता सह हेतोरमिघानमभेदकृत् भवेत्यत्र । सोऽलङ्कारो हेतुः स्वादन्येभ्यः पृथग्मूतः ।। काव्यालङ्कार vii. 82. From this it is clear that Mammaṭa's words 'हेतुमता सह हेतोरमिघानमभेदतो हेतुः:' are taken from Rudraṭa. The figure हेतु arises when the cause is mentioned as being identical with the effect ( हेतुमता = कार्यण ). Rudraṭa gives our stanza 135 as an example of हेतु ( काव्यालङ्कार vii. 83 ). Here we have a description of the spring. The spring is really the cause of the full bloom of lotuses, or of the bloom of densely-growing lotuses. But here the bloom, which is the effect ( हेतुमत् ), is represented as being identical ( अभेदेन ) with the spring, which is the cause ( हेतुः ). Hence

· · ·

बोधयम्। ' उयोत p. 113. To understand the reference in प्रागुक्तरीत्या see the उयोत p. 58.

· · ·

The word सामान्यसिद्धः shows that the opinion mentioned is held by some ancient revered writers. But who these writers are is not known. माणिक्यचन्द्र says they are भामहोद्भटौः and the सन्ध्यायप्रकाशिनो comments 'उद्भटादयः सामान्यसिद्धः.' This also is inaccurate, because the stanza 'अविरलकमल०' and the view that it is a काव्य are found neither in Bhāmaha nor in Udbhata. Secondly, it is interesting to note that according to these ancient revered writers काव्यत्व consists in the mere possessing of a figure either of sense or of word. That is why while denying the presence of हेतु in this stanza, Mammata says that it contains अनुप्रास.

· · ·

Again with reference to this figure हेतु, which Mammata refuses to recognize, conflicting opinions are held among rhetoricians. Thus, while Bhāmaha says that हेतु is not an अलङ्कारा, Daṇḍin declares that it is an excellent figure of speech. Udbhata and Vāmana do not mention हेतु at all. As noted above Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define हेतु. It is also admitted by विश्वनाथ.

· · ·

कारणमाला and मालादीपकम्

· · ·

Distinction : (1) While in कारणमाला each preceding object is the cause of each succeeding, in मालादीपक each preceding object merely qualifies each succeeding. While कारणमाला is based on कार्यकारणभाव मालादीपक is founded on विशेष्यविशेषणभाव (2) The charm in कारणमाला lies in just this relation of causation between each preceding object and each succeeding. The charm in मालादीपक on the other hand

· · ·

४१०

· · ·

consists in each preceding object making each succeeding more pro-minent by its connection.

· · ·

Page 97

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 41 ) ]

अन्योन्यम्

· · ·

When two things mutually create each other by means of an identical action, that is the figure अन्योन्य. Mutual creation of two things by means of one action means that each creates in the other the same action and thus distinguishes it.

· · ·

'The essentials of अन्योन्य are : (1) Two things mutually influence each other. (2) The action, which is the instrument of this mutual influence, is the same. Thus, as नमिसाधु ( on रुदट's काव्यालङ्कार vii. 91 ) points out ' सिंह: प्रसन्नवधीत् सिंहो जाम्बवता हत:' is not an example of अन्योन्य and ' कृष्णद्वैपायन: पार्थ: सिष्ये च शिष्यवत् तत: । असाध्वयपयेत् तं तु विद्यां योगसमन्विताम् ।। ' is also not अन्योन्य.

· · ·

The name अन्योन्यम् of the figure is obviously significant.

· · ·

Stanza 136—This stanza just tells us that the beauty of the swans and the lakes is mutually enhanced by them. Thus, here there is mutual influence by means of an identical action viz. heightening the beauty ( शृङ्गारकरणम् ). Hence, it is an example of अन्योन्यम्. सारयति is passive from सारयति, which is a denominative from सार, and means उत्कृष्ट कियते. गरयति = गुरुं कुर्वन्ति.

· · ·

अत्र उभयेशामापि...

· · ·

—द्वारेण—This sentence points out how the figure अन्योन्य arises in this stanza. Here mutual creation takes place, because ( द्वारेण ) the swans and the lakes mutually accomplish ( संपादनम् ) the enhancement ( सारता ) of the beauty of each other.

· · ·

It has been stated above that the instrument of mutual influence in अन्योन्य must be an identical action. Jagannātha and Nāgeśa maintain that अन्योन्य also arises when such an instrument is a गुण.

· · ·

Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not define this figure. Rudrata is the earliest writer to define it.

· · ·

[ Sutra ( 42 ) ]

उत्तरम्

· · ·

The figure उत्तर occurs (1) when on merely hearing an answer the question is inferred ; or (2) when there being many questions there are many answers which are impossible i. e. which ordinarily do not occur to one. Thus, उत्तर is of two kinds.

· · ·

It should be noted that according to the Kārikā the first kind of उत्तर occurs when from an answer a question is inferred. But the Vṛtti

· · ·

नापीदमवुमानम् । एकधर्मनिश्चितया साध्यसाधनयोर्निर्देशात्

· · ·

mention i. e. the non-mention of both साध्य and साधन must be regarded as the point of distinction between उत्तर and अनुमान. If Mammata had intended the first explanation he would have said 'साध्यसाधनयोरेकधर्मिनिष्ठ-त्वाभावात'

· · ·

In our translation of the text एकधर्मिनिष्ठता has been left untranslated. Translation according to the second explanation should, therefore, be inserted in the proper place there.

· · ·

[ Sutra 138 ]

Stanza 138—In this stanza there are four questions and four answers. The answers are such as would not ordinarily occur to one. Thus, the first question is 'का विषमा'. A B. A. student, understanding विषमा in the sense of 'difficult', would be tempted to reply 'वा. डि. परीक्षा'. But the answer here given is 'दैवगति:' or course of destiny, which is विषमा in the sense of 'uneven or rugged.' This answer is असंभाव्य in the sense of 'not likely to be easily thought of.' The same is the case with the three other replies. Hence, the stanza is an example of the second kind of उत्तर.

· · ·

काव्यप्रकाशः

· · ·

the vicinity of other rivers; but in ‘का विषमा दैवगतिः’ the sentence is complete with the unexpected answer दैवगतिः and there is no further suggestion.

· · ·

We have seen above that the second kind of उत्तर arises when to many questions there are many unexpected answers. The Udyota points out that उत्तर of this kind occurs in three other cases viz. (1) When to one question there are many answers (’प्रश्नस्य सकृदपदाने उत्तरस्य अनेकत्वेऽपि अयमलङ्कारः’) e. g. किं स्वोपधिसुखं वन्हिसुखपुऱयणं वन्ते: सवं गौरी (v. l. अनेकत्वेऽपि) । सौराज्यशुभदृष्टि: (i. e. सौराज्यमदुर्भिक्षं) सक्काव्यरसामृतस्वादु (i. e. सक्कोऽव्य-रसामृतस्वाद्)। The readings in brackets represent the variants as found in रुद्रटस्य काव्यालङ्कार vii. 95, from where the Udyota has apparently taken this stanza. (2) When the questions and the answers are represented by the same words (’एवं प्रशनोत्तरयोरभिन्नवैशेष्येऽपि अयम्’) e. g. के दारपोषणरता: का शीतलवहिनि गङ्गा । के संजघान कृष्ण: के बलवन्ने न बाधते शोतम्॥ अत्र केदारपोषणरता: (क्षेत्रपालनतत्परा:), काशीतलवहिनि, कसम्, कम् बलवन्नतम्, इति चत्वारि उत्तराणि । (3) When there is one answer for two questions (’एवं प्रश्नद्वयैकत्तरत्वेऽपि’) e. g. के खेटा: किं वयः. Here वयः (birds, plural of वि:, and youth) represents the answer to both the questions viz. ‘Who are the wanderers in sky (’खे आकाशोऽटन्ते ते खेटा: )?’ and ‘What is fickle?’

· · ·

Mammata has definitely stated that for the second kind of उत्तर many questions and answers are necessary. For only when there are many such questions and answers, the requisite charm is developed. But Jagannātha, holds that if the question or the answer or both are significant, it is not necessary that there should be many questions and many answers. Read रसगङ्गाधर pp. 520 and 522. An example where both the question and the answer are significant is ‘किमिति कुशासि कुशोदरी किं तब परकीयवृत्तान्तै: । कथय तथापि मुहेँ मम कथायियति याहि पान्थ त्वक् जाया ॥’ For the significance of the question and the answer in this stanza see रसगङ्गाधर p. 520

· · ·

Jayaratha (p. 172) and Jagannātha (p. 521) notice another form of उत्तर, which consists of a series of questions and answers wherein the answer to the first question gives rise to a second, the answer to which produces a third and so on.

· · ·

We may say that such stanzas fall under Mammata’s second kind of उत्तर, because here the answers are such as not likely to be thought of. They, however, possess additional charm in this that the second and subsequent questions arise out of the answers to the first and the subsequent ones.

· · ·

उत्तरम् ( First kind ) and काव्यलिङ्गम्

· · ·

उत्तरम् ( First kind ) and अनुमानम्

· · ·

उत्तरम् (Second kind ) and परिसंख्या ( First kind ).

· · ·

( 43 ) सूक्ष्मम् or the Subtle

· · ·

Stanza 139—A certain nāyikā acted the man during nocturnal love-sport.

· · ·

Page 100

· · ·

Stanza 140—This stanza is quoted from the वन्यालोक p. 103.

· · ·

Bhāmaha ( ii. 86 ) says that सूक्ष्म is not an Alañkāra. Dan̥din̥

· · ·

( ii. 235 ) declares that it is an excellent figure. Udbhata and Vāmana

· · ·

do not mention सूक्ष्म at all. Rudrata ( vii, 98 ) defines सूक्ष्म, but its

· · ·

nature is quite different from that of the सूक्ष्म of Mammata and others.

· · ·

Vidyānātha ( एकावली viii 68 ), Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha, Vidyadhara

· · ·

( प्रतापरुद्रीय p. 465 ), Vāgbhaṭa ( काव्यानुशासन p. 43 ) and Appaya Dīkṣita

· · ·

( कुवलयानन्द p. 155 ) all have this figure. But Jagannātha does not

· · ·

treat of it.

· · ·

One may note that in सूक्ष्म, अनुमान अलङ्कार is present but it occupies

· · ·

a subordinate position and is not striking.

· · ·

( 44 ) सार: or Climax

· · ·

When excellence rises by successive stages ( उत्तरोत्तरम् उत्तरे यथा तथा )

· · ·

till it reaches the end or culminating point ( अवधि: ) in the last part

· · ·

( पर:=पर्यन्तभाग: ) of a stanza or a prose passage, that is the figure सार or

· · ·

Climax. पर्यावधि: means परं पर्यन्तभाग: सन्निकर्ष: पदस्य गवास्य वा अवधि: सीमा

· · ·

यस्य. धाराधिरोहितया represents the paraphrase of उत्तरोत्तरम् and means in

· · ·

the manner of the rising of the stream of a river ( धारा नदीप्रवाह: तद्वद्

· · ·

अधिरोहिता अधिरोहणं तया ) i. e. by successive stages, every succeeding stage

· · ·

representing a higher degree of that excellence, तत्+एव=परिसमनं पर्यन्तभागे

· · ·

एव. In the last part excellence reaches its highest point and rests

· · ·

i. e. can rise no higher.

· · ·

सार means excellence and the figure is significantly so called.

· · ·

Stanza 141—This stanza is Rudraṭa's Kāvyālin̥kāra vii. 97.

· · ·

Here each succeeding object is described as excelling each preceding

· · ·

and the limit of excellence is reached in the excellent woman, than

· · ·

whom there is nothing better. Hence, the stanza is an illustration of

· · ·

सार. अत्र पूर्वपूर्ववस्तुसंविपेक्षया उत्तरोरतरवस्तुन: उत्कृष्टत्वम् चरमस्य वस्तुन: वराङ्गनारूपस्य

· · ·

सर्वोत्तमत्वम् तस्याश्रयत्वं विश्राम्यति इति सारालङ्कारस्योदाहरणमिदम्

· · ·

Jagannātha says that सार is of two kinds according as उत्कर्ष

· · ·

( excellence, superiority ) or अपकर्ष ( deterioration, inferiority ) is

· · ·

represented as rising by successive stages. Mammata apparently has

· · ·

in view only the first variety, which is illustrated by our stanza 141.

· · ·

Jagannātha further states that सार has once again two varieties

· · ·

according as it refers to one object or to many objects. The first

· · ·

variety occurs when one and the same object is represented as

· · ·

rising in excellence by successive stages according as it goes through

· · ·

different conditions. An example of this variety is ' जम्बीराश्रयमेघललड्ड्य

· · ·

लीलयैव व्यनक्तीकृतकमनोयहेमकुम्भो । नीलाम्भोरहनेन कुचौ ते स्पर्धंते खलु कनकाचलन

· · ·

का. २७

· · ·

सार्थेम् ॥'

· · ·

[ Sutra 45 ]

असंगति

· · ·

When two properties, which have become effect and cause i. e. which are related to each other as effect and cause, are represented (व्याति:=कथनम् प्रतिपादनम्) as simultaneously residing in two totally (अत्यन्तम्) different places, that constitutes the figure असंगति.

· · ·

We have seen above that असंगति arises when the cause and the effect, which are ordinarily found in one place, are represented as residing in different. But where a cause and an effect are of such a nature that they have of necessity to be in different places, असंगति is not developed.

· · ·

इह यदेष... असंगति:-

· · ·

तयो: स्वभावोत्पत्तिपरस्परसंगातिल्यागात्

· · ·

मेदेडपि अमेदः

· · ·

एषा च विरोधवाधिनी

· · ·

विरोधे तु ... पर्यवसितम्

· · ·

मम्मट continues to add that though this particular form of contradiction was not mentioned while defining the figure विरोध, it follows as a matter of course from the definition.

· · ·

अपवादविषय ... व्यवस्थितः

· · ·

तथा चैवं निदर्शितम्

· · ·

४२२

· · ·

Distinction : (1) In विभावना the effect is represented as arising even in the absence of its well-known cause. In असंगति both the cause and the effect exist, not in one place as expected, but in different places. (2) The charm in विभावना lies in the rise of the result without its well-known cause; while the charm in असंगति consists in the cause and the effect being represented as residing in different places.

· · ·

असंगति: and विशेषोक्ति:

· · ·

Resemblance : Both contain an apparent contradiction, which can be removed.

· · ·

Distinction: (1) In विशेषोक्ति though the cause is present, the effect is described as not arising. In असंगति both the cause and the effect exist, not in one place as expected, but in different. (2) The charm in विशेषोक्ति lies in the non-rise of the effect, though its well known cause exists. The charm in असंगति on the other hand consists in the वैधीकरण्य of the cause and the effect.

· · ·

The ancient

rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not mention this figure. Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it.

· · ·

Page 102

· · ·

[ Sutra 46 ]

समाधि: or Facilitation

· · ·

When a certain work becomes easy of accomplishment owing to the association of another cause, the figure समाधि occurs. A person has commenced to do a certain work. He is helped therein by another means, which has become accidentally available. The result is that person now accomplishes his task without trouble i. e. with ease. This leads to समाधि.

· · ·

The name समाधि is significant. It is so called, because here there is 'excellent accomplishment of a work, the excellence lying in the ease with which it is accomplished. (स सम्यक् समीचीन: अङ्केश: अनायास:) आधि: (आधानं करणं कार्यस्य उत्पादकं) यत्र.

· · ·

Stanza 143.—This is काव्यादर्श ii. 299. A lover was about to fall at the feet of his beloved in order to remove her pride. Just then a cloud thundered in the sky. This frightened the lady who apparently gave up her pride and threw herself in her lover's arms. Thus, the घनगर्जित, which arrived accidentally, helped the lover and made his work easy. Hence, the stanza is an example of समाधि.

· · ·

मानमस्या:—In Sanskrit erotic poetry मान has a special sense, which is thus explained : 'श्रीणामप्यीकृतः कोपो मानो मानोद्यतेऽपि प्रिये ।'

· · ·

Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa, Vāmana and Rudraṭa do not mention समाधि as an Alamkāra. It is found in Dandin (ii. 298), who designates it as an Alamkāra. Mammaṭa's illustration is drawn from Dandin, as we have pointed out above.

· · ·

समाधि: and समुच्चय:

· · ·

Resemblance : In both there are more caes than one operating to bring about a result.

· · ·

Distinction: (1) In समुच्चय all the causes begin to operate simultaneously. In समाधि when one cause has already commenced working, another comes in by chance afterwards, but not simultaneously with the first. Thus, it is said that in समुच्चय causes arrive according to खलेखोटन्याय, while in समाधि a second cause comes in by ककतालीयन्याय. (2) In समुच्चय inspite of many causes, each capable of bringing about the result and operating simultaneously, there is no speciality about the result. In समाधि on the other hand the other cause, which begins to operate later and by chance, distinctly makes the accomplishment of the purpose in hand easy. (3) In समुच्चय all the causes that operate to bring about the result are considered to be principal or equally important. In समाधि one cause is principal and the other is subordinate. Thus in stanza 143 पादपतन is principal cause and घनगर्जित subordinate.

· · ·

[ Sutra 47 ]

समम् or the Equal

· · ·

When a union (योग: =संबन्ध: मेलनं) between two things or persons is regarded as appropriate (योग्यता अनुरूपता उपलक्षितः इत्यर्थ: ), that is the figure समम्.

· · ·

When we are sure that the union between two things, which are under description, is appropriate, the figure सम is developed. This union may be between two good things or between two bad things. Thus, सम has two varieties.

· · ·

सम means equal or appropriate. As the idea of the appropriateness of the union between things is prominent in this figure, it is called सम.

· · ·

[ Sutra 144 ]

धातु: रष्ट: बहुण: शिल्पं निर्माणकौशलं तस्य अतिशयस्य उत्कर्षस्य निकष-स्थाने परीक्षाभूमि: निकष: means the touch-stone or whet-stone on which gold is tested with regard to its quality. निकष: then secondarily means test or examination, in which sense it occurs here. The idea is that the deer-eyed girl represents the place where the creator's skill in producing lovely forms is tested and found to be excellent. This means the girl is exceedingly beautiful.

· · ·

स्मरस्य स्मराय दतं पत्त्र प्रहासापात्र येन स:-

· · ·

४२५

· · ·

In the matter of beauty the king has given a testimonial to Cupid. This means he is more beautiful than Love. रुग्णारस्य० The idea in the last line is : Now that union between these two most beautiful persons has taken place, love will have unlimited scope in their relation.

· · ·

In this stanza we have the description of the appropriate union between two good things viz. रुगाक्षी and देव. Hence, it is an example of सद्योगे समालंकारः:

· · ·

Page 103

· · ·

Stanza 145—परिणतानां पक्वानां फलानां स्कृति: ( from स्कीयू स्कायते to grow large, to swell ) संपद् प्रभूयातनि परिणतनि फलानि इत्यर्थे:. In this stanza the union between the bitter Nimba fruit and a crowd of crows is represented as being appropriate. Both these entities are wretched. Therefore, the stanza is an example, of असद्योगे समः.

· · ·

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhaṭa Vāmana and Rudraṭa do not mention this figure. Mammaṭa is apparently the first rhetorician to define सम.

· · ·

समम् and समुचयः

· · ·

Resemblance : Both contain सद्योग and असद्योग. Besides it is likely that an example of समुचय such as ‘उमा वधूर्भवान् दाता०’ (p. 598 above) may be regarded as containing सम, because the union of उमा and शंषु, which is referred to therein, is appropriate.

· · ·

Distinction : While in समुचय there is a combination of good or bad causes that bring about a certain result, in सम there is the union of good and bad things, which do not stand in the category of causes and this union itself is further declared to be appropriate.

· · ·

( 48 ) विषमः or the Unequal

· · ·

The figure विषम has four varieties viz. ( 1 ) where union ( संश्लेष: = योगः संवन्ध:) between things would not take place owing to their extreme dissimilarity or incongruity i. e. where owing to extreme dissimilarity the union between two things is apprehended as improper ( अनुपपद्यमान-तया = अनौचित्यतया विशेषः: इत्यर्थ: ). ( 2 ) Where not only is there no accomplishment of the fruit of his action by an agent, but a calamity occurs in addition i. e. where a person, proceeding to accomplish a certain purpose, not only does not obtain what fruit he desires owing to the failure ( प्रणाशात् = वैफल्यात्.) of his efforts ( क्रियाथा: प्रयत्नानामित्यर्थ: ), but also incurs a calamity, which he had not bargained for or expected.

· · ·

( 3 ) and ( 4 ) where the quality and action of a cause are mutually opposed to the quality and action respectively of the effect inspite of the fact that an effect resembles the form of the cause. विषम is thus of four forms, being essentially the opposite or reverse of the figure सम.

· · ·

Page 104

· · ·

सत्यापि ... अनुकारे — This line refers to what is known as कारणगुणप्रक्रमन्याय or the maxim of the transference or reproduction of the qualities i, e. the characteristics consisting of both qualities proper and actions of the cause in the effect. 'The general rule is that whatever characteristics are possessed by the cause are reproduced in the effect. When this rule is violated, poetically of course, the third and the fourth varieties of विषम arise. The rule is generally referred to as 'कारणगुणान् आरभन्ते'.

· · ·

It should here be noted that the opposition or contradiction between the quality of the cause and that of the effect, which is necessary for the third kind of विषम, must be poetical or due to the poet's genius. Where such opposition exists in nature, the figure विषम does not arise.

· · ·

Stanza 146 — शिरीष is regarded as the most delicate of Sanskrit flowers. कुकुलानां तुषानां ( chaff, husks ) अमिरिव कर्केशः दुःखदायकः. The fire of chaff is supposed to burn intensely, though not quite so visibly. In this stanza the union or association between the exceedly delicate girl and the intensely painful fire of love is described as being very inappropriate. The utter inappropriateness of union between the two is brought out by the use of the two कrs. Hence, this is an example of the first kind of विषम.

· · ·

The essence of the first kind of विषम lies in inappropriateness of association. But it must be noted that this inappropriate association must be the result of poetic representation and not a matter of fact in nature.

· · ·

Stanza 147—The spot on the moon is often regarded as a hare. Compare the names शशी, शशाङ्क:, शशलाञ्छनः etc. for the moon. The word सिंहिकासुतः is paronomastic and means ( 1 ) the son of a lioness ( सिंहीपुत्रः ) and ( 2 ) the demon Rāhu, the name of whose mother was सिंहिका. A hare was once frightened by the cub of a lioness in the forest. Therefore, it resorted to the moon. But there it was swallowed by Rāhu, who was another सिंहिकासुत, along with. his support viz. the moon. Here not only did the hare not succeed in achieving his object

· · ·

४२६

· · ·

viz. escape from सिंहिकासुत, but suffered an additional calamity viz. being swallowed along with its support. Therefore, this stanza is an example of the second kind of विषम.

· · ·

According to Appaya Dīkṣita and Jagannātha Mammata's second kind of विषम has at least three important divisions viz. (i) When there is both the frustration of the desired object and the befalling of a calamity. (ii) When there is merely the failure in attaining the desired object. (iii) When there is simply the befalling of a calamity.

· · ·

Jagannātha further points out that इष्ट in this division is fourfold and आनिष्ट three-fold. Thus, still more sub-divisions become possible.

· · ·

Stanza 148 — This stanza is पद्मगुप्त's नवसाहसाङ्कचरित 1. 62. It tells us how in every battle the king's sword, dark in colour, brings him victory, which is white like the autumnal moon and adorns the three worlds. Here there is opposition between the qualities नील and पाण्डु, which belong respectively to the cause viz. the sword and the effect- viz. fame. Hence, this stanza is an example of the third kind of विषम

· · ·

Stanza 149 — This is रुय्यक's काव्यालङ्कार vx. 47. It is an example of विषम where the action of the cause is opposed to the action of the effect. Here the cause is the girl of blue eyes. The action connected with her is आनन्ददान. The effect produced by the girl is विरह, because she apparently went away and thus created separation. The action connected with the effect विरह is शरीरताप.

· · ·

The first kind of विषम consists in the inappropriateness or incongruity of union or association between two things owing to their utter dissimilarity. Now such inappropriate association may exist

· · ·

विषमः (तृतीयश्रुतिरश्रेष्ठ) and विरोधः—असंगतिः

· · ·

( 49 ) अधिकम् or Exceeding

· · ·

तयोर्महत्तोरपि विषये तदपेक्षया—This means तयोर्महत्तोरपि अपेक्षया.

· · ·

Stanza 151—This stanza is काव्यादर्श ii. 129 and is an example of आश्रयस्य आश्रितादधिक्यरूपमधिकम्.

· · ·

Stanza 152—This is माघ’ s शिशुपालवध 1. 23 and describes the great joy which Kṛṣṇa felt at the arrival of Nārada.

· · ·

४२०

· · ·

अधिकम् and विषमः ( प्रथमः )

· · ·

अधिकम् and विरोधः

· · ·

in scope and stands for an exception. (2) The charm in विरोध lies in the सामानाधिकरण्य of usually व्यधिकरण things, while the charm in अधिक consists in the आधिक्य of the आश्रय or the आश्रयिन्

· · ·

(50) प्रत्यनीकम् or Rivalry

· · ·

When some one, who is unable directly to retaliate against or throw aside an enemy, though intent on doing injury (न्यक्कृतिपरमपि = अपकारप्रवृत्तमपि, अपकारिणमपि इत्यर्थः), does harm (तिरस्क्रिया = तिरस्करणम् = अपकारसंपादनम्) to some one who belongs to (तदीय ), or is dependent on (तदाश्रित ), him, such action resulting in the enemy's praise or exaltation only; that is called the figure प्रत्यनीक,

· · ·

तत् अनीकप्रतिनिधितुल्यत्वात्... इत्यर्थः

· · ·

This passage explains the significance of the name प्रत्यनीक as given to this figure. प्रतिनिधि means a deputy or a representative. अनीकः-कम means an army. प्रत्यनीकम् अनीकस्य प्रतिनिधि: thus signifies a representative of the army. As the dependent who is depicted as harmed, in this figure resembles a representative of an army (अनीकप्रतिनिधितुल्यत्वात् तिरस्कृतस्य आश्रितस्य इत्यर्थः), the figure is called प्रत्यनीकम्. As some one instead of attacking an army attacks through foolishness someone who is a representative thereof, so here when the opponent is to be conquered, some one else belonging to him is conquered. That is how the phenomenon in this figure resembles an attack on an army's representative.

· · ·

तत्स्तुत्यै तमेव प्रतिपक्षमुक्कर्षयितुम्

· · ·

These expressions offer fresh evidence of Mammaṭa's careless and inaccurate writing. The expressions as they stand mean that the weak man injures the enemy's relative with a view to praise him i. e. the enemy or to exalt his greatness. This is the sense which the dative and the infinitive yield. But this sense is not correct. The weak man entertains no such intention in trying to do harm to a relative of his opponent. His action results in, or conduces to the glorification of the enemy's greatness in so far as it shows that he is powerless to do anything to the enemy and that is why he turns his attentions to a relative of his. Viśvanātha's definition brings out this idea correctly. It is 'प्रतनीकमशक्तेन प्रतिकारो रिपोर्द्दि'

· · ·

86 तदीयस्य तिरस्कारस्तस्यैवोक्तर्षणसाधकः ।...87 साहित्यदर्पणख

· · ·

Stanza 153 — This stanza is addressed to a young man by a friend of his beloved. The youth has conquered Cupid (मनोभवः) in point of beauty. He is Cupid's enemy, therefore. But cupid is unable to do any harm to him. Consequently, Cupid torments the girl, as though in hatred, with all his five arrows discharged

· · ·

४३२

· · ·

simultaneously. The girl is तदीय or तदाश्रित, because she is his beloved. All this only serves to bring out the young man's greatness in so far as it shows that he is vastly superior to Cupid in point of beauty. That is how the figure प्रत्यनीक is developed here. The ultimate suggestion in the stanza is that while the girl is pining for the youth, the youth is apparently unaffected.

· · ·

The relative, whom weak man injures in प्रत्यनीक, is connected with the opponent either directly or indirectly. Note 'तदीयत्वं च साक्षात्संबन्धेन परंपरासंबन्धेन चैति द्विविधमेतत् ।' प्रदीप। The above stanza is an example where तदीयत्व arises from साक्षात्संबन्ध, because the girl is directly connected with the youth as his beloved. Mammata quotes the next stanza to illustrate परंपरासंबन्धेन तदीयत्वम् ।

· · ·

Page 107

· · ·

Stanza 154 - This is माघ's शिशुपालवध 14.78. It contains panegyric of कृष्ण by भीष्म। Viṣṇu or Krṣṇa in his incarnation as मोहिनी deprived Rāhu of his body by chopping off his head with his Sudarśana cakra. From that time Rāhu entertained hostility towards him ( काय-निग्रहेण शरीरेणो ग्रुद्धीत: अद्यापि कृत: विप्रह: बैरं विरोधो च येन )। But Rāhu is unable to do anything to Viṣṇu or Krṣṇa. The moon resembles Krṣṇa's lovely face ( कान्ति कमनीयां सुन्तरां यद् वक्त्रं बदनम् अर्थात्, कृष्णस्य तेन सदृशी तुल्या आकृतिरस्ति यस्य तमि-न्दुम् )। The moon is thus indirectly connected with Krṣṇa and is परंपरा-संबन्धेन तदीय:। Rāhu, therefore, harasses him by eclipse. This only serves to heighten Krṣṇa's greatness in so far as it clearly demonstrates Rāhu's utter helplessness before him. That is how प्रत्यनीक is developed here.

· · ·

इन्दौ तद तदीयता संबन्धियसुखसंबन्ध्यात् - This clause explains how the moon is तदीय of Krṣṇa. The moon is connected with Krṣṇa's face owing to similarity with it. The face is of course कृष्णसंबन्धि, because it belongs to him. Thus, the moon becomes तदीय of Krṣṇa through his face, which is really तदीय। This means the moon is परंपरासंबन्धेन तदीय:

· · ·

Jagannātha maintains that प्रत्यनीक does not deserve to rank as an independent figure, because its purpose is served by हेतूद्रेक्षा। At best it can be regarded as a variety of हेतूद्रेक्षा। Thus, in stanza 153 हेतूद्रेक्षा is directly expressed by इव in 'अनुरागादिव'। In stanza 154 also there is गम्या हेतूद्रेक्षा, because the sense is that Rāhu torments the moon as though owing to enduring hostility. Against this the Udyota points out that प्रत्यनीक possesses a special charm consisting of the representation that someone, unable to retaliate against his proper

· · ·

तत्राद्य एतस्य दर्शयितुम्=तस्मिन् मदोदये आपे एतस्योत्तरलतादिकस्य स्वाभाविकस्य

· · ·

मीलितम् and व्याजोक्ति:

· · ·

मीलितम् and अपह्नुति:

· · ·

( 52 ) एकावली or Necklace.

· · ·

ग्रह्माणि instead of पुराणि.

· · ·

अत्र प्रयमपदे पूर्वं जले प्रति परं पद्मजं विशेषणतया अपोहितम्, एवं पद्मज प्रति युक्तितम्, गुजितं प्रति मनोहारिलयम्. इति कमेण पूर्वं प्रति परं परं विशेषणतया अपोहितमिति एकावली: द्वितीयप्रकारस्यैवेदमुदाहरणम्.

· · ·

विधीयते is a paraphrase of स्थाप्यते.

· · ·

According to Mammaṭa's definition एकावली occurs when each succeeding thing is represented as a qualification ( विशेषणम् ) of each preceding.

· · ·

४६८

· · ·

एकावली and कारणमाला

· · ·

[ Sutra (53) स्मरणम् or Reminiscence. ]

When an object, which has been experienced or perceived before as defined by, or possessed of a certain form, is recollected exactly as it was experienced before ( यथानुभूतम्-पूर्‍वानुभवमनतिक्रम्य यथा तथा ) at the sight of a similar object, that is the figure स्मरण or Reminiscence.

· · ·

सादृश्यानुभवाद् वस्तुस्मृतिः स्मरणमुच्यते ।। 27

· · ·

[ Sutra 159 ]

ये नाभयः तेषां कुहरेषु विलेपु निम्नाः गभीरा: इति रुतः ध्वनिः कुहररुतम् ।

· · ·

स्मृतिदृश्यकारणं अस्मिन् जन्मनि अनुभूतस्य अर्थस्य, पूर्वस्मिन् जन्मनि अनुभूतस्य अर्थस्य च ।

· · ·

[ Sutra 54 ]

प्रान्तिमान्

· · ·

अन्यसमचित-अन्येन अनुवेधेऽप्रकरणिकत्वेन उपमानवेल्लं इत्यर्थः, संशयत्वं निश्शयत्वं विल ज्ञानम् अर्थात् प्रकारणिकस्य उपमेयस्य अन्यसवित् thus means definite comprehension of the upameya as identical with the upamāna. तदुल्यदर्शने-तत्र अग्रकरणिकेन उपमानेन तुल्यं सदृशं यत् प्राकरणिकम् उपमेयं तस्य दर्शने at the sight of an object viz. the upameya which is similar to that viz. the upamāna.

· · ·

भ्रान्तिमान् and रूपकम्-प्रथमातिशयोक्तिः न चैव...प्रतिपत्तिवात्

· · ·

तत्र = रूपके प्रथमातिशयोक्तौ च

· · ·

इह च = भ्रान्तिमति अलङ्कारे अर्थानुगमनेन ( अर्थानुसारेण अन्वर्थतया इत्यर्थः ) संज्ञाया: प्रवृत्ते ( प्रवृत्तत्वात् उपयुक्तत्वात् )

· · ·

श्रान्तिमान् and स्मरणम्

· · ·

श्रान्तिमान् and मोहितम्

· · ·

प्रतीपम्

· · ·

तिरस्कारानिबन्धनम् is in apposition with उपमेयता. 'उपमानस्य तिरस्कारनिबन्धनमुपमेयता' means the condition of being an upameya, which is imagined for the upamāna, is or becomes the cause of its censure. An upamāna by the very fact of its being the standard of comparison, is acknowledged to be superior to the upameya. When, however, it is turned into an upameya and the former upameya is raised to the dignity of an upamāna, censure for the former upamāna is naturally conveyed. The reading तिरस्कारानिबन्धना ( तिरस्कार:, अर्थात् उपमानस्य, निबन्धनं कारणं यस्या: ) also conveys the same. It means the उपमेयता of the उपमान is caused by the censure in which the particular person holds it. क: अर्थ: प्रक्षेपणमस्य इति किमर्थ:, किमर्थस्य भाव: कैमर्थ्यं वैषम्यं किस्रप्रक्षेपणता निप्रप्रक्षेपणता इत्यर्थ:.

· · ·

उपमेयस्य उपमानप्रतिकलवर्तिीलावत्—This expression is intended to explain the significance of the title प्रतीप as applied to this figure. प्रतिपम् means literally 'against the waters or the current ( प्रतिगता: प्रतिकूला: वा आप: यस्मिन् )', then, 'against' generally and is formed according to 'धनन्तरुपसर्गेऽप्येत्' पा. 4. 3. 97. As the upameya is against or opposed to the upamāna in this figure in so far as it itself usurps the position of the upamāna, the figure is known by the term प्रतिप.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 162 ]

— This stanza describes the extraordinary loveliness, valour, liberality and capacity to support the earth of a certain king. The first half refers to his possession of these qualities. And the second half expresses the poet's wonder as to why the moon, the sun ( पूषा ), the desire-yielding jewel and the Kula-mountains, which are well known respectively as standards of comparison in the matter of the four qualities mentioned in the first half, are created by the Creator, when the king has already been brought into existence. This means that when the king is there, these four standards of comparison are useless. Thus, their condemnation (आक्षेप:) is conveyed by representing their uselessness. Hence, the stanza is an illustration of the first variety of प्रतिप.

· · ·

कुलक्ष्माभ्रत: = कुलपर्वता:. कुलपर्वत is a term, applied to seven great mountains, which, according to the geography of the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas, exist each in one of the seven great divisions of the world. Read 'महेन्द्रो मलय: सह्य: शुक्तिमानक्ष्मानापि | विन्यस्कृ परियात्रक्ष संसैते कुलपर्वता: ॥' महाभारत भीष्मपर्व 9. 11. कुल means inter alia जनपद (the abode or settlement of people, inhabited part of the country) and

· · ·

कुलपर्वत must have originally signified the mountain which existed in the habited part of the globe as opposed to the unhabited or desert.

· · ·

It will be noticed that in stanza 162 the figure यथासंख्य also exists. But it does not contribute to the charm in the stanza. Hence, the stanza is quoted as an illustration of प्रतीप.

· · ·

The second kind of प्रतीप consists in उपमानस्य तिरस्कारनिधानोपमेयताकल्पनम्.

· · ·

Stanza 163—Here the moon, which is being compared ( उपमीयमान ) with the face, is represented as possessing inferior or less ( स्वल्पतर ) qualities. Hence the comparison of the moon with the face cannot be established or effected ( उपमिते: शशिन: मुखेन उपमाया: अनिष्पत्तिः असिद्धिः ). that is why an attempt to institute such a comparison is dubbed वचनोयम् or scandal, which ( term ) reveals the censure of the उपमाना-moon. Thus, this stanza illustrates the second variety of प्रतीप.

· · ·

Stanza 164—This stanza exemplifies the second kind of प्रतीप, where an actually effected ( निष्पन्ना एव सिद्धा एव ) comparison becomes the cause of the censure of a well known उपमाना.

· · ·

अनन्ये रीत्या...प्रतिपाद्यम्

· · ·

प्रतीपम् and व्यतिरेक:

· · ·

Distinction : (1) While in प्रतिप the उपमेयाधिक्य is conveyed by declaring the uselessness of the upamāna in the presence of the upameya. or by turning the upamāna into upameya, in व्यतिरेक it is brought out by pointing out a point of superiority of the upameya, or a point of inferiority of the upamāna or both. (2) While in व्यतिरेक in addition to साधर्म्य, वैधर्म्य is also intended, in प्रतिप only साधर्म्य is meant.

· · ·

[ Sutra 56 ]

समान्यम् or the Common

· · ·

When an object under description i. e. a relevant object or an upameya (प्रस्तुत) is represented as being identical with, or undistinguishable from another viz. an object not under description i. e. an irrelevant object or an upamāna (एकात्म्यम् ऐकक्यं भिन्नत्वेन अभासमानत्वम् ) with a view to stating the similarity of their qualities, that is known as सामान्य. The essentials of this figure are : (1) Two objects, which are possessed of a similar quality, are seen. (2) There is a desire to express that the common property possessed by both is of exactly the same power or intensity. (3) This desire is carried out by representing that though the two objects are within sight, they cannot be distinguished from each other. From this the suggestion is that the common property, which has rendered them undistinguishable, is of equal intensity.

· · ·

एकात्म्यम्—We do not think Mammata's use of this term is quite felicitous. एकात्म्यम् means identity or essential unity. But this is not the idea intended in this figure. The idea here intended is undistinguishableness or that the two things are undistinguishable. 'भेदेन पृथक्त्वेन वा अप्रहणम् ' is the main idea in this figure and it is not well conveyed by एकात्म्यम्. That is why we do not think the term एकात्म्यम् is apt. अपरिल्यक्तनिजगुणमेव—What this adjective means is that when the प्रस्तुत वस्तु is represented as undistinguishable from the अप्रस्तुत it is not because it has given up its proper quality and assumed that of the अप्रस्तुत. The expression is really intended to distinguish सामान्य from तद्गुण ( p. 116 ) तदेकात्मकतया = अप्रस्तुतार्थोभिन्नतया-निबध्यते = प्रतिपाद्यते.

· · ·

समानगुणनिबन्धनात् सामान्यम्—These words explain the significance of the title सामान्य given to this figure. समानगुण: निबन्धनं प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतार्थ्योरभिन्न-

· · ·

तथा प्रतिपादनस्य कारणे यस्मिन् तत् समानगुणानिबन्धनं तस्मात् समानगुणनिबन्धनत्वादित्यर्थः । भावप्रधानो निर्देशः ।

· · ·

Stanza 166—This stanza occurs in कामन's काव्यालंकारसूत्र under 4.3.10 as an example of अत्युक्त्येक्ति ।

· · ·

The two are represented as undistinguisable in order to bring out the idea of their equally powerful white lustre.

· · ·

For अभिसारिका ' कान्तार्धिनी तु या याति संकेते सारिकाभिसारिका । 'अमरः ; ' अभिसारयन्ति कान्तं या मन्त्रमथवशङ्गवदा । स्वयञ्चाभिसरयेत्येधरैरेक्तामिसारिका ॥ ' साहित्यदर्पण iii. 76; अत्र...उपलक्षणम् ।

· · ·

Stanza 167 — Damsels, whose complexion was similar to the bark of bamboos i.e. exceedingly fair, had placed Campaka flowers, which are also white in colour, on their ears, from where they protruded to the region of their cheeks.

· · ·

Owing to their equally powerful white colour nobody was able to distinguish between the cheeks and the flowers. But then bees, attracted by the fragrance, fell on the Campaka flowers.

· · ·

Then, people were able to distinguish the flowers from the cheeks. This is the idea in the stanza. As owing to their equally powerful white colour the cheeks and the flowers are represented as undistinguishable, सामान्य is developed here.

· · ·

अत्र निमित्तान्तर ... बाध्योयोगात्

· · ·

नानाकप्रतीति: = भिन्नतज्ज्ञानम्

· · ·

निमित्तान्तरं भ्रमरपातरूपं तेन जनिता

· · ·

सामान्य

· · ·

व्युदासितम् = निराकृतम्

· · ·

प्रथमप्रतिपन्नम्रेदम्

· · ·

सामान्यम्

· · ·

मीलितम्

· · ·

मीलिते उत्कृष्टगुणेन निकृष्टगुणस्य तिरोधानम्

· · ·

इह (सामान्ये) तु उभयोस्तुल्यगुणतया भेदाग्रहः

· · ·

साहित्यदर्पण under x. 90 ab.

· · ·

[ Sutra 57 ]

विशेष:

· · ·

का. २९

· · ·

४५०

· · ·

i. e. existence without its well known support; ( 2 ) when one person is represented as existing simultaneously in many places in the same form; and ( 3 ) when some one energetically or vehemently doing a certain work accomplishes another impossible thing just in the same way i. e. with the same effort ( तथैव = तेनैव यत्नेन ).

· · ·

It will be noticed that Mammata does not give a general definition of this figure, but at once proceeds to enumerate three varieties thereof. Other rhetoricians also do the same. This is because these three varieties are really three different figures, as Jayaratha points out, and are known by the term विशेष, because they have each a peculiarity of its own.

· · ·

प्रसिद्धाधारपरिहारेण is the paraphrase of विना प्रसिद्धमाधारम्.

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 168 ]

—This is रुढट्’s काव्यालङ्कार ix. 6 , where we have कथमिव instead of कथमिह the आधार is गिरः or the words of the poets and their well known आधार is कवयः or the poets themselves. The stanza tells us that though the poets have gone to heaven i.e. have died, their words continue to delight the worlds till the end of the universe ( यावाकल्पम् ). Thus, as the words of the poets are here represented as existing without their well known support viz. the poets, the stanza is an example of the first variety of विशेष.

· · ·

यावाकल्पम् is an अव्ययीभाव compound and means यावत् प्रलयं मयौदीकृत्य यथा तथा. कल्पः means प्रलयः.

· · ·

It should be noted that this variety of विशेष is based on अतिशयोक्ति. It is impossible that the supported should exist without the support. That is why Mammata says in the definition प्रसिद्धमाधारम्. which means कविकल्पितमाधारम्, as opposed to वास्तविकमाधारम्. The real support of the poets' words is their books and it is their works that continue to delight the world after their death. Thus, though the two supports viz. प्रसिद्ध आधारः and वास्तविक आधारः are really different, they are here considered as one. Therefore, we have the first kind of अतिशयोक्ति, which consists in निगीरोध्यवसानम् or भेदेऽपि अभेदः in this stanza. Similarly, गिरः means 'spoken words.' It is not the spoken words of the poets that continue to delight us after they are gone. But it is their words as preserved in their poems. Thus, though गिरः are really two, they are looked upon as one This is second अतिशयोक्ति of the same kind that is at the basis of this विशेषः. Or the presence of अतिशयोक्ति in this stanza may be explained in another way. Though the poets' words, which continue to delight the worlds, are really not

· · ·

connected with them as their आधार, they are here represented as being so connected. Hence, there is असंबन्धेऽपि सम्बन्धरूपा यद्यर्थोऽतिशयलङ्काररूपा वा अतिशयोक्ति: in this stanza. अन्र गिरां दिवसुपयातेः कविमिः आधारत्वेन असंबन्धेऽपि तादृशः सम्बन्धो वर्णितः इति यद्यर्थोऽतिशयलङ्काररूपातिशयोक्तिमूलता विषमालङ्कारस्य.

· · ·

We do not agree with the Pradipa. Actually the charm of the two figures, यथासंख्या and second variety of विशेष lies in two different directions and the two figures are not likely to be confused. Moreover एकात्म cannot distinguish the two examples and in fact it is not necessary to refer to एकात्मक or अनेकात्मक topic at all. The charm of the second variety of विशेष lies in the simultaneous existence of one in many places.

· · ·

Stanza 169 — This stanza is सपत्नीमयजीवित कान्त प्रति तत्पल्न्या उक्ति:. Here the rival nāyikā is represented as existing in the heart, eyes and words of the nāyaka in the same form (सैव-एकात्मैव ). We have here to presume that the poet means the simultaneous existence of the girl in these three places. Then only it would be an example of second विशेष.

· · ·

This विशेष also is based on अतिशयोक्ति, which may thus be explained : अन्र प्रतिनायिकाया: सपल्न्या: नायकहृदयादिष्वचैनः निवासिनीतैवेन असंबन्धेऽपि सम्बन्धो वर्णितः इति अतिशयोक्तिवशेषस्य मूलम् ।

· · ·

रमसेत is the paraphrase of प्र in प्रकुर्वतः. It shows that a person proceeding to do a certain thing entertains no intention of achieving anything else at that time.

· · ·

Stanza 170 — This stanza describes the creation of a certain king endowed with the beauty of Cupid, the valour ( punningly, heat ) of the sun and the learning of Bṛhaspati, the preceptor of the gods. Here the creator is represented as having accomplished the impossible task of creating a new Cupid, Sun and Bṛhaspati by the same effort, which he exerted in creating the king. That is how the third kind of विशेष is developed here.

· · ·

४५२

· · ·

प्रसिद्धं मार्गमुत्सृज्य यत्र वैचित्र्यसिद्धये ।

· · ·

भणितिरुच्यते ।' वक्रोक्तिजीवित of कुंतक उन्होत्र i ;

· · ·

अन्यथैवोच्यते सोऽर्थः सा वक्रोक्ति रुदाहता ।।' ( 3 ) The word प्रायेण in Mammata's

· · ·

वारनाचार्य

· · ·

अस्या असंभवात् प्रायेण न हि ।' वामनाचार्य

· · ·

विशेष given by Mammata.

· · ·

in Bhāmaha's book must be taken into consideration. Bhāmaha

· · ·

मन्यतेऽतिशयोक्तिं तामलङ्कारतया यथाऽपि वा ।' and then proceeds to tell us, by way

· · ·

वक्रोक्ति: ). सैषा in Bhamaha's quotation thus means पूर्वलकिता अतिशयोक्ति-

· · ·

वक्रोक्ति: ( a striking statement ) signifies a figure in general. This word occurs in Bhāmaha's definition of a figure 'वक्रोभिरे शब्दो-

· · ·

लकृतिः । i. 36. अन्यया=अतिशयोक्त्या अलङ्कृत्याम् । अस्याम्-अतिशयो-

· · ·

क्त्यलङ्कृत्याम् । From Bhamaha's definition of the figure अतिशयोक्ति we

· · ·

all figures. Consequently, he remarked that अतिशयोक्ति, the figure,

· · ·

are not possible without it. By the word generally Mammata

· · ·

basis of all figures of this kind viz, figures like विशेष. But the quotation

· · ·

says that अतिशयोक्ति is the basis of all figures.

· · ·

Page 116 ]

· · ·

to remove such a difficulty is not correct. ( 3 ) It is not Mammata alone, but before him, besides Bhāmaha whom he quotes in support of his statement, Dandin ( ii 220 ), and after him, Hemaçandra, have declared that अतिशयोक्ति is an exceedingly important figure and that it

· · ·

forms the basis of other figures of speech. It is, therefore, reasonable to suppose that Mammata also is here speaking of अतिशयोक्तिः, the figure, as the basis of most alankāras, rather than of अतिशयोक्ति in the sense of a striking expression. It is worthy of note that while Bhā- maha and Dandin, owing to the very wide nature of their अतिशयोक्ति

· · ·

speak of it respectively as the basis of all figures of speech ( सर्वैव वकोक्तिः ) and of other figures generally ( अलङ्कारान्तराणाम् ), Mammata and Hemacandra owing to the limited scope of their अतिशयोक्ति

· · ·

state that it constitutes the life of most figures. But whether we look to Bhāmaha, Dandin, Mammata or Hemaçandra there is no doubt that all of them refer to अतिशयोक्तिः, the figure, and not to अतिशयोक्ति that word. Hemaçandra in his treatment of

· · ·

अतिशयोक्तिः points out towards the end how it lies at the basis of other figures. He quotes stanza 45 which is Mammata's illustration of निदर्शना and remarks 'अत्र वारणेनदीलां गिरिवदृदति इति असंबन्धेऽपि संबन्धः । यद्वा

· · ·

गिरिवारणद्रद्गतयोर्लीयोभेदेऽपि ऐक्यमध्यवसितम् । Then he gives 'दिवमप्युपपयातानाम्,' ( our stanza 168 ) and observes 'अत्र दिवङ्गतकविगुणानां रमणायोगेऽपि योग उक्तः,

· · ·

वयमत्र निरवकाशा हृदये वच्तु वाचिच तयैवाभिनवयोचना वसति । विरम कृंतं पादपतनेन ', which is हृदय ix. 8 and similar to our stanza 167, and comments 'अत्र एकस्य युगपदनेकत्रित्ययोगेऽपि योगोऽदुः । After showing

· · ·

how अतिशयोक्तिः, the figure, is at the basis of such enamples as these, Hemaçandra proceeds एवंविधे च सर्वत्र विषयेऽतिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणिनावतिष्ठते । तां विना प्रायेणालङ्करणद्वयादिति सामान्यमीलितकावलिनिर्देशनविशेषाभ्यांरोन्यासः श्रेयान् ।

· · ·

काव्यानुशासन p. 167. Here it is to be noted that this statement, which is evidently based on Mammata, occurs at the end of Hemaçandra's treatment of अतिशयोक्तिः, the figure. So there cannot be slightest doubt as to what अतिशयोक्तिः means therein.

· · ·

All these considerations leave no doubt in our mind that Mammata means by अतिशयोक्तिः in this passage the figure of that name and not अतिशयेन लोकरसीमातिक्रमेण उक्ति:

· · ·

We have seen above that no general definition of विशेष has been given, apparently because it is not easy to frame a definition which would cover these three varieties and no others. Note ' न हि रूपकादि वदलङ्कारस्य अस्य किंचित् सामन्यलक्षणमस्ति ।' रसगङ्गाधर p. 458. The result of

· · ·

this is that it is possible to include under विशेष some other figures,

· · ·

विशेष: and विरोध:

· · ·

[ Sutra 58 ]

तद्गुण:

· · ·

तिरस्कृतविजृम्भम्

· · ·

in this stanza the second तद्रुण arises, because the horses give up their new red colour and assume the colour of the emeralds. So here अप्रकृतै रवितुरगै: प्रकृतानां मरकतमणीनां वर्ण: स्वीकृत:.

· · ·

Now if Mammata's explanation of तद्रुण as 'तस्य अप्रकृतस्य गुण: अत्र अस्तीति' be accepted, the above would not be an example of तद्रुण, because अत्र प्रकृतानां गुण: (गुणाधारणम् अप्रकृतै:) अस्ति.

· · ·

Then again, in the first तद्रुण, where the horses assume the colour of Aruna both the horses and Aruna are अप्रकृत, because the प्रकृत is रैवतक, which is being described and रथ्या: and गरुडप्रभा: are brought in merely to set it off.

· · ·

So here also Mammata's explanation of तद्रुण is not applicable, because we cannot say that a प्रकृत assumes the colour of an अप्रकृत.

· · ·

It will thus be seen that the element of प्रकृत and अप्रकृत in तद्रुण is irrelevant and should not have been introduced.

· · ·

We have said before that in तद्रुण there are two things which are possessed of different qualities.

· · ·

Mammata does not say so definitely, but this is what follows from his treatment and illustration of this figure.

· · ·

However, Nāgeśa apparently does think that the difference of qualities is a necessity in तद्रुण.

· · ·

Read उज्ज्वल p. 138.

· · ·

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not mention this figure.

· · ·

Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it.

· · ·

But it must be noted that Rudrata gives two kinds of तद्रुण.

· · ·

His first exactly corresponds to our सामान्य and his second to our तद्रुण.

· · ·

तद्रुण: and मिलितम

· · ·

Resemblance : In both there is concealment of one by another.

· · ·

Distinction : (1) In मिलित the thing itself is concealed by another owing to the latter's powerfulness so that the first is not perceived at all.

· · ·

In तद्रुण on the other hand not the thing, but its quality is at all overpowered by the dominant quality of another, so that the first is perceived, not in its natural colour, but in the colour of the other which it has assumed.

· · ·

(2) In मिलित two things are possessed of similar qualities and, therefore, there is no question of the one giving up its own quality and assuming that of the other.

· · ·

What happens is that the own quality and assuming that of the other.

· · ·

the one is overpowered by the other owing to the greater intensity of its quality and is not perceived at all.

· · ·

In तद्रुण on the other hand, the two things are possessed of dissimilar qualities and the quality of the one is so dominating that it overpowers the quality of the other, which consequently has to give up its quality and assume that of the other.

· · ·

तद्गुणः and श्रान्तिमान्

· · ·

तद्गुण and सामान्‍यम्

· · ·

तद्गुणः, मीलितम् and सामान्‍यम्

· · ·

४८६

· · ·

यो रागनायकयोः रक्तधवलौौ गुणी

· · ·

Page 118 ]

· · ·

have been introduced. The same remark applies to अतद्गुण also. Take the second half of the above stanza, which contains अतद्गुण. It describes the nāyaka and the nāyikā's heart. In our opinion both these are

· · ·

relevant, because the lady wants to convey that though her heart is full of love for him. he does not feel anything for her. But in view

· · ·

of what Mammata says in ' किं च तदिति अप्रकृतम्‌-प्रतिपत्तव्यम्‌' we have to suppose that in the above illustration of अतद्गुण the अत्युज्ज्वलगुण रागभरित हृदय is प्रकृत and the न्यूनगुण धवल नायक is अप्रकृत. These two are regarded

· · ·

as such, because the lady's intention is to describe the condition of her heart. The heart is, therefore, प्रकृत and the nāyaka, who is

· · ·

referred to in connection with the description of the heart, अप्रकृत ;

· · ·

In view of this distinction of प्रकृत and अप्रकृत the name अतद्गुण: means न तस्य (अत्युज्ज्वलगुणस्य प्रकृतस्य हृदयस्य ) गुणः (गुणस्वीकार: न्यूनगुणेन अप्र-

· · ·

कृतस्य गुणोद्रास्तीति.' Thus, owing to the introduction of the consi-deration of प्रकृत and अप्रकृत, Mammaṭa has to explain the pronoun तत्

· · ·

occurring in तद्गुण and अतद्गुण in different ways. But if we explain तद्गुण as merely अत्युज्ज्वलगुण without saying whether it is प्रकृत or अप्रकृत, it will

· · ·

have exactly the same meaning in both तद्गुण and अतद्गुण.

· · ·

किं च...प्रतिपत्तव्यम्‌—According to Mammaṭa who wants to give

· · ·

this figure, अतद्गुण is of two kinds viz. (1) where the (न्यूनगुण ) अप्रकृत ( हृदय ) ; ( नायक ) does not assume the colour of the ( अत्युज्ज्वलगुण ) प्रकृत ( हृदय ) and (2) where the (न्यूनगुण ) प्रकृत (रुजहंस ) does not take the colour of

· · ·

stanza 173 and the second by stanza 174.

· · ·

of view of its first kind, तत् means प्रकृत ( हृदय ) and अस्य signifies अप्रकृत (नायक).

· · ·

the colour of the प्रकृत. But when the definition is to be made appli-cable to the second kind, we have to suppose that तत् points to ( निर्दिश्यते )

· · ·

kind occurs when the प्रकृत does not adopt (नानुविधीयते) the form i.e. the quality ( रूपम्‌ ) of the अप्रकृत for some reason.

· · ·

इह

नूयुनगुणस्य विशिष्टगुणपदार्थधर्मेस्तीकार: प्रत्यासत्त्या न्याय्य:। यदा पुनरुचष्टगुणपदार्थसन्निधानेऽपि हेतौ सत्यपि तदुणस्य उत्कृष्टगुणस्य अनदूषणं नूतनगुणे अनुशरत्नं भवति सोऽतद्गुण:। तस्य उत्कृष्टगुणस्य अस्तित्वं गुणा न सन्तीति। यद्वा तस्य अप्रकृतस्य रूपान्तरपहार: सति अनुशरणहेतौ सोऽतद्गुण:। तस्य अप्रकृतस्य गुणा नामिनं सन्तीति कृत्वा। ('तद्वै सादृश्यनिदर्शनं अस्म्य् प्रकारदयं दर्शितम्' विमर्शीनी)

· · ·

अतद्गुण: and विशेषोक्ति:

· · ·

अतद्गुण: and विषम: (तृतीय:)

· · ·

(60) व्याघात: or Frustration

· · ·

पाण्डित्येन प्रचण्डेन येन मान्यन्ति दुर्जनाः । तेनैव सजनाः हृढं यान्ति शान्तिमचुतमाम्

· · ·

स साधित...व्याघातः

· · ·

[ Sutra Stanza 175—This is राजशेखर’s ( 925 A. D. ) विद्धशालभञ्जिका i. 2. ]

शिवो विरूपाक्षः = विरूपम् क्ल्लास्यस्थितत्वात् अहियम् आक्षि तृतीयनयनं यस्य सः ) burnt मनसिज or Cupid to ashes with his eye i. e. with the fire that came out of his third eye.

· · ·

मैत्रेडपि भेददृशा अतिशयोक्तिः

· · ·

यथा लौकिकानामलङ्काराणां हिरण्ययानां मणिमयानां च पृथक् सौन्दर्यहेतुत्वेऽप्यन्योन्यसंबन्धेन चारुत्वातिशयम् दृश्यते, तथैव काव्यालङ्काराणां ह्येकादीनां मिथ:संबन्धेन सौन्दर्योत्कर्ष: प्रतीयते ।

· · ·

संस्कृति

· · ·

सैषा विशिष्टिः -

· · ·

अनुप्रास or alliteration and यमक or rhyme. In the first half there is alliteration of the consonant म, in the third quarter there is alliteration of र and in the fourth quarter there is rhyme in लकलो-लकलो. That is how the stanza is an example of the संसृष्टि of two शब्दालङ्कारs viz. अनुप्रास and यमक.

· · ·

पूर्वत्र...उपमोत्प्रेक्षे—These two sentences explain how stanzas 176 and 177 illustrate शब्दालङ्कारसंसृष्टि and अर्थालङ्कारसंसृष्टि respectively. तथाविधे—परस्पर-निरपेक्षे. Supply ‘संसृष्टि प्रयोजयतः:’ after उपमोत्प्रेक्षे.

· · ·

Here in ‘नृत्य एथ’ there is छेकानुप्रास, consisting in the repetition once of the consonants त and थ and in ‘एनां तरुणानां हृदयङ्गणीकृतम्’ there is रूपक, represented by the superimposition of the character of a thief on the girl. छेकानुप्रास is a शब्दालङ्कार and रूपक is an अर्थालङ्कार. Both these figures are independent of each other. Hence, the stanza is an example of शब्दार्थालङ्कारसंसृष्टि.

· · ·

It should be noted that in the :case of शब्दालङ्कारयो: संसृष्ट: and अर्थालङ्कारयो: संसृष्ट: the one abode where the two figures meet and become combined is शब्द and अर्थ respectively. But in the case of शब्दार्थालङ्कारयो: संसृष्ट: शब्द and अर्थ cannot be regarded as the meeting place, because they are two different entities and would constitute

· · ·

४६८

· · ·

two different abodes. संश्रष्टि requires one abode. Hence, Mammata points out that the one abode for शब्दार्थालङ्कारयो: संश्रष्टि: is either the sentence or the stanza, Thus ‘एकत्र वाक्ये छन्दसि वा’ represents the paraphrase of इह occurring in the Kārikā in the case of शब्दार्थालङ्कारयो: संश्रष्टि:. In the case of शब्दालङ्कारयो: संश्रष्टि: and अर्थालङ्कारयो: संश्रष्टि: on the other hand इह means शब्दभागे एव and अर्थविषये एव respectively. It will thus be seen that in view of this new paraphrase ‘एकत्र वाक्ये छन्दसि वा’ of इह, which Mammata gives for शब्दार्थालङ्कारयो: संश्रष्टि:, his previous paraphrase ‘उभयत्रापि’ in the वृत्ति must be regarded as inaccurate and as having been given without proper thinking. It may be pointed out that if इह is is explained as छन्दसि, this explanation would be applicable to all the three varieties of संश्रष्टि.

· · ·

The clause संसर्गश्र...समवेतत्वात् can also be interpreted in a slightly different way. एकत्र वाक्ये छन्दसि वा समवेतत्वात् can be taken in the sense of ‘on account of their being connected in i. e. with one sentence or stanza ( एकेन वाक्येन छन्दसा वा समवेतत्वात् ). समवेतत्वात here signifies एकवाक्य-संबद्धत्वात एकवृत्त-समवेतत्वात् वा. This means as the शब्दालङ्कार and अर्थालङ्कार in शब्दार्थालङ्कारयो: संश्रष्टि: are each connected with one common sentence or stanza, they become indirectly connected with each other and thus give rise to the combination, which is necessary for their संश्रष्टि.

· · ·

Though many ancient rhetoricians mention mixed figure, Udbhata is the earliest writer to make two distinct figures, सङ्कर and संश्रष्टि, from the combination of figures and Mammata seems to follow him in this.

· · ·

[ Sutra 62 ]

सङ्कर: or Commixture

· · ·

When figures do not rest in themselves i. e. are not independent of one another become related to one another as subordinate ( अनुग्र ) and principal ( आधि ), सङ्कर is developed. This is Mammata's definition of the first kind of सङ्कर, which has in all three varieties (1) आङ्किभावसङ्कर or अनुप्राण्याऽनुप्राहकभावसङ्कर (2) संदेहसङ्कर and (3) एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसङ्कर, एकवाक्यका नुप्रवेशसङ्कर (Vide काव्यप्रकाश 4th Ullāsa p. 186 वामनाचार्य), एकार्थसङ्कर or एकवाक्चानुप्रवेशसङ्कर. Supply एतेषामलेपाराणाम् after अविश्रान्तिर्युष्याम्. The plural is not to be regarded as significant so that सङ्कर with only two figures is also possible, as in stanza 179 below ‘परस्परमुप्रायानुप्राहक्ताम्’: is the paraphrase of अनुज्ञास्वम्. This means that the figures, which combine to give rise to सङ्कर,: mutually help to heighten the beauty of one another. संकीर्णमाणस्वरूपत्वात्-संकीर्णमाण परस्परसंसृपेण मिश्रितमाण स्वरूपं येषां ते, तेषां भाव:, तस्मात्. This explains the title सङ्कर, which is so called, because: here the nature of the figures combined becomes mixed.

· · ·

उपमा…प्रतीयते

· · ·

कलङ्क एव अक्षवलयम्

· · ·

कलङ्काक्षवलयमित्यस्य समाधानस्य

· · ·

लयमिव

· · ·

ix. p. 529 ( वामनाचार्य ); ' पद्माकारहेतुत्वे वर्णनां चित्रमुख्यते ।' साहिल्यदर्पण x. 13a6.

· · ·

परस्परसापेक्षे—अज्ञज्ञिभावसङ्कर requires that the two figures which give rise to it should be related to each other as subordinate and principal. Mammata quotes stanza 181 to illustrate शब्दालङ्कारयो: अज्ञज्ञिभावसङ्कर:-

· · ·

अनुलोमप्रतिलोमयो: प्रत्येकमेव दुष्करतया विदग्धमनोऽनुरञ्जकं च, तयो: साहिल्यं तु उत्तरां ( अतिशयेन ) विदग्धमनोऽनुरञ्जकं च, तयो: साहिल्यं तु उत्तरां ( अतिशयेन ) विदग्धमनोऽनुरञ्जकमति परस्परचारुत्वातिशय इत्यभिप्राय: । ' ' वामनाचार्य P. 759.

· · ·

Ruyyaka criticizes Mammata for his शब्दालङ्कारयो: अज्ञज्ञिभावसङ्कर: Read अलङ्कारसर्वस्व । p. 199

· · ·

We have here to point out that this शब्दालङ्कारयो: अज्ञज्ञिभावसङ्कर: is Mammata's own creation. Uddhata mentions a variety of सङ्कर, called शब्दार्थवैचित्र्यलङ्कार, which is thus defined ' शब्दार्थवैचित्र्यलङ्कारा वाक्य एकत्र भासिन: ।' सक्करो वा' काव्यलङ्कारसंग्रह p. 65.

· · ·

Another point to note is that the Udyota thinks that Mammata is here criticizing Ruyyaka. This is incorrect, because Ruyyaka came after Mammata and not before him. So Mammata could not be

· · ·

एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावादनिश्चयः—

· · ·

द्वयोः...विरतीया: संकरः—

· · ·

समुच्चयेन = समुच्चयप्रतिपादकेन कारिकास्थितेन चक्‍कारण. आक्षेपात् = व्यञनात्.

· · ·

यत्र तु न संशयः —

· · ·

न्यायश्र साधकत्वम्

· · ·

हास्युतिः वक्त्रशशी इव

· · ·

उपमाया: साधकम्

· · ·

वक्त्रेन्दु: अपर: इन्दु:

· · ·

स्कुटमेकत्र ... व्यवस्थितं च

· · ·

Stanza 188—This is रत्नाकर's हरविजय 19. 1 and contains a description of the evening.

· · ·

Here in each of the expressions 'किरणकेसर' 'सूर्यविम्बविस्तीर्णकर्णिक' 'दिवसारविन्द' 'श्लिष्टाग्रदलकलाप' and 'अन्यक्कारमधुपावलि we have a शब्दालङ्कार viz. अनुप्रास and an अर्थालङ्कार viz. रूपक..

· · ·

It will be noticed that the whole stanza contains an elaborate metaphor and is an example of समस्तवस्तविषय साङ्ग रूपक.

· · ·

From Mammaṭa's definition of एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसंकर it is clear that according to him this kind of सेकर arises when one शब्दालङ्कार and one अर्थालङ्कार are found in one word.

· · ·

repetition of the consonants क and ल and यमक is formed by the repetition of लकलो.

· · ·

With reference to the view of Ruyyaka and others that एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसंकर is possible with two शब्दालंकारs and two अर्थालंकारs also, we have to point out that these writers seem to have missed the significance of the expression एकपद.

· · ·

तेन ( उपरिनिर्दिष्टप्रकारेण ) असौ ( संकरः ) त्रिधा: परिकीर्तितः—

· · ·

Mammaṭa here concludes his treatment of संकर by stating that it is of three forms or kinds.

· · ·

The names of these three kinds are suggested by the vrtti viz.

· · ·

अनुगृहीतग्राहकभावसंकर, संदेहसंकर and एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसंकर.

· · ·

प्रकारान्तरेण...तत्रप्रभेदानाम्—

· · ·

What Mammaṭa means to say here is that the three broad divisions of संकर, given by him above, are the only practicable divisions.

· · ·

Not that it is absolutely impossible to divide संकर in other ways ( प्रकारान्तरेण इति समूहे कवनम् ).

· · ·

संस्कृति: and संकर:

· · ·

Resemblance : Both arise from the combination of two or more figures either of word or of sense.

· · ·

Distinction : (1) While the figures in संस्कृति are independent of each other, those in संकर are connected with each other by the relation of principal and subordinate ( 1st kind ), or are characterized by का. ३१

· · ·

uncertainty ( 2nd kind ), or are found in one and the same word ( 3rd kind ). (2) While संशृष्टि proceeds from संयोजन्याय or तिलतण्डुलन्याय, संक्र

· · ·

इति प्रतिपादितः: ... अलङ्कारः — This sentence, which concludes Mammata's treatment of figures, tells us that figures, according to Mammata, are of three kinds viz. शब्दालङ्कार, अर्थालङ्कार and उभयालङ्कार.

· · ·

कुतः पुनरेष...व्यवस्थाप्यते—This passage discusses the question as to what forms the basis of the three-fold division of figures referred to in the preceding sentence. All figures are equally the cause of imparting excellence of beauty to poetry (इत्यले काव्यशोभातिशयहेतुत्वे).

· · ·

Why then should there be a rule that a certain figure belongs to word, a certain other to sense and a certain another to both word and sense ? In answer to this question Mammata says he has already stated in the 9th Ullāsa that in the matter of the arrangement or division (व्यवस्था) of defects (दोषः), excellences (गुणः) and figures (अलङ्कारः) into three classes viz. (1) those that belong to word, (2) those that belong to sense and (3) those that belong to both word and sense, अन्यथा: or presence and व्यतिरेकः: or absence alone are competent (प्रभवतः), because no other reason, which can satisfactorily account for this division, exists.

· · ·

This means that the basis of the division of दोषः, गुणः and अलङ्कारः into शब्दगत, अर्थगत and उभयगत is the presence and absence of शब्द, अर्थ and both शब्द and अर्थ respectively. The idea is that a figure is determined to belong to that whose presence and absence it follows.

· · ·

Thus, if a figure is present when a certain word is present and is absent when that word is absent, it is a शब्दालङ्कार. For example, यमक is a शब्दालङ्कार. An example of यमक is 'स्मरमते रमते रम वधूजनतः' रघुवंश 9. 47.

· · ·

Here if we substitute कामभिप्राये for स्मरमते, or मोदते for रमते, the figure यमक would vanish. Thus, as यमक follows the presence and absence of certain words, it is determined to be a शब्दालङ्कार.

· · ·

Then again, उपमा or रूपक is an अर्थालङ्कार. मुखचन्द्रः is an example of either उपमा or रूपक. Now, as long as the sense 'face-moon ' is conveyed, no matter which words are used to convey it, the figures उपमा and रूपक would be present.

· · ·

Thus, बदनेन्दुः, वक्त्रशशी, आस्यमुग्धः: etc. are all examples of either उपमा or रूपक. But if we use merely मुखम्. or merely चन्द्रः, the figures उपमा and रूपक would not arise.

· · ·

Thus, as उपमा and रूपक follow the presence and absence of the sense 'face-moon ', they are determined to be अर्थालङ्कारs.

· · ·

Further, विशिष्टे वाच्ये परम्परिते रूपकम, illustrated in 'विद्दुमनससहंस,' is, as we have already seen ( Vide pp. 56 and 443 ), really an उभयालङ्कार.

· · ·

वि‌द्रुम्मानसहंसः

· · ·

सतृणेशुक्तारलत्नम्

· · ·

न तु दाक्षिण्यसंपन्नः सर्वेष्य भवति प्रियः। दाक्षिण्यसंपन्नः = ( 1 ) दक्षिगदिगागतः ( 2 ) सारल्यादिगुणवान्

· · ·

सकलकले ( सकलकलः कला यस्मि तन् =कलकलैन सहितं यत् तत् ) पुरमेतजानन् सप्राति शु‌द्भांशु-विस्वमिव

· · ·

तत्र = परंपरितरुपकस्य श‌ब्दहेतुकार्थान्तरन्यासप्रभृतिषु च उ‌भयालंकारेषु। वस्तुस्थितिम् = तेषामुभयालंकारत्वम्

· · ·

शब्दस्य तु तत्र वैचित्र्यमुक्ततया प्रतिभासते

· · ·

those of sense and those of both word and sense embellish both word and sense. Read अध्याय 344 and 345.

· · ·

Many commentators such as the authors of the Udyota and the Prabha and Vāmanacarya say that Mammaṭa here criticizes the view of Ruyyaka. This, we have to point out once more, is impossible, because Mammaṭa is a predecessor of Ruyyaka and not a successor.

· · ·

Kārikā 56—Ancient writers like Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Vāmana, Rudrata and Bhoja mention defects of certain figures, while dealing with them. Mammaṭa does not do this. He states the reason for not doing so in this Kārikā. Though some faults of these figures ( एषाम् = अलङ्काराणां शब्दालङ्काराणामर्थालङ्काराणां च ) are possible, they have not been separately explained or treated, because they are included, according to special circumstances ( यथायोगम् = यथापरिस्थिति, यथासंभवम् ), in the faults already mentioned ( उक्तेषु = ससमग्रास्रोत्रेषु ) in the 7th Ullāsa. The 7th Ullāsa treats of काव्यदोषs. Mammaṭa's plea is that अलङ्कारदोषs are not so distinct from काव्यदोषs as to merit separate treatment. They can be shown to fall under one or other of the काव्यदोषs dealt with in the 7th Ullāsa.

· · ·

In the remaining part of the 10th Ullāsa what Mammaṭa does is to enumerate certain अलङ्कारदोषs, which have apparently been mentioned by previous writers, and to state that they are included under one or the other of the काव्यदोषs treated of by him in the 7th Ullāsa.

· · ·

अनुप्रासदोषः

· · ·

Three defects of अनुप्रास viz. प्रसिद्धयभावः ( absence of known-ness ), वैफल्यम् ( fruitlessness ) and वृत्तिविरोधः ( opposition to style ) are mentioned. Mammaṭa declares that these three are not respectively ( यथाक्रमम् ) different from प्रसिद्धिविरुद्धता ( Opposition to Usage ), अनुप्रयर्थत्वम् ( Non-nourishment of Sense ) and प्रतिकूलवर्णता ( Unfavourableness of Letters ), which have been enumerated among काव्यदोषs in the 7th Ullāsa, because both possess the same nature. Who has mentioned प्रसिद्धयभावः, वैफल्यम् and वृत्तिविरोधः: as defects of अनुप्रास is not known. Evidently some predecessor of Mammaṭa must have done so.

· · ·

प्रसिद्धिविरुद्धता or opposition to what is well known has been mentioned by Mammaṭa among 23 अर्थदोषs in the 7th Ullāsa. It is of two kinds viz. ( 1 ) लोकप्रसिद्धिविरुद्धता and ( 2 ) कविप्रसिद्धिविरुद्धता. An example of ( 1 ) is ‘ इदं तु केनोक्तम् ’ quoted by मम्मट in the 7th उल्लास to illustrate the defect called प्रसिद्धद्विरोध. ‘ पादाघाताद्दशासु कुरङ्कट्क्षितौ ’ अन्र पादाघाताद्दशा

· · ·

पुष्पोद्रम् एव कविप्रसिद्धः, न तु अदकुरोद्रम् इति कविप्रसिद्धिविरुद्धता।

· · ·

प्रतिकूलवर्णता।

· · ·

अनणु तारं ( loudly ) यथा स्यात् तथा रणन्ती शब्दे कुर्वती मणिमेखला मणिखचित-काव्यी यस्मिन् । अविरतं सततं शिञ्जाने शब्दायमाने मृदू सुन्दरे मृजीरे नूपुरे यस्मिन् ।

· · ·

अत्र वाच्यार्थस्य ।

· · ·

वाच्यस्य विचिन्त्यमानम्

· · ·

[ Sutra 192 ]

कलः मधुरः कण्ठः स्वरः यस्या: तस्सुबुद्धिः । अकुण्ठा अप्रतिहता सातिचाया या उत्कण्ठा औत्सुक्यं तथा आकारणं कुण्डलपर्यन्तं पूर्ण मारते न कामुकस्य । कण्ठे क्षणं कुरु, क्षणमात्रं तस्या: कण्ठालिङ्गनं मां प्रापयस्वैवर्थे । कण्ठार्तिं मदीयं तदालिङ्गनोत्थं सुखयाहि पीडां, उद्धर दुःखरुचि ।

· · ·

पूर्वोक्तरीत्या

· · ·

पादत्रययमनम्

· · ·

that the यमकदोष पादत्रययमनम् is covered by the दोष अप्रयुक्तत्वम्, which he has mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa among 16 पददोष. अप्रयुक्तत्वम् arises when a poet uses a certain thing, which, though sanctioned by such works as lexicons, is not made current by the generel use of poets. Thus, the words दैवत and पत्र are given in the अमरकोष as both masculine and neuter. But poets generally use these words in the neuter gender. Consequently, if some one were to use them in the masculine gender, the defect अप्रयुक्तत्वम् would arise.

· · ·

Similarly poets generally use यमक in one, two or four quarters, because there is the prohibition 'यमकं तु विघातव्यं न कदाचिदपि त्रिपाद' . But if a poet were to use it in three quarters, as in stanza 193, अप्रयुक्तत्व would arise. Thus, पादत्रययमनम, which is given as a यमकदोष by some, is nothing but अप्रयुक्तत्वम्.

· · ·

Here the rhyme सदम्भः occurs in three lines only. That is how the defect पादत्रययमनम् is developed. As poets do not generally compose such a rhyme, पादत्रययमनम् is nothing but the defect अप्रयुक्तत्वम्.

· · ·

Mammata notes 13 उपमादोषs in all and remarks that they are the same as certain defects, mentioned by him in the 7th Ullāsa. This will be clear from the following equations :-

· · ·

अनुचितार्थत्वम् arises when a word suggests a meaning, which is unfavourable to the sense that is intended to be conveyed. It is one of the 16 पददोषs mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa. An example is : तपस्विभिरियो मुचिरेण लभ्यते प्रयत्नतः सत्रिभिरिष्यते च या । प्रहान्ति तामाघु गति यशस्विनो रणाश्वमेघे पश्नुतामुपागता: ॥

· · ·

हीनपदत्वम्, called न्यूनपदत्वम् before, is mentioned among वाक्यदोषs in the 7th Ullāsa. It consists in failure to use a word which is necessary to understand the sense of a sentence. An example is 'तथाभूतां दृष्ट्रा,' v. 3 in 3rd उल्लास, on which Mammata observes 'अत्र 'अस्मात्:' इति, किन्त इत्यस्मात् पूर्वम् 'इत्यम्' इति च [पदे न्यूनम्] ।

· · ·

अधिकपदत्वम् has also been noted as a वाक्यदोष in the 7th Ullāsa. It consists in the use of a superfluous or redundant word. Mammata's example of this defect is 'स्फटिकाकृतिनिर्मलः: प्रकाम प्रतिसकोन्तानिशातशालित्वः: अविरुद्धसमन्वितवैचित्रयुक्तिः:प्रतिमल्लग्रास्तमयोदय: स क्रौञ्च ॥'

· · ·

One may perhaps note here the distinction between अधिकपदत्वम् and अपुष्टार्थत्वम्. Both अधिक and अपुष्टार्थ words are superfluous and nothing is lost by their omission. Both thus satisfy the test 'यदि अनुपादाने अर्थो न बाधते'. But while an अधिक पद is absolutely redundant, an अपुष्टार्थ पद conveys a sense which though intended need not have been expressed.

· · ·

भमप्रकर्षत्व has also been mentioned as a वाक्यदोष in the 7th Ullāsa- It arises from उपक्रमोपसंहारयोर्भेदः: When a poet begins with the use of a certain form, but does not repeat that same form, though context requires such repetition, this defect arises भमप्रकर्षत्व is of many kinds. An example of प्रतिगतं भमप्रकर्षत्वम् is 'नास्ते निशाथा नियतनियोगादस्तं गतेः हन्त निशापि याता । कुलालकानां हि दशानुरूपं नातःपरं भदतरं समस्ति ॥'

· · ·

Bhāmaha, Dandin, Vāmana, Rudrata and Bhoja have treated of उपमादोषड in their works. A comparison of their treatment with Mammata's shows that Mammata is indebted to all these five rhetoricians for this part of his Kāvyaprakāśa. None of them, however,

· · ·

mentions all the 13 उपमादोषs that Mammaṭa notes. But there is not a single उपमादोष from among these 13 that one or the other of these writers does not mention.

· · ·

[ Sutra 194 ]

उपमानस्य जातित्वात्कूता।

· · ·

[ Sutra 195 ]

उपमानस्य प्रमाणगतन्यूनता।

· · ·

अत्र चण्डालादिभिः...अनुचितार्थता

· · ·

consisting of उपमानस्य धर्मोश्रयान्यूनता arises. Mammaṭa says that this उपमादोष is nothing but न्यूनपदत्वम् or हीनपदत्वम्.

· · ·

In the above stanza a cloud, possessed of lightning and rainbow, is represented as being connected wich the moon at night. This is impossible. For, the phenomenon of rainbow cannot take place at night. This shows that Sanskrit poets sometimes relied on their imagination, rather than observation, for their descriptions,

· · ·

लिङ्गवचनभेदोपी -In this passage Mammaṭa explains the nature of लिङ्गभेद and वचनभेद as उपमादोष and shows how they fall within the province of भामप्रकृतत्वम्.

· · ·

हंस: ( हंसी ) and the उपमेय ( चन्द्र: ) differ in gender. The word expressive of common property is धवल:. It goes with the उपमेय only as it stands. It has to be changed into धवला in order to make it go with the उपमान ( हंसी ). Therefore, हंस:व धवलश्रनद्र: is an example of the उपमादोष लिङ्गभेद.

· · ·

सरांस: ( सरांसि ) and the उपमेय ( नम: ) differ in number. अमलम्, which expresses the common property, is capable of being construed with the उपमेय only. Therefore, it requires to be changed into अमलानि in order to make it applicable to the उपमान.

· · ·

It may be noted that expressions like 'हंस:व धवला चन्द्र: ' and 'सरांस:व अमलानि खम् ' or not current in the language, but have been taken into consideration in order to exhaust a possible alternative.

· · ·

प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य स्फुटमनिवोधः

· · ·

एवम्प्रकारविशिष्टवुपमानोपमेयोरन्यतरस्य भवेत्, तथा च प्रक्रमभङ्गः

· · ·

[ Sutra 201 ]

परमातेव निःस्नेहः शीतलः परकार्यवत् ॥

· · ·

यत्र तु नानात्वेऽपि...स्वभावत्वात्

· · ·

[ Sutra 51 ]

न लिङ्वचने मिन्ने न हीनाधिकतामि वा । उपमादूषणयाालो यत्रोद्धेगो न धीमताम् ॥

· · ·

संवोध्यमानेनिप्ठस्य परभागस्य—संवोध्यमाना वासवदत्ता तनिष्ठस्य तद्विषयकस्य तद्रामिनः परभागस्य ' विभ्राजसे ' इति क्रियापदस्य अन्तिमभागस्य ' से ' इतिप्रत्ययात्मकस्य ।

· · ·

विधि: means injunction or order . Its nature is to impel one who is not active to activity ( अप्रवृत्तस्य प्रवर्तनम् आत्मा यस्य तादृशस्य ). विधि here refers to the अप्रवृत्तप्रवर्तने expressed by the imperative form प्रवहतु. After ' अप्रवृत्तप्रवर्तनेत्मनो विधे: ' supply ' व्यत्यासः करणीयः ' or ' व्यत्यासात्‌ विधिभेदः '. विधे:= विधिवाच्यस्य प्रवहतु इत्यादिस्य क्रियापदस्य...विध्यान्तरस्य।

· · ·

विधिभेदः—This line points out the significance of the term आदि in ' कालपुरुषविष्यादिभेदेऽपि '. When another verbal

· · ·

form of this kind ( एवंजातीयकस्य अन्यस्य अर्थस्य=' वहतु ' इत्येवंविधस्य अन्यस्य क्रियापदस्य is found to be impossible of construction with the उपमान ( उपमानगतस्य असंभवात्=उपमानगतेन असंभवात्, उपमानानुगमस्वभावविरहात् ), the defect referred to by आदि in विध्यादिमेद: arises. It should be noted that the expression उपमानगतस्य असंभवाद् विध्यादिमेद: is not happily worded. ( The intended sense has to be extracted from it with some difficulty.

· · ·

ननु समानम्...इत्यर्थोऽवगमात्- This paragraph contains an objection against Mammata's treatment of कालभेदविरुद्धादिमेद. It may be thus explained : Sentences like ' बलवानयं राजा भीम इव भाति ' and ' अयं राजा भीम इव भाति ' are considered by you as examples of प्रकृतभेद, because they contain कालभेद. For, भाति cannot be construed with the उपमान ( भीमः ), unless it is changed ( भवेत्:=व्यत्यासः, परिवर्तनम् ) into अभात्, as Bhima is no longer living. Against this we point out that sentences like the above can be easily looked upon as defectless examples of उपमा by taking as the basis thereof another common property ( धर्मान्तरम् ), which may either have been mentioned ( उक्तारितम् ) or have to be understood प्रतीमानम्=अध्याहृतम् ). Thus, in ' बलवानयं राजा भीम इव भाति ' and ' अयं राजा भीम इव भाति '

· · ·

There may, however, occur cases where the simile is understood on account of the expressed ( उपात्त ) common property alone, because it may be the only common property between the उपमान and the उपमेय, and this property may have been expressed in such a manner as to make it go with the उपमेय alone. In such cases as no धर्मीन्तर could be thought of, कालभेद would seem inevitable. But we maintain that even here it is possible to understand a flawless simile by twisting the already mentioned common property in such a way as to free it from the form which gives rise to कालभेद. Thus, in ' युधििष्ठिर

· · ·

इवायं सत्ये वदति'

· · ·

सत्यमेतत्...प्रमा‌णम्

· · ·

असादृश्यप्रसक्तौ...प्रयोजनम्

· · ·

fect असादृश्य arises when there is no similarity between the उपमान and the उपमेय, while the defect असंभव is developed when the उपमान is represented to be such as is absolutely impossible. The distinction between the two is this : In असंभव the उपमान is such as enjoys no existence in the world at all, while in असादृश्य the उपमान exists, but is not known to be similar to the उपमेय.

· · ·

[ Sutra 207 ]

Stanza 207 —This line is taken from वामन's काव्यालङ्कारसूत्रवृत्ति 4. 2. 16. Here we find that co-attributeness or resemblance between a poem and the moon, and senses and the rays is nowhere known ( प्रतीतम् = प्रसिद्धम् ). That is how असादृश्य as an उपमादोष is here developed. Mammata holds that this असादृश्य is nothing but भ्रान्तिमितार्थत्वम्.

· · ·

[ Sutra 208 ]

Stanza 208—This stanza is भामह ii 47. It describes an archer discharging arrows from his bow. The first half contains an उत्प्रेक्षा. The arrows appeared to proceed from his mouth, which was at the middle of the bow as he held it in his hand in the ready position. The second line compares the burning arrows with the fiercely blazing showers of water coming from the mid-day sun, possessed of a halo. Thus, the following are compared : दीसः शराः = जाज्वल्यमाना वारिधाराः; धनुरुङ्गडलम् = परिवेष: and अस्यम् — अर्कः. Here it is impossible that burning showers of water should fall from the orb of the sun. When a poet expresses such an idea, it leads to inappropriateness or अनौचित्यार्थता.

· · ·

One defect of उत्प्रेक्षा had apparently been noted by some ancient rhetorician. It is called अशक्ति:, which is really equal to यथाशब्दस्य संभावना प्रतिपादयितुम् अशक्ति: or the incapacity of the word यथा to denote probability. The essence of उत्प्रेक्षा is संभावना or probability. It is expressed by words like शवम and इव. Somebody may perhaps think that because the word यथा is संभावनवाचक in addition to being साधर्म्यवाचक, the word इव, which is साधर्म्यवाचक, could also be used as संभावनवाचक. Against this idea it is pointed out that यथा has no power to convey probability. It can, when used singly ( केवलस्य ), express similarity alone and similarity is not intended to be the essence in उत्प्रेक्षा. Therefore, when the word यथा is used to express probability, which it has no power to do, the defect अशक्ति: arises. This defect, Mammata holds, is nothing but अवाचकत्वम्, which he has already mentioned among the 16 पददोष in the 7th Ullāsa.

· · ·

अवाचकत्वम् or Inexpressiveness consists in the use of a word to denote a sense, which it has no power to do. e. g. ‘गीतेषु कर्णमाददे’ साहित्यदर्पण vii . Here आाददते is used in the sense of ‘gives’. But आाददते has no power to express this sense.

· · ·

उत्प्रेक्ष्यायामपि

· · ·

[ Sutra 209 ]

Stanza 209

· · ·

अर्थान्तरन्यासदोष:

· · ·

आलेख्यमिव गगनतले

· · ·

अत्र … यत् :- Here in the first place it is not possible for the inanimate darkness to be afraid of the sun. Secondly, it is equally impossible for the inanimate mountain to afford protection necessitated ( प्रयोजितम् ) by that fear. But when this protection ( अस्य = आध्रिकृतस्य परित्राणस्य . In translation substitute ‘protection’ for ‘fear:’), which is really impossible in the nature of things, is fancied to be true by the poet, there is no improbability whatsoever with regard to it. Therefore, the effort to corroborate it by means of a general proposition is useless. Thus, arises अर्थान्तरन्यासस्य निर्विषयत्वम्, which is the same as अनुचितार्थता.

· · ·

Thus, the अनुपपत्ति:, which is at the basis of निर्विषयत्व as a defect of अर्थान्तरन्यास, is उत्प्रक्षितार्थस्य ( परित्राणस्य ) समर्थनानुपपत्ति:, because an उत्प्रक्षितार्थ needs no समर्थन. As it has been fancied by the poet, it has to be taken as true.

· · ·

as दिवाभीतं उल्लूकम् ( an owl ) इव गुहासु लीनम् which is lying in the 'caves like an owl.

· · ·

समासोक्तिदोष:

· · ·

अनुपादेयत्वम् ( Read अनुपादेयवेम् for अनुपोदेयता on p. 137 ) as a defect of समासोक्तिः had apparently been mentioned by some ancient rhetorician. Mammata tells us that this अनुपादेयत्वम् is the same as अपुष्टार्थत्वम् or पुनरुक्तता. समासोक्तौ: अनुपादेयत्वम् means समासोक्तौ उपमानस्य अनूपादेयत्वं शब्देन अनिदेश्यत्वम्.

· · ·

पुनरुक्तता, like अपुष्टार्थत्वम्, has been mentioned by Mammata among 23 अर्थदोषः. When a certain thing, which has once been expressed by means of words, is again conveyed by other words, the defect पुनरुक्तता occurs. पुनरुक्तता differs from अपुष्टार्थत्व, because the sense which is denoted by an अपुष्टार्थ word is not actually expressed by some word before, though it may have been generally implied. Mammata's example of पुनरुक्तत्वम् is 'अभ्जालावलीढप्रतिबलजलधेरतरौवायमाणे सेनान्यथे स्थितेऽस्मिन् मम पितरि गुरौ सर्वधनवीश्वराणाम्. कर्णालौ संग्रामेण व्रज कुप समरे मुख्य हार्दिक्य शाङ्कां ताते चापद्वितीये वद्धति रणे गुरुः को भयस्यावकाशः || ' वेणीसंहार 3. 7, on which he observes 'अत्रचतुर्थपादवाक्यार्थे: पुनरुक्तः ' p. 384 ( वामनाचार्य. )

· · ·

Stanza 211—This stanza is रत्नाकर's हरिविजय 3. 37 and forms part of the description of ग्रीष्म or summer. The printed edition ( निर्णयसागर ) reads चिरायायिदिनश्रिया ( चिरायायिनो दीर्घेगामिणः ये दिनाः तेषां श्रीः तया ).

· · ·

अत्र तिमिरशुचि...शब्ददोपादानेन—

· · ·

श्लेषोपमायास्तु... प्रतीति:

· · ·

[ Sutra 212 ]

पद्मवौ इव किसलयौ इव आाताम्रौ आसन्नतां लोहितौ भास्वतौ दीप्तिमन्तौ यौ करौ ताभ्यां विराजिनी विराजमाना (पार्वतीपक्षे) पद्मव इव आाताम्रौ भास्करौ: सूर्यिकरौ: विराजिनी न, पार्वतीवक्त्रं आाताम्र: भास्करै: सूर्यिकरणै: विराजिनी वा (प्रभातसन्ध्यापक्षे) सुक्षेन आयपते इति स्वापं सुलभम् न स्वापम् अस्वापं दुलभं यत् फले मोक्षकल्पे तस्मिन् ये लुब्धा: सङ्गोत्कण्ठा: तेषां दैन्तस्य अमोघार्थस्य प्रदा दात्री (पार्वतीपक्षे) स्वाप: निद्रा, न स्वाप: अस्वाप: जागरण मद्यसेव प्रस्युझे उत्साहं, तस्य यत् फले स्नानसौल्यादिकं अध्ययनादिकं वा, तस्मिन् लुब्धे जने हितप्रदा इष्टदात्री (प्रभातसन्ध्यापक्षे)

· · ·

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसादोषः

· · ·

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा is exactly the opposite of समासोक्ति. There in the अप्रस्तुत or उपमान is expressed and the प्रस्तुत or the उपमेय is understood in the same manner i. e. through the force of common adjectives (अन्यैव रीत्या = साधारणविशेषणवशादेव). Therefore, if in अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा the उपमेय is mentioned by means of a word, the defect अनुपादेयत्वम्, which apparently had been noted by some ancient rhetorician, arises. Hence, Mammata remarks that the उपमेय should not be spoiled i. e. made defective by the use of a word to express it again. Such प्रयोग leads to the fault (अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसाया:) अनुपादेयत्वम्, which in Mammata's opinion is the same as अपुष्टार्थत्वम् or पुनरुक्तता.

· · ·

Stanza 213—This is भट्टशतक 69 (काव्यमाला चतुर्थ गुच्छक p. 150), where we have 'मध्ये वा धुरी वसन्' for 'मध्येवारिधि वा वसन्'. It contains censure or condemnation of generality (सामान्यानुम्), which does not consider the distinction between things (अनाश्रय तत्कान्तरं तत्वानां वस्तुनाम् अन्तर तारतम्य येन) falling within a class but looks upon them all as equal and thus resembles a thoughtless king, who also makes no distinction between man and man. The first three lines offer examples of undiscriminating generality. When sky-goers i. e. birds are called, a mosquito coming forward cannot be warded off, because it is a विहंगम equally with an eagle. Thus, the सामान्य विहंगमत्व makes no distinction between an insignificant sky-goer like a mosquito and the king of birds viz. the eagle. That is how it is अनाश्रयतत्कान्तर. The class of मणिs or jewels includes most brilliant and precious stones like diamonds as well as a worthless stone like a grass-jewel, which is found in the middle of the sea. तृणमणि: is a kind of jewel, which is supposed to attract grass, as magnet attracts iron. वावसन् can also be looked upon as one word. It will then be nom. sing. of the present participle from वावसति, which is a frequentative from वस् वसति to dwell. वावसन् continually dwelling. The reading 'मध्ये वा धुरी वा वसन्.' Then again even a fire-fly trembles not in moving among luminaries. For, the generality तेजस्वित्व is as much applicable to it as to the sun.

· · ·

The stanza is an example of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, because the description of सामान्य is clearly अप्रस्तुत. For, no one would condemn an inanimate and abstract entity like generality. Further. अनाश्रयतत्कान्तरम्, as a qualification of सामान्यम्, shows that सामान्य is अप्रस्तुत and is intended to stand 'for some one else. For, अनाश्रयतत्कान्तरम् is really a property of sentient beings and, therefore, cannot properly be construed with

· · ·

अचेतनस्य प्रभो:

· · ·

तददते...अर्हन्ति

· · ·

अन्येऽपि एवंजातीयका:

· · ·

rise to it are मिश्राधिकरण, while विरोध requires that they should be एकाधिकरण, Read 'अत्र धर्मभासस्तनयाल्वादीनां शीतलत्वादीनां विरोध उक्तः । स च मिश्राधारतयैव निर्देशात् सामवति । एकाश्रयत्वेनैव विरोधस्य निरुपितत्वात् ।' वामनाचार्ये

· · ·

एष मार्गः stands for the manner in which Mammaṭa has dealt with the different topics in his book. एष मार्गः=अयं काव्यप्रकाशान्तर्भावितभिन्न-विषयप्रतिपादनप्रकारः. विदुषाम्=काव्यप्रकाशाध्येतॄणां विद्वज्जनानाम्. This is a compliment to students of the Kāvyaprakāśa, to whom the work appears to be of an unbroken form. The word contains an indirect compliment to Mammaṭa himself, because it suggests that the learned are satisfied with the organic unity of his Kāvyaprakāśa. Or विदुषाम् may be construed with विभिन्नः instead of with प्रतिभासते. विदुषां विभिन्नः then becomes equal to विदुषां भरतादुद्भटादीनां प्राचीनालंकारिकाणां ग्रन्थेषु भिन्नत्वेन दृष्टः.

· · ·

APPENDIX—A

· · ·

KĀRIKĀS IN ULLĀSAS I, II, III AND X

· · ·

प्रथम उल्लासः

· · ·

[ Sutra १ ]

नियतिअनियतमरहितां हादैैकमयीमनन्यपरतन्त्राम्‌ । नवरसरुचिरां निर्मितिमादधती भारती कवेर्‌जयति ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २ ]

काव्यं यशसे‌ऽर्थकृते व्यवहारविदे शिवेतरक्षतये । सद्यः परनिर्वृतये कान्तासंमिततयोपदेशयुजे ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३ ]

शक्तिनिपुणता लोकशास्त्रकाव्याच्चेक्षणात्‌ । काव्यबोधाभ्यास इति हेतुस्तदुदुद्रवे ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४ ]

तद्दोषौ शब्दार्थीौ सगुणावनलंकृती पुनः क्रापि । इदमुत्तममतिशयिनि व्यङ्ग्ये वाच्याद्, ध्वनिनिबन्धः कथितः ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५ ]

अतादृशं गुणाभूतं व्यङ्गयं तु मध्यमम्‌ । शब्दचित्रं वाच्यचित्रमव्यङ्ग्यं त्वरयं स्मृतम्‌ ॥

· · ·

द्वितीय उल्लासः

· · ·

[ Sutra १ ]

स्याद् वाचको लक्षणिकः शब्दो‌ऽत्र व्यङ्ग्यकविथा । वाच्याद्यस्तदर्थः स्युः सुस्पष्टतपर्यायौ‌ऽपि केपुचित्‌ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २ ]

सर्वेषां प्रायशो‌र्थानां व्यञ्जकत्वं पुष्यते । साक्षात्‌ संकेतिकं योडर्थमभिधत्ते स वाचकः ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ३ ]

संकेतितेऽश्वत्थुमेऽपि जात्यादिजातिरेव वा । स मुख्यो‌र्थः स तु मुख्यो व्यापरो‌स्याभिधोच्यते ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४ ]

मुख्यार्थबाधे तद्योगे रूहितो‌र्थ प्रयोजनात्‌ । अन्यो‌र्थः शक्यते यत् सा लक्षणा क्रियते‌ऽत्र वा ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५ ]

स्वसिद्धये पराक्षेपः परार्थ स्वसमर्पणम्‌ । उपादानं लक्षणं चेत्युक्तता शुद्धैव सा द्विधा ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ६ ]

सारोपान्यां तु यत्राक्तौ विषयी विषयस्तथा । विषय्यन्तः कृते‌ऽन्वयस्मिन् सा स्यात् साध्यवसानिका ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ७ ]

भेदाविमौ च सादृश्यात् सम्बन्धानन्तरतस्तथा । गौणी शुद्धौ च विश्रेयौ लक्षणा तेन पड्‌विधा ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ८ ]

व्यञ्जकत्वेन रहिता रूढिः, सहिता तु प्रयोजने । तयोः गूढमगूढं वा तदेषा कथिता त्रिधा ॥

· · ·

तद्‌द्वैलाक्षणिकस्तत्र व्यापारो व्यञ्जनात्मकः

· · ·

यस्य प्रतीतिमाधातुं लक्षणा समुपास्यते ॥ ९ ॥

· · ·

फलेऽशक्तेःकस्येऽत्र वाच्यनाथापरा क्रिया । नामिधा समयाभावादेतदेवभावात्र लक्षणा ॥ १० ॥

· · ·

लक्ष्यं न मुख्यं, नाप्यत्र बाघो, योगः फलेष नो । न प्रयोजनमेतस्मिन्, न च शब्दः स्वलद्रुचत॥ ११ ॥

· · ·

एवमध्यनवस्था स्यात् या मूललक्षणकारिणी । प्रयोजनेन सहितं लक्षणीयं न युज्यते ॥ १२ ॥

· · ·

ज्ञानस्य विषयो ध्येयः फलमन्यदुदाहृतम् । विशेषे लक्षणा नैवं विरोधः स्वसुस्तु लक्षते ॥ १३ ॥

· · ·

अनेकार्थस्य शब्दस्य वाचकत्वे नियंत्रिते । संयागादेरवाच्यार्थदीकृद व्यपेक्ष्यऽनम् ॥ १४ ॥

· · ·

तदुक्तो व्यकः शब्दो यत्सोडर्थान्तरयुक्त तथा । अर्थोऽपि व्यकस्तत्र सहकारितया मतः ॥ १५ ॥

· · ·

अर्था: प्रोक्ता: पुरा तेऽमार्यग्यऽऽकतोच्यते । वक्तृबोधक्यकाकूनां वाक्यवाच्यार्थयोः संग्रहे ॥ १ ॥

· · ·

प्रस्तावदेशकालादेर्विशिष्टात् प्रतिभाजुषाम् । योऽध्यस्याऽऽर्थीहेतुत्वेनापरो व्यक्तिरेव सा ॥ २ ॥

· · ·

शब्दप्रामाण्यवेदी यस्तु व्यङ्क्यार्थान्तरं यतः । अर्थस्य व्यङ्ककत्वे तच्छब्दस्य सहकारिता ॥ ३ ॥

· · ·

साधारण्यमुपमा भेदे पूर्णा लुप्ता च साध्रिमा । श्रौत्यार्थी च भवेद् वाक्ये समासे तद्वत् तथा ॥ १ ॥

· · ·

तद्धर्मस्य लोपे स्यात्त श्रौती तद्विते पुनः । उपमानानुपादाने वाक्यगाथ समासगा ॥ २ ॥

· · ·

वादेलोपे समासे सा कर्मधारयक्यिच क्यडि । कर्मकर्तुःमूल्येतेदृक्लोपे क्रिस्मासगा ॥ ३ ॥

· · ·

धर्मोपमानयोलोपे बृतौ वाक्ये च हश्यते । क्यचि वाद्युपमेयासे त्रिलोपे च समासगा ॥ ४ ॥

· · ·

उपमानोपमेयत्वे एकस्यैवैकवाक्यगे । अनन्वयो, विपर्यास उपमेयोपमा तयोः ॥ ५ ॥

· · ·

सभाब्दनमतोऽत्यप्रकृतस्य समन रूचः । संदेहस्तु भेदोक्तौ तदनुक्तौ च संशयः ॥ ६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ७ ]

तद् रूपकमभेवो य उपमानोपमेययोः । समस्तवस्तुविषयं श्रौता आरोपिता यदा ॥ ७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ८ ]

श्रौता आर्थाश्र ते यस्मिन्नेकदेशे विवर्त्ति तत् । साधर्म्येतेनिरदनं तु शुद्धं माला तु पूर्ववत् ॥ ८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ९ ]

नियतारोपणोपायः स्यादारोपः परस्य यः । तत् परंपरितं शिष्टे वाचके भेदभाजि वा ॥ ९ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १० ]

प्रकृतं यत्रविशेष्यं सा साध्यते सा स्वपहुति: । शेषः स वाक्ये एकस्मिन् यत्रानेकार्थता भवेत् ॥ १० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ११ ]

परोक्तिमेदेकः शिष्टे: समासोक्तिनिर्देशना । अभवन् वस्तुसंबन्ध उपमापरिकल्पकः ॥ ११ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १२ ]

स्वस्वहेतुत्वन्वयस्योक्तिः क्रिययैव च सापरा । अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा या सा सैव प्रस्तुतार्थया ॥ १२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १३ ]

कार्ये निमित्ते सामान्ये विशेषे प्रस्तुते सति । तद्न्यस्य वाच्यतुल्यस्य च पन्था ॥ १३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १४ ]

निगीरीयाद्यवसानं तु प्रकृतस्य परेण यत् । प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्यत्वं यद्यथोक्तौ च कल्पनम् ॥ १८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १५ ]

कार्यकरणयोरीश्व: पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययः । विद्नेयातिशयोक्तिः सा, प्रतिवस्तूपमा तु सा ॥ १५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १६ ]

सामान्यस्य द्विरेकस्य यत्र वाक्यद्वये स्थिति: । हश्यान्तः पुनरेतस्य सर्वेषां प्रतिबिम्बनम् ॥ १६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १७ ]

सदृदृत्तिस्तु धर्मस्य प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनाम् । सैव क्रियासु बहिष्पु कारकस्येति दीपकम् ॥ १७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १८ ]

मालादीपकममाद्य यद्यप्यस्त्यनुगुणवहम । नियतानां सदृदृ धर्मः सा पुनस्तुल्ययोगिता ॥ १८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra १९ ]

उपमानाद् यद्न्यस्य व्यतिरेकः स एव सः । हेत्वोरुक्ततया नुक्तीनां त्रये साम्ये निवेदिते ॥ १९ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २० ]

शब्दार्थासभ्याम्याश्रिते शिष्टे तद्न्य त्रिरष्ट तत् । निषेधो वक्तुमिष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया ॥ २० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २१ ]

वक्ष्यमाणोक्तविषयः स आक्षेपो द्विधा मतः । क्रियाया: प्रतिविषेधपि फलवत्यर्थविवेचना ॥ २१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २२ ]

विशेषोक्तिरखण्डेऽपि कारणेषु फलावचः । यथासिद्धं क्रमेण वा क्रियाकाण्ड समन्वयः ॥ २२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २३ ]

सामान्यं वा विशेषो वा तद्न्येन समर्थ्यते । जय सोऽर्थान्तरन्यासः साधर्म्येणैतेरण वा ॥ २३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra २४ ]

विरोधः सोऽविरोधेऽपि विरुद्धत्वेन यद् वचः । जातिश्वेतुंर्जालत्यैच विरुद्धा स्वाद् गुणध्रिप्रभिः

· · ·

[ Sutra २५ ]

क्रिया द्रव्यामथ द्रव्यं द्रव्येणैवति ते दशा । स्वभावोक्तिस्तु डिम्भादे: स्वक्रिया रूंपवर्णनम्

· · ·

[ Sutra २६ ]

व्याजस्तुतिमुखे निन्दा स्तुतिवा रोहिणीर्था । सा सहोक्तिः सहार्थस्य बलादेकं द्विवाचकम

· · ·

[ Sutra २७ ]

विनोक्तिः सा विनान्येन यत्नान्तः सन्न नेतरः । परिर्यक्तिविनिमयो योडर्थानां स्यात् समासमैः

· · ·

[ Sutra २८ ]

प्रतीक्षा इव यद् भावा: क्रियन्ते भूतभाविनः । तद्भाविकं, काव्यलिङ्ङं हेतोरैक्यपदार्थता

· · ·

[ Sutra २९ ]

पर्यायोक्तं विनो वाच्यवाचकत्वेन यद् वचः । उदात्तं वस्तुनः संपद्, महतां चोपलक्षणम

· · ·

[ Sutra ३० ]

तात्पर्यादिति हेतोः समनन्तर्यात् तत्करं भवेत । समुच्चयोडसौ, स त्वन्यो युगपद् या शुणक्रिया:

· · ·

[ Sutra ३१ ]

एकं ऋमेणै कस्मिन् पर्यायोऽन्यस्ततोऽन्यथा । अनुमानं तदुक्तं यत् साध्यसाधनयोरिच्छः

· · ·

[ Sutra ३२ ]

विशेषैर्यात् साकूते शक्किः परिकरस्तु सः । व्याजो व्याजेन रूपेण निगृहीनम्

· · ·

[ Sutra ३३ ]

किंचित् पृष्टमपृष्टं वा कथितं यत् प्रकल्पते । तादृगनयपरोहाय परिसंख्या तु सा स्मृता

· · ·

[ Sutra ३४ ]

यथोत्तरं चेत् पूर्वस्य पूर्वस्यार्थस्य हेतुता । तदा कारणमाला स्यात्, क्रियया तु परस्परम

· · ·

[ Sutra ३५ ]

वस्तुनोरजननेनैक्यमन्यतरस्युतिमात्रतः । प्रश्नस्योत्तरनं यत्र क्रियते, तत् वा यत्नित

· · ·

[ Sutra ३६ ]

अस्कुंद यदसंभाव्यमुत्तरं स्यात् तदुत्तरम । कुतोऽपि लक्षितः सूक्ष्मोऽन्यर्थोडन्यस्मै प्रकाइयते

· · ·

[ Sutra ३७ ]

धर्मेण केनचिद् यत्र तत् सूक्ष्मं परिकक्षते । उत्तरोत्तरमुत्कर्षो भवेत् सारः

परागधिः

· · ·

[ Sutra ३८ ]

भिन्नदेशातयायेन्तं कार्यकारणमूर्तयोः । गुणपदू धमयोरैक्यात् सा स्यादसंगतिः

· · ·

[ Sutra ३९ ]

समाधिः: शुकारं कार्य कारणान्तरयोगतः । समं योग्यतया योगो यदि संभावितः किंचित

· · ·

[ Sutra ४० ]

किंचिद् यदतिवैधर्म्याण् ऋशेषो घटनामियात । कर्तुः क्रियाफलावासिनैवानर्थक्श यद् भवेत

· · ·

गुणक्रियाभ्यां कार्यस्य कारणस्य गुणक्रिये ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४१ ]

क्रमेण च विरुद्धं यत् स एष विषमो मतः ॥ ४१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४२ ]

महतोर्नमहीयांसावाश्रिताथ्रययोः ऋमात् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४२ ]

आश्रयाश्रयिणौ स्यातां ततुत्वेऽन्यधिको तु तत् ॥ ४२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४३ ]

प्रतिपक्षमहत्तेन प्रतिकृतु तिरस्क्रिया ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४३ ]

या तदीयस्थ तत्सुत्यै प्रत्यनीकं तदुच्यते ॥ ४३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४४ ]

समेन ल‌क्षणं वस्तु वस्तुना यत्निगृह्यते ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४४ ]

निजेनागन्तुना वापि तन्मीलितमिति स्मृतम्‌ ॥ ४४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४५ ]

स्थाप्यते डपोहते वाडपि यथापूर्वं परं परम्‌ ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४५ ]

विशेषणतया यत्र वस्तु सैकावल्ही द्विधा ॥ ४५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४६ ]

यथानुभवमथस्य हृ‌ष्टे तत्सदृशो स्मृतिः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४६ ]

स्मरणं भ्रान्तिमानन्यसंहित तत्सदृशदर्शने ॥ ४६ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४७ ]

आक्षेप उपमानस्य प्रतीपमुपमेयता ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४७ ]

तस्यैव यदि वा कल्प्या तिरस्क्रियांनिबन्धनम्‌ ॥ ४७ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४८ ]

प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्येन गुणसाम्यविवक्षया ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४८ ]

पैकात्म्यं बध्यते योगात् तत् सामान्यमिति स्मृतम्‌ ॥ ४८ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ४९ ]

विना प्रसिद्धमाधारमाघेयस्य व्यवस्थितिः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ४९ ]

एकात्मा युगपद्वृत्तिरेकस्यानेगगोचरा ॥ ४९ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५० ]

अन्यत् प्रकुर्वतात् कार्यमहाकस्यऽन्यवस्तुनः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५० ]

तथैव करणं चेति विशेषविविघः स्मृतः ॥ ५० ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५१ ]

स्वमुत्सृज्य गुणिं योगाद्युग्ज्वलगुणस्य यत् ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५१ ]

वस्तु तदुणातमेति भण्यते स तु तदुणः ॥ ५१ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५२ ]

तद्रूपानुरोधाद्वैषम्य तत् स्वादित्याहुः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५२ ]

यदू यथा साधितं केनाप्यपेरण तदन्यथा ॥ ५२ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५३ ]

तथैव यद् विचीयेत स व्याघात इति स्मृतः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५३ ]

सेषा संशयितेषां भेदेन यदिह स्थितिः ॥ ५३ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५४ ]

अविश्रान्तिजुषामात्मनयज्ञादिल्वं तु शंकरः ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५४ ]

एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावादनिश्रयः ॥ ५४ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५५ ]

स्फुटमेकत्र विषये शब्दार्थालंकृतिद्वयम्‌ ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५५ ]

व्यवस्थितं च तेनासौ त्रिरूपः परिकोर्तितः ॥ ५५ ॥

· · ·

[ Sutra ५६ ]

पसां दोषा यथायोगें संभवन्तोडपि केचन ।

· · ·

[ Sutra ५६ ]

उत्कृष्टान्तर्बवस्थिती न तथ्युक्तिप्रतीतिता ॥ ५६ ॥

· · ·

APPENDIX—B INDEX TO STANZAS

· · ·

अइपिहुलं जलकुंभं

· · ·

अकुण्ठात्कुण्ठया पूणी

· · ·

अखण्डमण्डल: श्रीमान्

· · ·

अर्ण्ण लडहत्तणअं

· · ·

अतिरर्थ नाम काकुस्थात्

· · ·

अत्यायतौनियमकारिभि

· · ·

अनयेनेव राज्यश्री

· · ·

अनवरतकनक

· · ·

अनुरणन्मणिमेखल

· · ·

अन्यत्र यूयं कुसुमं

· · ·

अपाझतरलले दशो

· · ·

अघेधरम्मःस्थगित

· · ·

अभिनवणललिनी

· · ·

असुमिळहवण्णयासुअल

· · ·

अयमेकपदे तथा

· · ·

अयं पद्मासनासीन

· · ·

अयं मातेण्ड: किं

· · ·

अयं वारामेको

· · ·

अरातिविकलमालोक

· · ·

अरुचिर्निशया विना

· · ·

अलौकिकमहालोक

· · ·

अवाप्त: प्रागल्म्यं

· · ·

अवितथमनोरथपथ

· · ·

अविरलकमलविकास:

· · ·

असितभुजगभीषणासि

· · ·

असिमात्रसहायोऽपि

· · ·

अस्या: सर्गविधौ

· · ·

अहमेव गुरु: सुदारुगाना

· · ·

आहो विशालं भूपाल

· · ·

आहो हि मे बहुपराद्ध

· · ·

आकुष्टकरवालोड्यो

· · ·

आत्ते सीमन्तरतले

· · ·

आदाय वारि परित:

· · ·

आनन्दमन्दिमिमे

· · ·

आलानं जयकुञ्जरस्य

· · ·

आसीदैनमत्राति

· · ·

आहूतेषु विहंगमेषु

· · ·

इत्येष माङ्गों विदुषां

· · ·

इन्दु: किं क कलहः

· · ·

इयं च पल्लविताम्र

· · ·

इयं सुनयना दासी

· · ·

उअ णिच्चलणिप्पंदा

· · ·

उदयति विततोऽच्वरश्मि

· · ·

उदयमयते दिअ्मालिन्ये

· · ·

उदंशोष्य सरस

· · ·

उदयौ दीर्घिंका

· · ·

उत्तंतं पदमत्रार्य

· · ·

उन्मेष यो मम न

· · ·

ए अहि किंपि कीअवि

· · ·

ए अहि दाव सुन्दरी

· · ·

एकविधा वसति

· · ·

एतत् तथ्य सुखाति

· · ·

एह्हेमतस्थणिआ

· · ·

ओणिअ देहबलल चिँता

· · ·

कपालेउ माजीर: पय

· · ·

कमलमनम्भासि

· · ·

कमलेव मतिर्मतिरिव

· · ·

करजुअहिअजसोआ

· · ·

करवाल इवाचार

· · ·

कर्पूर इव रस्खोडपि

· · ·

कलष्षि च तवाहिते

· · ·

कस्त्वं भो: कथ्यामि

· · ·

का विसमा देहगई

· · ·

किमासेवयं पुंसां

· · ·

किं भूषणं सुवढ

· · ·

किवणाणं घण णआणं

· · ·

किसलयकरैलतानां

· · ·

कुरज्जीवल्लजानि

· · ·

कुलममालिनं भद्रा

· · ·

कुसुमितालताभिरहता

· · ·

कैटिल्यं कचनिचये

· · ·

कौबादिरुध्दामहसद

· · ·

क सूर्यपसवो वंश:

· · ·

श्रीण: श्रीणोडपि इअच्छी

· · ·

गण्णिव प्रवहहु

· · ·

गर्वम संवाधयामिमं

· · ·

गाढमम्भु सितमम्भु

· · ·

गाम्भीर्यंगरिमा तस्य

· · ·

गिरयोड्यनुन्नति

· · ·

गुणानामेव दुरात्म्याद्

· · ·

गुणेऽनघ्ये प्रहितो

· · ·

गुरुणपरवस पिअ

· · ·

गृहिणी सचिव: सखी

· · ·

ग्रथामि काव्यशास्त्रिं

· · ·

ग्रामतरुण तरुण्या

· · ·

चकितहरिणलोचनालोचन:

· · ·

चक्की चकारपाहिं

· · ·

चण्डालेरिव युष्माभि:

· · ·

चित्रे चित्रं बत बत

· · ·

चिन्तारत्नमिव च्युतोडस्ति

· · ·

जटाभिरिभोभि:

· · ·

जस्स रन्नतेउरए

· · ·

जस्सेअ वणो तस्सेअ

· · ·

जह गहिरो जह

· · ·

जितेन्द्रियतया सम्यग्

· · ·

जितेन्द्रियाल्वं विनयस्य

· · ·

ज्योत्स्नाभस्मच्छुरण

· · ·

ज्योत्स्ना मोक्षिकदाम

· · ·

ज्योत्स्नेव नयनानन्द:

· · ·

डुण्णुणन्तो मरिअसि

· · ·

णोलेढ अणहणणा

· · ·

तइआ मह गंडत्थल

· · ·

ततः कुसुमनाथेन

· · ·

तं ताण सिरिसहोआर

· · ·

तथाभूतां हृद्रा

· · ·

तदिदमरव्य यस्मिन्

· · ·

तद् गेहं नतमित्ति

· · ·

तद्रोपे डसदशोडन्याभि:

· · ·

तरुणिमनि कृतावलोकना

· · ·

तवाहवे साहसरक्मं

· · ·

तेषां संगरसञ्जसक्त

· · ·

स्वयि हष्ट एव तस्या

· · ·

स्वं विनिज्जितमनोभव

· · ·

दिवमणुप्यायताना

· · ·

दिवाकराद् रक्षति यो

· · ·

दुब्बोरा: स्मरमागणा:

· · ·

देवीभार्वं गामिता

· · ·

दोभ्यां तितीर्षति

· · ·

दशा दग्धे मनसिजे

· · ·

द्वारोपान्तनिरन्तरे

· · ·

धनस्याऽनन्यसामान्य

· · ·

धवलोसि जह वि

· · ·

धातु: शिल्पातिशय

· · ·

न केवलं भाति नितान्तं

· · ·

न तज्जलं यन्त्र

· · ·

नन्वाथ्रयस्थितिरयं

· · ·

नयनानन्दायेन्दो

· · ·

नानाविधप्रहरणे

· · ·

निजदोषाद्वतमनसा

· · ·

नित्योदितप्रतापेन

· · ·

निद्रानिवृत्तावदिते

· · ·

निपेतुरास्यादिव तस्म

· · ·

निप्रनाभिकुहरेऽपि

· · ·

निरवधि च निरार्थ्य च

· · ·

नि:शेषव्युतचन्दनं

· · ·

परिच्छेदातीत:

· · ·

परिपन्थिमनोराज्य

· · ·

पक्षाद्दग्ध्री प्रसार्य

· · ·

पाण्डु क्षामं वदने

· · ·

पातालमिव नामिस्ते

· · ·

पादमुजं भवतु नो

· · ·

पराणि यस्सां सव्वरा

· · ·

पुस्त्वादपि प्रविच्छेद

· · ·

पेशलमपि खल

· · ·

पैरे सुलीयति जन्नं

· · ·

प्रणयसखीसीलील

· · ·

प्रत्यग्रमज्जनविशेष

· · ·

बत सखि कियदेतत्

· · ·

बिम्बोष्ठ एव रागस्ते

· · ·

भण तरुणि रमण

· · ·

भक्तिमेव न विभवे

· · ·

भद्रास्त्वं नो दुरविरो

· · ·

भस्मोद्धूलन भद्रमस्तु

· · ·

भुजंगमस्येव मणि:

· · ·

मतिरिव मूर्तिमंधुरा

· · ·

मधुरिमरुचिरं वचः

· · ·

मलयजरसविलिस्म

· · ·

महोजसा मानधना

· · ·

माए घरोऽरण

· · ·

मानमस्या निराकृतं

· · ·

मुका: केलिविग्रह

· · ·

मुखं विकसितस्मितं

· · ·

मुगलोचनया विना

· · ·

मृधे निदाघगर्मांशु

· · ·

यत्रैता लहरीचलाचल

· · ·

यदि दहत्यनलोडत्र

· · ·

यस्य किंचिदपकर्तुं

· · ·

ये प्रेयसि चिरुढापि

· · ·

यः कौमारहरः

· · ·

याता: किं न मिलन्ति

· · ·

युगान्तकालप्रतिसंहता

· · ·

ये कन्दरासु निवसन्ति

· · ·

येनास्यभूदितेन

· · ·

येषां कण्ठपरिग्रह

· · ·

राकायामकलङ्क

· · ·

राजति तट्टीयमिहित

· · ·

राजनारायर्ण लक्ष्मी

· · ·

राजन् राजसुता न

· · ·

राज्ये सारं वसुधा

· · ·

लतानामेतासा

· · ·

लहिऊण तुज्झ

· · ·

लावण्यौकसि सप्रताप

· · ·

लिम्पतीव तमोड्डुगानि

· · ·

वक्त्रस्यन्दिस्वेद

· · ·

वक्त्रेन्दौ तब सत्यं

· · ·

वदनसौरमलोभ

· · ·

वपुःप्रादुर्भोवाद

· · ·

वहिस्फुलिङ्ग इव

· · ·

वाणिअआहत्यदन्ता

· · ·

विदलितसकलारिकुले

· · ·

विद्रुम्नमानसहंस

· · ·

विनिर्गतं मानद

· · ·

विपुलेन सागरशयस्य

· · ·

विभिन्नवर्णो गरुडाम्रजन

· · ·

वेत्तवचा तुल्यरुचां

· · ·

शशी दिवसघूसरो

· · ·

-चिरोषादपि मृदुब्जी

· · ·

हैमेन्द्रप्रतिपद्यमान

· · ·

श्रीपरिचयाजडा अपि

· · ·

सअलकरणपर

· · ·

सा एकत्रैव नीयते

· · ·

सक्त्तचो भक्षित्ता

· · ·

सङ्केतकालमनसं

· · ·

संग्रामाझणमागतेन

· · ·

सततं मुसलसक्ता

· · ·

सच्यः करस्पृशमवाप्य

· · ·

सा पीतवासा:

· · ·

समदमतज्जमदजल

· · ·

स मुनिलोचिछतो

· · ·

सविता विधवति

· · ·

सह दिअहुणिसाहिं

· · ·

सा वसइ तुज्झ हिअए

· · ·

साहेन्ती सहि सुहरिओ

· · ·

सिंहिकासुतसन्तस्तः

· · ·

सुन्वइ समागरिस्सदि

· · ·

मुसितवसनालकारायं

· · ·

सुहृदध्रुवाष्यजल

· · ·

सृजति च जगदिदमवति

· · ·

सो ऋणथि एथ गामे

· · ·

सोष्पूवों रसना

· · ·

सौन्दर्यस्य तरङिणी

· · ·

सौभाग्यं वितनोति

· · ·

स्पष्टोऽलक्ष्यकरण

· · ·

स्मृशाति तिमरश्चो

· · ·

सुरददुहतुरूप

· · ·

स्वच्छन्दोच्छलदनच्छ

· · ·

स्वच्छात्मतागुण

· · ·

स्वमेपि समरोपु त्वां

· · ·

स्वियति कूणति वेढति

· · ·

हरवत्न विषमदृष्टि

· · ·

हसणं सरोहि सिरि

· · ·

हिल्वा त्वासुपरोध

· · ·

हृदयमधिष्ठितमदो

· · ·

हे हेलाजितबोधिसत्व

· · ·

APPENDIX C

· · ·

INDEX TO ALAMKARAS TREATED BY MAMMATA IN ULLĀSA X

· · ·

The figures refer to the pages of the Text and to those of the Notes.

· · ·

अतद्गुणा: ११७, ४६०

· · ·

अतिशयोक्ति: ६३, ३१९

· · ·

अधिकम् १०५, ४२९

· · ·

अनन्वय: १४४, २७३

· · ·

अनुमानम् ९१, ३९४

· · ·

अन्योन्यम् १७, ४९०

· · ·

अपह्नुति: ५३, २९८

· · ·

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ५८, ३१०

· · ·

अर्थान्तरन्यास: ७५, ३४९

· · ·

असंगति: १०१, ४१८

· · ·

आक्षेप: ७२, ३४२

· · ·

उत्तरम् ११५, ४५०

· · ·

उत्प्रेक्षा ४५, २७५

· · ·

उदात्तम् ८६, ३७९

· · ·

उपमा ३४, २४४

· · ·

उपमेयोपमा ४४, २७४

· · ·

एकावली १०८, ४३५

· · ·

कारणमाला ९६, ४०६

· · ·

काव्यलिङ्गम् ८३, ३७०

· · ·

तद्गुण:; ११६, ४५६

· · ·

तुल्ययोगिता ६८, ३३१

· · ·

दीपकम् ६६, ३२७

· · ·

हश्यान्त: ६५, ३२५

· · ·

निरदेशना ५६, ३०७

· · ·

परिकर: ९२, ३९७

· · ·

परिक्रिति: ८२, ३६७

· · ·

परिसंख्या ९४, ४०२

· · ·

पर्याय: ८९, ३८८

· · ·

पर्यायोक्तम् ८५, ३७३

· · ·

प्रतिवस्तूपमा ६४, ३२३

· · ·

प्रतीपम् १९९, ४४३

· · ·

प्रत्यानीकम् ९०६, ४३१

· · ·

भाविकम् ८३, ३६९

· · ·

भ्रान्तिमान् ९९०, ४५०

· · ·

मालादीपकम् ६७, ३३०

· · ·

मीलीतम् ९०७, ४३३

· · ·

यथासंख्यम् ७५, ३४८

· · ·

रूपकम् ४७, २८४

· · ·

विनोक्ति: ८१, ४६६

· · ·

विभावना ७३, ३४५

· · ·

विरोध: ७६, ३५२

· · ·

विशेष: ११५, ४५९

· · ·

विशेषोक्ति: ७४, ३४६

· · ·

विषमम् ९०३, ४२४

· · ·

व्यतिरेक: ६८, ३३४

· · ·

व्याघात: ९९८, ४६३

· · ·

व्याजस्तुति: ८०, ३६१

· · ·

व्याजोक्ति: ९३, ३९९

· · ·

श्लेष: ५५, ३०१

· · ·

संस्कृति: ११९, ४६५

· · ·

संकर: १२०, ४६८

· · ·

समम् ९०२, ४२३

· · ·

समाधि: ९०२, ४२२

· · ·

समासोक्ति: ५५, ३०४

· · ·

समुच्चय: ८९, ३८७

· · ·

ससंदेह: ४६, २८१

· · ·

सहोक्ति: ८१, ३६४

· · ·

सामान्यम् ११३, ४४७

· · ·

सार: ९००, ४१७

· · ·

सहृसमम् ९९, ४१६

· · ·

स्मरणम् ९०९, ४३८

· · ·

स्वभावोक्ति: ७९, ३६०