1. Kavya prakasa Translation 1 2 and 10 Chapters

Page 1

मम्मटविचितः

Mammata's creation

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

प्रथमद्वितीयतृतीयदशमोल्लास्म

First, Second, Third and Tenth Ullasas

THE

KĀVYAPRAKĀSA

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

POPULAR PRAKASHAN BOMBAY 34 WB.

Page 2

First Edition 1939

Second Edition 1959

Third Edition 1970

PRINTED BY C.K DHOTRE. KAMAL PROCESS STUDIO 40 IDEAL INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BOMBAY 13 B.C. AND PUBLISHED BY G R BHATKAL FOR POPULAR PRAKASHAN 35C, TARDEO ROAD, BOMBAY 34 WB

Page 3

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 Nāṭakas. 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 Nāṭakas 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 10th Ullasa. In the case of all figures which are likely to be

Page 4

काव्यप्रकारा*

Kavyaprakasha*

confounded with others, I first point out the resemblance and then the distinction between them By the way may I say that in drawing a question paper I always put 'Compare and contrast the following figures' rather than 'Distinguish between the following figures'

In the preparation of this edition I have made use of the following books, to the editors and authors of which my best thanks are due Kāvyaprakāśa Ullasas I, II and X edited by D T Chandorkar ( first Edition 1896, Second Edition 1915 ), Kāvyāprakāśa Ullasas, I II and X edited by P P Joshi (1913 ), Kavyaprakasa Ullasas I and II edited by H D Velankar (1919 ), Kāvyaprakāśa Ullasas I, II and III edited by S S Sukthankar (1933 ), Dandin's Kāvyādārāsa Paricchedas I and II edited by S K Belvalkar (1919 ), Visvanatha's Sāhityadarpana edited by P V Kane, Second Edition 1923, in which his ' The History of Alamkara Literature' has been printed as Introduction, and studies in the History of Indian Poetics Vols I and II ( 1923 and 1932 ), by S K De

My best thanks are also due to Mr G N Shrigondekar B A, of the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona, whose help in the matter of the correction of proofs was very valuable to me He very kindly prepared the Appendices in addition I am further deeply thankful to the Managers of the Aryabhushan Press for promptness in printing this book and for uniform courtesy and kindness

A B GAJENDRAGADKAR

Page 5

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 now 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.

S. N. GAJENDRAGADKAR

Wilson College, Bombay 9th August, 1959.

Page 6

CONTENTS

ace to the First Edition

Preface to the First Edition

ace to the Second Edition

Preface to the Second Edition

oduction

Introduction

I Personal Account of Mammata

II The Works of Mammata

II The Date of Mammata

III The Date of Mammata

V The Authorship of the Kāvyaprakāśa

V The Contents of the Kāvyaprakāśa

VI Mammata A Critical Appreciation

VII Classification of Figures

III Important Authors un Alamkāraśāstra

VIII Important Authors in Alamkāraśāstra

IX Five Schools of Poetics

Text and

Translation

Notes

प्र उल्हासः

First Chapter

३-९

मङ्गलम्

Auspicious Verses

३

काव्यप्रयोजनानि

Purposes of Poetry

३

काव्यहेतुः

Causes of Poetry

३

काव्यलक्षणम्

Definition of Poetry

४

शब्दशक्त्यपरनामकोऽर्थशक्त्यलक्षणम्

Explanation of the Power of Words and Meaning

५

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यनामध्यमकाव्यलक्षणम्

Definition of Middle Poetry

६

अव्यङ्ग्यनामाधमकाव्यस्यालक्षणम्

Definition of Inferior Poetry

६

तृतीय उल्हासः

Third Chapter

८-१९

निवृत्त. ध्वान्तः

Removal of Darkness

८

तात्पर्यार्थः

Intended Meaning

८

अर्थोड्याः व्यञ्जकाः

Suggestive Meanings

९

वाच्याद्वैचित्र्यलक्षणम्

Characteristics of Literal Meaning

१०

संकेतविषये मतह्यम्

Discussion on the Topic of Convention

११

समिधालक्षणम्

Definition of Samidhi

१३

Page 7

सारोपाया लक्षणाया लक्षणम्

शाब्यावसानिकाया लक्षणाया लक्षणम्

ईमो भेदौ गौणौ मुख्यौ च

गौणलक्षणाविषये मतत्रयम्

प्रकारान्तरेण लक्षणाया भेदत्रयम्

लाक्षणिकशब्दलक्षणम्

लक्षणामूलकव्यजनाया लक्षणम्

व्यञ्जनाया अवसरप्राप्तिः

विशिष्टलक्षणा न युक्ता

अभिधामूलकव्यजनाया लक्षणम्

व्यङ्गचकन्दरलक्षणम्

शाब्दस्य व्यङ्गकत्वे अर्थस्य सहकारित्वम्

तृतीय उल्लासः

आर्थी व्यञ्जना

अर्थस्य व्यङ्गकत्वे शाब्दस्य सहकारित्वम्

चतुर्थ उल्लासः

अलङ्कार

(१) उपमा

(२) अनन्वय

(३) उपमेयोपमा

(४) उत्प्रेक्षा

(५) अतिशयोक्ति

(६) रूपकम्

(७) अपह्नुति

(८) श्लेष

(९) समासोक्ति

(१०) निदर्शना

(११) अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

(१२) अतिशयोक्ति

(१३) प्रतिवस्तूपमा

(१४) दृष्टान्तः

Page 8

४) दीपकम्

Deepakam

६) मालादीपकम्

Malādīpakam

९) तुल्ययोगिता

Tulyayogitā

८) व्यतिरेक

Vyatireka

९) आक्षेप

Ākṣepa

०) विभावना

Vibhāvanā

१) विशेषोक्ति

Viśeṣoṅkti

२) यथासंख्यन

Yathāsāṅkhyan

३) अर्थान्तरन्यास

Arthāntaranyāsa

४) विरोध

Virodha

५) स्वभावोक्ति

Svabhāvoṅkti

६) व्याजस्तुति

Vyājastuti

७) सहोक्ति

Sahoṅkti

८) विनोक्ति

Vinoṅkti

९) परिकृति

Parikṛti

०) भाविकम्

Bhāvikam

१) काव्यलिङ्गम्

Kāvyaliṅgam

२) पर्यायोक्तम्

Paryāyoktam

३) उदात्तम्

Udāttam

४) समुच्चयः

Samuccayaḥ

५) पर्यायः

Paryāyaḥ

६) अनुक्क्रमणम्

Anukramaṇam

१०) परिकर

Parikara

१८) व्याजोक्ति:

Vyājoktiḥ

१९) परिसंख्या

Parisamkhyā

२०) कारणमाला

Kāraṇamālā

९९) अन्योक्ति/न्यायम्

Anyokti/nyāyam

९२) उत्तरम्

Uttaram

९३) सूक्ष्मम्

Sūkṣmam

९४) वारः

Vāraḥ

९५) अर्थापत्ति:

Arthāpattiḥ

९६) समाधिः

Samādhiḥ

Page 9

(६३) ममम्

(६८) विगम

(६९) अधिकम्

(७०) प्रत्यनीककम्

(७१) मीहितम्

(७२) एकावली

(७३) स्मरणम्

(७४) भ्रान्तिमान्

(७५) प्रतीपम्

(७६) ग्रामान्यम्

(७७) विशेष.

(७८) तद्गुण

(७९) अतद्गुण:

(८०) व्याघात:

(८१) संसृष्टि

(८२) संकर.

अलंकाराणां त्रिविधविभागतः

अन्वयव्यतिरेकहेतुत्वम्

अलंकारदोषाणामुक्तदोषेषु अन्तर्भाव

अनुप्रासदोष

यमकदोष:

उपमादोष:

उत्प्रेक्षादोष:

अर्थान्तरन्यासदोष:

समासोक्तिदोष.

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसाादोष

Appendices

A—Kānkās in Ullāsas I, II, III and X

B—Index to Stanzas quoted as Illustrations in the Text

C—Index to Alamkāras treated by Mammata in Ullāsa 10

Page 10

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 Bhimaseṇa Dīkṣita who completed it in Samvat 1779 or A D 1723 From these stanzas we learn that Mammata was a son of Jayata and that he had two younger brothers viz Kaiyata, the author of the Pradipa, a commentary on the Mahābhāṣya of Patanjali, and Uvata or Auvaṭa, the author of a commentary called Bhāṣya on the Rk prātiśākhya of Saunaka and of a commentary called Mantra bhāṣya on the Vāj aneyi 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 Auvaṭa studied under him and distinguished themselves by their commentaries on the Bhāṣya and the Veda respectively Mammata was an incarnation of the goddess Sarasvatī

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 Bhimaseṇa Dīkṣita, who completed it in Samvat 1779 or A.D. 1723. From these stanzas, we learn that Mammata was a son of Jayata and that he had two younger brothers, viz. Kaiyata, the author of the Pradipa, a commentary on the Mahābhāṣya of Patanjali, and Uvata or Auvaṭa, the author of a commentary called Bhāṣya on the Rk Prātiśākhya of Saunaka and of a commentary called Mantra Bhāṣya on the Vājasaneyi 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 Auvaṭa, studied under him and distinguished themselves by their commentaries on the Bhāṣya and the Veda, respectively. Mammata was an incarnation of the goddess Sarasvatī.

Scholars are not inclined to place any reliance on the information supplied by Bhimaseṇa Thus, Bhimaseṇa's statement that Mammata was a son of Jayata and brother of Kaiyata and Uvata is dubbed by Aufrecht as 'a silly tradition' 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]

Scholars are not inclined to place any reliance on the information supplied by Bhimaseṇa. Thus, Bhimaseṇa's statement that Mammata was a son of Jayata and brother of Kaiyata and Uvata is dubbed by Aufrecht as 'a silly tradition.' 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].'

संवत्‌परित्यागवशात्प्राप्ते माधे मधीसुतौ ।
When, due to the abandonment of the Samvat era, the month of Madhu arrived,

of the Kāvyaprakāśa with the commentary Sudhāsāgara p 712 (Chowkhambā edition)

त्रयोदश्यां मामवारे समापोष्य कुरोदधि ॥

On the thirteenth day of the bright half of Māgha, the ocean of nectar was completed.

'तद्धवी हि मरस्वती स्वयमभूत् काश्मीरदेशे पुमान्' (stanza 4) 'वारदेवतारूपिणी (stanza 5) and 'सा देवी मम्मटाल्या' (stanza 7) Bhimaseṇa refers to Mammata as वारदेवतावतार in his commentary also at several places, especially when defending him against the criticism of the Pradīpa Read p 4, 19, 125,
'There, Sarasvati herself became a man in the land of Kashmir' (stanza 4), 'The goddess took the form of a boon-giver' (stanza 5), and 'That goddess is Mammata's mother' (stanza 7). Bhimaseṇa refers to Mammata as an incarnation of the boon-giving goddess 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 civ, prefixed as an Introduction to his edition of the Sāhityadarpana

Page 11

was a son of Vajrata and wrote his Bhāśya on the Vājasneyī saṃhitā during the reign of Bhoja5 From this Kane thinks that there is nothing improbable in Mammata being a brother of Uvata, but that he cannot then be the brother of Kaiyata, whose father was Jayata De calls the theory of Mammata's relationship with Uvata as ‘untenable’6

We are not prepared to brush aside Bhīmasena so lightly The fact that he is a very late commentator, who wrote more than six centuries after Mammata, need not be a reason for disbelieving him If what he says be in conflict with any definitely known fact his vera city may be doubted But such is not the case The information furnished by Bhīmasena may be divided into three parts viz

(1) Mammata was born in Kashmir and studied at Benares, where he wrote his Kāvyaprakāśa (2) He was a son of Jayata and a brother of Kaiyata and Uvata (3) He was an avatāra of Vāgdevatā or Sarasvatī We shall examine these parts in order

( 1 ) Mammata a Kashmīrian

That Mammata was a Kashmīrian by birth is not only not in conflict with any other known fact, but is geneally accepted The following reasons support Mammāta's Kashmīrian origin (1) The form of his name is typically Kashmīrian Sīmilar Kashmīrian names are Allata, Udbhata, Uvata, Auvata, Kaiyata, Jayata, Bhallata, Rudrata and Lollata (2) Mammata possessed the title ‘Rājānaka ’7 which means ‘almost like a kīng ’ This is a peculiarly Kashmīrian title It was borne by other Kashmīrian writers and is current among Kash mīrīan Pandits even now (3) In the fifth Ullāsa of kāvyaprakāśa Mammata refers to the word ‘ciṅku’ as conveying obscence sense

कुष्याद्देश् पुरस्कृत्य अवन्त्यामुवटो वसन् । मन्थाभाष्यमिदं चक्रे भोजे राज्ये प्रशासति ॥ आनन्दपुरवास्तव्यस्त्क्कब्जटाख्यस्य सूचुना । मन्थाभाष्यमिदं कृत्स्नं भोजे पृथ्वीं प्रगासति ॥

Having placed Kuṣya at the forefront, Uvata resided in Avanti. He created this commentary during the reign of Bhoja. The one residing in Ānandapura, with the surname Kṣīrajāta, hinted at this. This entire commentary was composed by Bhoja when he ruled the earth.

See S K De's Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics Vol I p 159

Read the title and colophon of Mammata's शब्दव्यापारविचार , which run as follows ‘श्रीराजानकम्मटाचार्यविरचित शब्दव्यापार विचार ’ and ‘इति निष्कलङ्कविपञ्चशिखकवतिश्रीराजानकम्मटाचार्यविरचि ते शब्दव्यापारविचार समाप्त ।’ pp 1 and 10 ( निर्णयसागर edition )

Page 12

Viśvanātha, whıle commentıng on thıs passage, says that the word 'cıṅku' possesses an obscene sense ın Kashmırıan and other languages Thıs shows that Mammata's mother tongue was Kashmırı (4) Allāta, who ıs supposed to have completed the tenth Ullāsa from the end of the figure Parıkara, was a Kashmırıan, as hıs name suggests Mammata must apparently have been hıs frıend and

Viśvanātha, while commenting on this passage, says that the word 'cıṅku' possesses an obscene sense in Kashmiri and other languages. This shows that Mammata's mother tongue was Kashmiri. Allāta, who is supposed to have completed the tenth Ullāsa from the end of the figure Parikara, was a Kashmiri, as his name suggests. Mammata must apparently have been his friend and

Benares was tradıtıonally the ancıent seat of learnıng The tradıtıon has contınued more or less even ın modern tımes There ıs, therefore, nothıng ımprobable ın Mammata's comıng down from Kaśmīr to Benares for study along wıth hıs brothers and perhaps also wıth a frıend or frıends It ıs then natural that he should have composed hıs Kāvyaprakāśa at thıs ancıent centre of learnıng

Benares was traditionally the ancient seat of learning. The tradition has continued more or less even in modern times. There is, therefore, nothing improbable in Mammata's coming down from Kashmir to Benares for study along with his brothers and perhaps also with a friend or friends. It is then natural that he should have composed his Kāvyaprakāśa at this ancient centre of learning.

It wıll thus be seen that there ıs nothıng ımprobable ın thıs part of Bhımasena's story about Mammata

It will thus be seen that there is nothing improbable in this part of Bhimasena's story about Mammata.

(2) Mammata, Son of Jayata and Brother of Kaiyata and Uvata

Thıs part of Bhımasena's account about Mammata ıs the most disbelıeved and wıthout sufficıent reason, we thınk Kaiyata, accordıng to hıs own statement, was a son of Jayıata Bhımasena confirms thıs If we beleıve Bhımasena when he says Mammata and Kaiyata were brothers, nothıng untoward happens and no other definıtely known fact ıs contradıcted As regards Mammata's relatıonshıp wıth Uvata there ıs a dıfficulty Uvata styles hımself a son of Vajrata How can he then be a brother of Mammata and Kaiyata, who were the sons of Jayıata ? In thıs connectıon we desıre to poınt out that no scholar seems to have notıced that the name of Uvata's father occurs ın hıs own statements as Jayıat and Vajrata ın two manuscrupts of hıs Mantrabhāsya on the Vājasane yı-samhıt described

This part of Bhimasena's account about Mammata is the most disbelieved and without sufficient reason, we think Kaiyata, according to his own statement, was a son of Jayata. Bhimasena confirms this. If we believe Bhimasena when he says Mammata and Kaiyata were brothers, nothing untoward happens and no other definitely known fact is contradicted. As regards Mammata's relation with Uvata there is a difficulty. Uvata styles himself a son of Vajrata. How can he then be a brother of Mammata and Kaiyata, who were the sons of Jayata? In this connection, we desire to point out that no scholar seems to have noticed that the name of Uvata's father occurs in his own statements as Jayata and Vajrata in two manuscripts of his Mantrabhāsya on the Vājasaneyi-samhitā described.

8 ' वि᳡ुपदे कश्मीरादिभाषास्वप्यर्थान्तरेऽवगम्यते ।' वि᳡वनाथस्य काव्यप्रकाशदर्पण, as quoted by वामनाचार्ये p 238

8 'The word is understood to have a different meaning in Kashmiri and other languages.' Viśvanātha's Kāvyaprakāśa Darpana, as quoted by Vāmana Ācārya p. 238

9 ' कृत श्रीमम्मटाचार्यैर् अपि परिकरादधि ।

9 'Composed by the illustrious Mammata Ācārya and others, starting from Parikara.'

प्रबन्धं पूरित शेषे विशिष्टमकरटसूरिणा ॥ —राजानक आनन्द's काव्यप्रकाशनिदर्शन as quoted by वामनाचार्ये p 700

The work was completed by Viśiṣṭa Makaraṭa Sūri. —Rājānaka Ānanda's Kāvyaprakāśa Nidarśana, as quoted by Vāmana Ācārya p. 700

10 महाभाष्यपण्णवावारपारौ ण विग्रुतिस्त्वहम् ।

10 'I am not well-versed in the Mahābhāṣya, but I have crossed the ocean.'

यथाग्रे विधास्येन्द्रैः कियदो जैयटालभन् ॥ —Introductory stanza 5 to the Pradīpa अवारपारयोर् अपार-पार-णप् extending from this bank or end to the other, विग्रुतित᳡वम् a bridge of explanation

As Jayata will explain later. —Introductory stanza 5 to the Pradīpa, extending from this bank or end to the other, a bridge of explanation.

Page 13

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

by Julius Eggeling 11 The question then is which of these two names is the real name of Uvata's father There is no reason whatsoever why we should prefer Vajrata to Jaiyata On the contrary as Jaiyata is given as the name of Uvata's father by Bhimasena, it appears to be the correct form of the name and Vajrata is probably its corrupt form or a scribe's mistake for Jaiyata Or Uvata's father may have borne two names viz Jaiyata and Vajrata Or Uvata, a son of Jaiyata, may have been adopted by Vajrata, who was probably some relative of his The point is if we believe Bhimasena and regard Mammata, Kaiyata and Uvata as brothers, the sons of Jaiyata, no known fact is contradicted What was so far regarded as an unsurmountable obstacle in the way of belief in Bhimasena viz Uvata's statement that he was a son of Vajrata is removed, when we note that Uvata himself has also given Jaiyata as his father's name Uvata's statement that he wrote his commentary during the reign of Bhoja need not militate against his relationship with Mammata For, we shall see below that Mammata was almost a contemporary of Bhoja

In would thus appear that Mammata, Kaiyata and Uvata were the sons of Jaiyata and belonged to Kashmir The family lived at Anandapura ( which was probaby a town in Kashmir, not the town Anand in Gujarat ) from where the brothers went to Benares for study Mammata composed his Kāvyaprakāśa at this place Uvata was attached to the court of Bhoja and lived in Avanti or Ujjayini, where he wrote his Bhāṣya on the Śukla Yajurveda The three brothers must have formed an admirable trio, one specializing in Poetics, the other in grammar and the third in the Veda Families in which brothers attain eminence in different departments of learning are not rare even in these days

( 3 ) Mammata an Avatāra of Sarāsvati

(3) Mammata an Incarnation of Sarasvati

Critics need not shy at Bhimasena's assertion that Mammata was an avatāra of Vāgdevatā To say that a person is an avatāra of some

11 Vide Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office by Julius Eggeling, Part I p 29 where in the description of manuscripts Nos 136 and 187 occur the following couplets

आनन्दपुरवास्तव्यजैय्यटाख्यस्य सुत्रुना ।

ānandapuravāstavya-jaiyata-ākhyasya sununa |

उवटेन कृतं भाष्यं पुत्रवत् कयै मुनीशितैः ॥

uvaṭena kṛtaṃ bhāṣyaṃ putravat kayai munīśitaiḥ ||

आनन्दपुरवास्तव्यवज्रटाख्यस्य सुतुना ।

ānandapuravāstavya-vajraṭākhya-sya sutunā |

मन्त्रभाष्यमिदं कृत्स्नं पदवाक्यैः सुनीशितैः ॥

mantrabhāṣyamidaṃ krtsnaṃ padavākyaịḥ sunīśitaiḥ ||

Page 14

deity is just a way of bringing out his eminence It is a case of subjective appreciation and need not be taken literally In all such appreciations there is always an element of exaggeration Bhimasena himself does not leave us in doubt as to why he calls Mammata an incarnation of Sarasvati He does so, because the Kāvyaprakāśa is an extraordinary book 12 And it is not impossible to agree with him We however, prefer to take Bhimasena's statement that Mammata was an avatāra of Sarasvati as an upalaksana to mean that he was a profound scholar and an inspired writer A study of his Kāvyaprakāśa and the position that it has come to occupy among works on the Alamkāraśāstra amply corroborate this view

Mammata's profound scholarship must be explained in greater detail, which we now proceed to do

Mammata's special subject naturally was the Alamkārasāstra or the science of poetics, in which he attained such extraordinary eminence as an author by his Kavyaprakasa He was thus mainly a rhetorician 13, though his acquaintance with other Sastras was by no means scanty He had evidently studied all the alamkara literature before him His Kavyaprakasa contains ample evidence to show his close acquaintance with the works of Bharata, Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Vamana, Rudrata, Anandavardhana, Mukulabhatta and Abhinavagupta His treatment of the various topics in the Alamkarasastra is generally based on the works of his predecessors from some of whom he borrows examples as well as expressions occuring in the Kārikas and the Vrtti He, however, holds independent views on some matters and is not afraid to criticize his predecessors such as Udbhata Vamana, Rudrata, Anandavardhana and Mukulabhatta

Mammata must also have carefully studied the principal works, comprising the Kāvya Nātaka literature, that were available in his days He quotes more than six hundred stanzas as illustrations for various topics dealt with in his work The works of Kālidāsa, t he

किं च नायमाचार्यो मानुषः किंतु वाग्देवतैव । प्रमाण तु ग्रन्थस्यालौकिकत्वम्

12 'किं च नायमाचार्यों मानुषः किंतु वाग्देवतैव । प्रमाण तु ग्रन्थस्यालौकिकत्वम् सुधासागर p 4

अये खलु मम्मटोऽपिगतसर्वशास्त्रहृदयोधिपि मुख्यतया वैयाकरण इ’

13 We are thus unable to agree with the following statement of Vamanacarya 'अये खलु मम्मटोऽपिगतसर्वशास्त्रहृदयोधिपे मुख्यतया वैयाकरण इ’ p 8 of the Sanskrit Introduction to his editions of the Kavyaprakasa

Page 15

काव्यप्रकाशः

dramas of Bhavabhūti and Sriharśa, the Venisamihāra and the Amaruśataka appear to be his special favourites for illustrations In this connection we desire to call attention to a curious fact Though Mammata 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 portance Mammata's young brother Kaiyata chose Vyākaraṇa as his special subject Mammata was also proficient in that science As such he generally accepted the grammarian's point of view in rhetorical matters The Kāvyaprakāśā offers ample evidence to prove Mammata'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 Mammata uses the expression 'budhair viyākaranaịh' ( p 5 ) Though the word 'budhaiḥ ' in the Kārikā is intended to stand for rhetoricians like Ānandavardhana, in the Vritti Mammata 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 Mammata mentions the ' jātyādi ' view of the grammarians first and apparently accepts it This is confirmed by his Śabdavyāpāra vicāra, wherein he refutes the ' jātiireva ' view of the Mimāṁsakas

( 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, Mammata divides it into ten varieties These are based on the four classes of word which the grammarians accept

Page 16

( 5 ) According to the grammarians single words as well as compounds made of more than one word constitute a pada 14

Mammata accepts this view Thus, when in the seventh Ullāsa, he wants to illustrate a klista 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

( ' Saktam padam' ) They do not admit that sakti or expressive power belongs to compounds, which according to them are not padas properly so called, but a collection of padas

(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 Mammata uses the word ' kriyā' in the sense of a cause 15 Only a confirmed grammarian would do so

( 7 ) Mammata quotes as authority Patañjali's Mahābhāsya and Bhartrhari's Vāky apadiya and sometimes requisitions grammatical topics and maxims to illustrate his points 16

Mammata must also have studied the science of Pūrva--mīmā--msā Evidence of his knowledge of this science is furnished by certain passages of his Kāvyaprakāsa Thus, he mentions the views of the Abhihitānvayavadins and the Anvitābhidhānavayādins, the' jātırevā' view of the Mīmāmsakas Arthāpatti with its two divisions and pratatatā 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 gauni laksanā and Jaimini's sūtra III, iii 14 in the fifth Ullāsa for another purpose

Mammata also knew the Nyāya and Vaisesika 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 Vaisesikas 17, the jāti visistavyakti vāda or the theory

14 Compare Pānini's definition of a word , 'sup-tıngantam padam' 1 4 14

15 'kriyāya ( = kāranasyā ) pratıṣeṣeṣvapi फलव्याप्तिर्‌विभावना ||' p 73

16 Note 'अव्‌दगक्तिमदिम्ना शक्ती र्‌ष्ठीवन्त् सब्‌न्ध प्रतिपादयन् ।' p 35, 'अप-वादविषयपरिहारे उपचारस्य व्यवस्थिते ।' p 101 and 'शैपो‌र्थपुष्णातो‌तवत् युधिष्‌ठिर्‌ इव सत्यवादनेन सत्यवादी अयम्‌-इत्ययोव्‌गमात् ।' p 134

17 Read 'परमाण्वादिगणोदनिसहकारिकरणपरतन्त्रा' p 1 and 'परमाण्वादीनां गुणमध्यपातात् परिभाषिक गुणत्वम्‌' p 12

Page 17

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

that the conventional meaning of words is the individual qualified by generality18, advocated by the Naiyāyikas and the doctrine that samvitti or self consciousness is the fruit of cognition held by the Naiyayikas19

In dealing with the figure Paryāyoktam he takes the help of the theory of perception held by the Naiyāyika Vaiśesikas to support his special idea about that figure and defines the Nyāya terms 'sadhanam' and 'sadhyam' under Anumāna0

Mammata gives evidence of his acquaintance with the Sāmkhya philosophy as well Thus, at the very commencement of his Vritti on Kārikā 1 he refers to the creation of Brahman as 'sukha duhkha moha svabhāva '

Mammata's knowledge of Buddhistic philosophy can also be inferred In dealing with the question of the conventional meaning of words he refers to the doctrine of the Buddhists that apohah or exclusion is the meaning of words ( p 13 ) The Bauddhha theory of perception has also been utilised by him in explaining the special characteristic of the figure Paryāyoktam

Mammata shows acquaintance with the general doctrines of the Vedānta also Thus, in explaining the enjoyment of sentiment in the fourth ullāsa he compares it with Brahmasvāda wherein all other consciousness drops off

It will thus be seen that Mammata was a typical product of ancient India Though he specialized in one science, he did not neglect the others Bhīmasena was almost a blind admirer of Mammata, as is clearly shown by the many flattering references to him in his Sudhāsāgara It is, therefore, no wonder that he should describe Mammata as an avatāra of Vāgdevatā We have shown above in what sense we should understand this expression In this connection attention must be drawn to another title of Mammata viz Nikhula vupascic cakravartin,1 which also has to be understood with the necessary reservation

From all thus it may be seen that there is nothing wrong in accepting as true the information which Bhīmasena supplies about Mammata

18 'तद्ानं (जातिवान् जातिविशिष्ट पदार्थ व्यक्तिलिप्त) शब्दार्थ कैश्चिदुक्त' p 13

18 'Tadān (Jātivān jāti-viśiṣṭa padārtha vyakti-lipta) śabdārtha kaiścid ukta' p 13

19 'प्रत्यक्षादेर्नैवादिविषय , फलेऽनु प्रकटतया सवित्तिवो' , p 23

19 'Pratyakṣāder naivādi-viṣaya, phale tu prakaṭatayā savitittivo', p 23

20 Vide pp 85 and 91

20 See pages 85 and 91

21 Vide footnote 7 above

21 See footnote 7 above

Page 18

Rājānaka Ānanda ( 1665 A D ) in his commentary called the Kāvyaprakāśa-Nidarśana or Śitikantha-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

Rājānaka Ānanda (1665 AD) in his commentary called the Kāvyaprakāśa-Nidarśana or Śitikantha-vibodhana, says that Mammata was a Śaiva. 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 Sarasvatī in his Mangala stanza In the very first line of his Vrtti he refers to Sarasvatī as 'the appropriate and favourite deity' Fröm the adjective 'favourite' we conclude that Mammata was a devotee of Sarasvatī and as such a Sārasvata Brāhmana

The Mangala stanza or stanzas of Sanskrit writers often reveal their creed. Mammata glorifies Sarasvatī in his Mangala stanza. In the very first line of his Vrtti, 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 Brāhmana.

Mammata and Śriharsa

According to a story of Kashmīrian Pandits which Buhler heard Mammata was a maternal uncle of the Brāhmana poet Śriharsa, the author of the Naisadhīyacarita23 A subsequent part of the story, which has not been recorded by Buhler, is that when Śriharsa showed his Kāvyā 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 dosas or poetical defects in the seventh Ullāsa of his Kāvyaprakāśa, as he could easily have found them all in one book viz the Naisadhīyacarita

According to a story of Kashmīrian Pandits which Buhler heard, Mammata was a maternal uncle of the Brāhmana poet Śriharsa, the author of the Naisadhīyacarita. A subsequent part of the story, which has not been recorded by Buhler, is that when Śriharsa showed his Kāvyā 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 dosas or poetical defects in the seventh Ullāsa of his Kāvyaprakāśa, as he could easily have found them all in one book, viz., the Naisadhīyacarita.

No reliance can be placed on this tradition, because Śriharsa 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 appar ently formulated by some critic, who wanted to express in a picturesque manner his view that the Naisadhīyacarita contained all the defects mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa of the Kāvyaprākās̄a

No reliance can be placed on this tradition, because Śriharsa 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 AD). 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 Naisadhīyacarita contained all the defects mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa of the Kāvyaprākās̄a.

22 Read 'इति शिवागमप्रसिद्धया षड्दर्शनिगदिततद्वदीक्षापितसकलमलपटल प्रकटित सत्स्वरूपविदानन्दन राजानकुलको मम्मटनामा देशिकवर ' निदर्शन, as quoted by वामनाचार्य in his प्रस्तावना p 6

23 Vide Buhler's Detailed Report of a Tour in search of Sans krit Mss in Kashmīr, Rajputana and Central India ( Extra Number of Journal of B B R A S 1877, ) Bombay 1877, p 68

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

Page 19

II THE WORKS OF MAMMATA

Mammata is known to be the author of two books viz the Kāvya prakasa and the Sabdavyaparavicara The latter is a small pamphlet running over ten pages and is published by the Nirnayasāgara Press, Bombay, along with the Abhidayavttimatrka of Mukulabhatta, in 1916 It is of the same form as the Kavyaprakasa i e consists of Kārikās, Vṛtti and illustrations and was composed after the Kāvyaprakāśa For, in its last sentence Mammata says that as the matter has been consı dered in detail 'elsewhere', it is stated here in brief24 By 'elsewhere' he evidently means the Kāvyaprakāśa

Aufrecht 5 mentions the Samgitaratnamālā as a third work of Mammata, which has been quoted in the Samgitanārayana

The Subhāṣitāvalı of Vallabhadeva contaıns a stanza 46 which has been ascribed to Mammata It is not found in either of his two works It would thus appear that Mammata had apparently composed a fourth book, from which the stanza is probably taken

III THE DATE OF MAMMATA

There is not much difficulty in determining Mammata's date It can be easily proved that Mammata flourished in the middle of the 11th century i e about 1050 A D In this connection the following pieces of evidence may be noted

( 1 ) Mammata quotes Abhinavagupta, the celebrated commenta tor of Bharāta's Nātyaśastra and Ānandavardhāna's Dhvanyāloka, in the fourth Ullasa of his Kāvyaprakasa ( p 95, Vamanacarya's edition ) Abhinavagupta's literary activity falls between 990 A D.and 1020 A D 61 This means that Mammata must have composed his Kāvyaprakāśa after 1020 A D

24 Read 'एतद् अन्यत्र विस्तारेण विचारितमिति सङ्क्षेपेण इह ( शब्दव्यापारविचारे ) उक्तमिति तस्मात् ।' p 10

24 Read 'This has been considered in detail elsewhere, hence it is stated here in brief (in the discussion of the word trade)' p 10

25 Catalogus Catalogorum p 432

26 The stanza is numbered 1557 ( P 263 ) and runs as follows तन्वङ्गया गजकुम्भपीनकठिनोत्तुङ्गौ वहन्या स्तनौ मध्य क्षामतरोर्यदि यत्न झगिति प्राप्नोति भवद् द्विषा । तन्मन्ये निपुणेन रोमलतिकीक्षुद्रपदे शशादेश्चौ नि स्पन्दास्कुटिलोकृते ह्लिकया संदानितो वेधसा ॥

26 The stanza is numbered 1557 ( P 263 ) and runs as follows

27 Vide P V Kane's The History of Alamkāra literature p lxı and S K De's Studies in the History of Sanskrit Poetics, Vol I p 119

Page 20

Introduction

( 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 660, 1628, 162 and 115 of the Navasāhasankacarita, which was composed about 1020 A D This con firms the conclusion that he wrote after 1020 A D

(2) Mammata quotes four stanzas from Padmagupta's Navasāhasankacarita, namely stanzas 123, 146, 148, and 157 in the tenth Ullāsa of this edition, which correspond to 660, 1628, 162, and 115 of the Navasāhasankacarita, composed around 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 Rucāka, also wrote a commentary on the Kāvyaprakāsa, called Samketa His Alamkārasār vasva was composed some time between 1135 and 1155 A D There fore the Kāvyaprakāsa must have been written before 1150 AD

(3) Ruyyaka, the author of the Alamkārasarvasva, refers to the Kāvyaprakāśa several times in his work and criticizes Mammata at some places. Ruyyaka, also known as Rucāka, wrote a commentary on the Kāvyaprakāśa called Samketa. His Alamkārasārasvā was composed between 1135 and 1155 A.D. Therefore, 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 1216 i e A D 1159-1160 This confirms the conclusion that Mammata composed his Kāvyaprakāsa before 1150 A D

(4) Mānikyacandra, a Jain author from Gujarat, wrote his commentary, also called Samketa, on the Kāvyaprakāśa in Samvat 1216, i.e., 1159-1160 A.D. 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

These four pieces of evidence indicate that Mammata's literary activity must be placed between 1020 A.D. and 1150 A.D. However, we can fix Mammata's date more accurately based on 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

To illustrate the figure Udātta, Mammata quotes a stanza (P. 86) that refers to King Bhoja's generous liberality towards the learned. The author of this stanza is unknown. It is possible that Mammata himself composed it. We have previously noted that Mammata's younger brother, Uvata, was a protégé of Bhoja. It is plausible that Mammata obtained vivid descriptions of Bhoja's generosity from Uvata and composed this stanza. Alternatively, someone else may have composed it. However, the use of the present tense in the stanza suggests that it was composed during Bhoja's lifetime, likely towards the end of his reign. Bhoja's reign is known to have spanned from around 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 muddle of the 11th century A D

Thus, we can conclude that the stanza was composed and incorporated by Mammata into his Kāvyaprakāśa around 1050 A.D. This implies 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

28 See Kane, loc. cit., p. cxi, and De, loc. cit., p. 194

29 रसवक्त्रप्रगाढ़ीशवत्सरे ( 1216 ) मासि माघवे ।

29 In the year Rasa-vaktra-pragāḍhīśa-vatsare (1216), in the month of Māgha,

काव्ये काव्यप्रकाशस्य सकेतोऽयं समापित ॥

the commentary on Kāvyaprakāśa, called Samketa, was completed.

— माणिक्यचन्द्रकृतसकेतटीकासमेत काव्यप्रकाश p 470 (Mysore )

— Māṇikyacandrakṛta-samketaṭīkā-sameta Kāvyaprakāśa, p. 470 (Mysore)

Page 21

काव्यप्रकाशा.

Kāvyaprakāśa.

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 Mānikyacandra 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 KĀVYAPRAKĀSA

The Kāvyaprakāśa is made of three constituent parts viz ( 1 ) the Kārikās These are stanzas in Āryā and Anustubh metres, number 142 in all and define the various topics dealt with in the book ( 2 ) the Vrtti 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 Vrtti 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 Vrtti 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 Vrtti there on ( 2 ) That Mammata composed the Kāvyaprakāśa, meaning thereby both the Kārikās and the Vrtti 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 Agnipurāna for that purpose, and that Mammata

Page 22

Introduction

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

(1) Some of the Karikas in the Kavyaprakasa are found in the Natyasastra of Bharata32 Therefore, Bharata must have been the author of all the Karikas

(2) At the commencement of his Vrtti Mammata refers to the author of the Karikas in the third person33 Had he been the author of the Karikas he would have spoken of himself in the first person

(3) In defining 'samasta vastu visaya 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 Natyaśastra 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 Mahesvara's commentary called काव्यप्रकाशादर्श or काव्यप्रकाशभाव-र्थचिन्तामणि has been published in जीवदानन्द's edition of the काव्यप्रकाश ( Calcutta 1876 ), from which note 'धुकुमारान् राज कुमारान् स्वादुकाव्यप्रतिद्वंद्वरा गहने शास्त्रान्तरे प्रवर्त्तयितुममिपुराणादुद्गृहीत्य काव्यरसास्वादकोरणमलकारशास्त्र कौतुकेन भरतसूत्रेण प्रणेतवान्। p 1

31 Vidyābhūsana'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 'मम्मटयुक्तिमाथित्रित्या,मिता साहित्यकोमुदीम्। वृत्ति भरतसूत्राणा श्रीविद्याभूषणे साहित्य कौमुदी'

32 Karikas 29–34 in the 4th Ullasa (वामनाचार्य's edition ) are the same as नाट्यशास्त्र 6 15, 17–21

33 Note 'प्रन्यक्त कृत परामृशति' p 1 Also see our relevant notes

Page 23

draws upon him when dealing with the topic of rasa. Mammata has laid under contribution other previous authors as well in the composition of the Kārikas Thus, his definition of the figure Akṣepa has been adopted from Bhamaha ( vide pp 79 and 529) and his definition of Samdehasamkara is taken almost verbatim from Udbhata In defining Sakti or poetic power Mammata draws upon Vāmana Similarly, a Kārika in the 7th Ullāsa 34 has been taken verbatim from Vāmana's Vṛtti on his Kāvyālamkārasūtra II 11 19 Then again, Mammata's definitions of guṇas and alamkāras represent a para phrase of a Kārikā of Ānandavardhana35 It will be seen from this that what we can justifiably say with reference to the Kārikās of the Kāvyaprakāśa is that while some of them are borrowed from previous authors and some adapted from them, the rest are certainly the work of Mammata, who is, therefore, rightly regarded as the author of these Kārikās taken as a whole.

( 2 ) The use of the third person to refer to the author of the Kārikās by no means proves that it is the work of some other writer It is a well-known custom of Sanskrit writers to refer to themselves in the third person The first person was probably regarded as too self assertive and incompatible with modesty

( 3 ) This argument proceeds from a complete misunderstanding of the sentence 'Āropita iti bahuvacanam avivakṣitam.' Matters would not in any way be improved, as Maheśvara thinks by the use of a dual form They would in fact be worsened, because the definition would then not be applicable to stanza 30, which has been quoted as an illustration of that kind of Rūpaka. Though this particular case cited by Maheśvara is bad, what he means by adducing it is that sometimes there appears to be a divergence of opinion between the Kārikās and the Vṛtti and, therefore the two could not have been the work of the same author In this connection we admit that the Kārikās and the Vṛtti do not sometimes appear to hold the same view This is because we forget that Mammata's Vṛtti is intended not only to explain the Kārikās, but also to

34 This Kārika runs as follows

कर्णावसादिप्रदे कर्णोदिवननिरर्मिति । संनिधानादिबोधार्थं स्थिततेष्वेततन्‌ समर्प्यकृत्‌ ।।

karṇavasādiprade karṇodivan nirmiti | sannidhānādibodhārthaṃ sthiteteṣvetan samarpyakṛt ||

-7th Ullāsa pp 406 and 409 (वामनाचायै)

35 Read 'तमर्कैर्‌मलमलन्ते येषां तेऽत्र गुणा स्मृता । अलङ्कारप्रतिपत्तावलङ्कार मन्तव्यमा:।

35 Read 'tamarkairmalamalante yeṣāṃ te'tra guṇā smṛtā | alaṅkārapratipattāvalañkāra mantavyamāḥ

कटाक्षादिवत्‌ ।। ' धन्यालो

Page 24

supplement them by making explicit the meaning of certain words,

that may sound ambiguous Besides it must be noted that Mammata

was not a very accurate writer That is why he sometimes feels

the necessity of supplementing the Kārikās But this does not mean

that he is not their author

It will thus be seen that the three arguments by which Bharata's

authorship of the Kārikās is sought to be supported hold no water

There are independent reasons to prove that Mammata is the

author of both the Kārikās and the Vṛtti These may thus be

stated

(1) Nowhere in his Vṛtti Mammata gives us any indication

that he is commenting on Bharata's Kārikās If the Kārikās had

been the work Bharata, Mammata would have referred to him

at the commencement of his Vṛtti

(2) Mammata has not composed a separate Mangala for the

Vṛtti If he had been the author of the Vṛtti only, he would

have commenced it with a Mangala Vidyābhūsana, who believes

the Kārikās to be the work of Bharata, has a separate Mangala

for his Vṛtti and refers to Bharata as 'munih' at the commence-

ment of his Sāhitya Kaumudī On the other hand Viśvanātha,

who is the author of both the Kārikās and the Vṛtti of the Sāhitya-

darpana, has even like Mammata no separate Mangala for

his Vṛtti,

(3) Rasas or sentiments, according to Bharata, are 8 In

enumerating them Mammata adopts Bharata's couplet as his

Kānkā and adds that Śānta is also considered as a 9th sentiment

If Bharata had been the author of these Kārikās, he would have stuck

to the number 8 given in the Nātyaśāstra

(4) In explaining the Kānkās dealing with the nature of

Rasa or sentiment Mammata begins his Vṛtti with a quotation

from Bharata 36 to support his conception of rasa If he had

believed that the Kārikās he was commenting upon were the

work of Bharata, he would not have tried to corraborate them by

quoting that same writer's authority. If we were to suppose that he

merely wanted to show for the purpose of comparison what Bharata

36 Read 'उप्ते हि भरतेन " विभावानुभावव्यभिचारिसयोगाद् रसनिष्पत्तिः ' ( नाट्य

शास्र 6 p 62) इति । ' 4th Ullāsa p 87 ( वामनाचाये )

Page 25

काव्यप्रकाशा.

Kavyaprakasha

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 D40 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 धन्यत्न ! पूर्ववत् ('पूर्वेश मुनीनामिव पूर्ववत्' कृष्णानन्दिनी ) साहित्यकोमुदी p 141 This explanation necessitates the supposition that there were rhetoricians who preceded Bharata In the present state of our knowledge of Alamkāra literature such a supposition is impossible

38 It must here be added that Vidyābhusana who believed in Bharata's authorship of the Kārikās, explains पूर्ववत् as 'पूर्वेशामिन

39 Note 'उपमा दीपक चैव रूपक यमकं तथा। काव्यस्यैते ह्यलकारा*चत्वार परि कीर्तिता ॥' नाट्यशास्त्र 1641

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

41 See Kane p ix and De p 36

Page 26

(8) Early commentators of the Kāvyaprakāśa like Mānikya candra (1159-60 A D), Sarasvatītīrtha (1242 A D), Someśvara (1 st half of the 13th century ) and Jayanta (1294 A D) make no distinction between the author of the Kārikās and the Vrtti Jayarāma Nyāyapañcānana ( beginning of the 16th century )42 and Vaidyanātha Tatsat (1684 A D)45 actually controvert the view that the Kārikās are the work of Bharata, while Kamalakarabhatta (1612 A D)44 significantly says that Mammata is the author of the Kārikas

(8) Early commentators of the Kāvyaprakāśa like Mānikya candra (1159-60 AD), Sarasvatītīrtha (1242 AD), Someśvara (1st half of the 13th century) and Jayanta (1294 AD) make no distinction between the author of the Kārikās and the Vrtti Jayarāma Nyāyapañcānana (beginning of the 16th century)42 and Vaidyanātha Tatsat (1684 AD)45 actually controvert the view that the Kārikās are the work of Bharata, while Kamalakarabhatta (1612 AD)44 significantly says that Mammata is the author of the Kārikas

(9) Well-known writers like Hemacandra (1080-1172 A D), Jayaratha (1225 A D ), Vidyadhara (end of the 13th century ), Vidyanatha (1st quarter of the 14th century), Appaya Dīkṣita (1550–1650 A D ) and Jagannātha (1620-1660)45 ascribe both the Kārikās and the Vrtti to the same author

(9) Well-known writers like Hemacandra (1080-1172 AD), Jayaratha (1225 AD), Vidyadhara (end of the 13th century), Vidyanatha (1st quarter of the 14th century), Appaya Dīkṣita (1550–1650 AD) and Jagannātha (1620-1660)45 ascribe both the Kārikās and the Vrtti to the same author

42 For an extract of jayarām's commentary called jayarāmī or काव्य प्रकाशातिलक, see Peterson's A Second Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit Mss in the Bombay Circle (1883-1884 ) p 107 In this extract we find that jayarām first states the view that Bharata is the author of the Kārikās and Mammata that of the Vrtti He then refutes it and comes to the conclusion that the author of the Kārikās and that of the Vrtti are identical Read 'प्रत्यक्षीकृत कारिकाकर्ता भरतमुनि, वृत्तिकारस्तु मम्मटभट्टः । वस्तुतस्तु अभेद एव तयोः । प्रत्यक्षादिप्रतिपादनादौ निर्देशस्तु धीरोदात्तत्वस्य सोपनाय । कारिकाणां भरतसहितायां काव्याद्दूषणं न दोषाय, प्रामाण्यज्ञापनार्थं कचित्तासां लिखनात् । अत एव 'कारणानन्यत्व काव्योणि ' इति कारिकासु कृतो 'क्रिया' इत्यादि भरतसूत्र वक्त्तोति तु युक्तम् ।' This quotation from the extract of jayarām's commentary by the way shows that De's assertion that Jayarāma endorses the view of Bharata's authorship of the Kārikās is incorrect See foot-note 1 on p 165 of De's Sanskrit Poetics Part I What has been stated by Jayarāma as the purvapakṣa has apparently been mistaken by De for his own view

42 For an extract of Jayarām's commentary called Jayarāmī or Kāvyaprakāśatilaka, see Peterson's A Second Report of Operations in Search of Sanskrit Mss in the Bombay Circle (1883-1884) p 107. In this extract we find that Jayarām first states the view that Bharata is the author of the Kārikās and Mammata that of the Vrtti. He then refutes it and comes to the conclusion that the author of the Kārikās and that of the Vrtti are identical. Read 'Pratyakṣīkṛta kārikākṛta Bharatamuni, vṛttikāras tu Mammata-bhaṭṭaḥ. Vastutas tu abheda eva tayoḥ. Pratyakṣādi-pratipādana-nirdesastu dhīrodāttatvasya sopanāya. Kārikāṇāṃ Bharat-sahitāyāṃ kāvyād dūṣaṇaṃ na doṣāya, prāmāṇya-jñāpanārthaṃ kvacit-tāsāṃ likhanāt. Ata eva 'kāraṇānanyatva kāvyoni' iti kārikāsu kṛto 'kriyā' ityādi Bharat-sūtra vaktṛti tu yuktam.' This quotation from the extract of Jayarām's commentary by the way shows that De's assertion that Jayarāma endorses the view of Bharata's authorship of the Kārikās is incorrect. See footnote 1 on p 165 of De's Sanskrit Poetics Part I. What has been stated by Jayarāma as the purvapakṣa has apparently been mistaken by De for his own view

43 Read प्रभा p 2

43 Read Prabhā p 2

44 Note 'सक्तकारिका व्याचचक्ष्वास आहुःश्लोकस्य अवतारिकासाह !' Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office, Part III, by Julius Eggeling, p 327

44 Note 'Saktakārikā vyācacakṣvāsa āhuḥślokasya avatārikāsāh!' Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office, Part III, by Julius Eggeling, p 327

45 Vide हेमचन्द्र विवेक on his काव्यानुशासन pp 4 and 109 , जयरथ's अलंकारविमर्शिनी on रुय्यक's अलंकारसर्वस्व pp 102, 107, 150 and 199, विद्याधर's एकावली pp 78 and 262 , विद्यनाथ's प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण pp 6 90, 225 and 336, अप्पयदीक्षित's चित्रमीमांसा p 30, and जगन्नाथ's रसगंगाधर p 30

45 Vide Hemacandra-viveka on his Kāvyānusāsana pp 4 and 109, Jayaratha's Alaṃkāravimarśinī on Ruyyaka's Alaṃkārasarvasva pp 102, 107, 150 and 199, Vidyādhar's Ekāvalī pp 78 and 262, Vidyānātha's Pratāparudrayasobhūṣaṇa pp 6, 90, 225 and 336, Appayadīkṣita's Citramīmāṃsā p 30, and Jagannātha's Rasagangādhara p 30

क॰ I.-2

Page 27

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

From all this it will be clear that there is not the slightest evidence to show that Bharata is the author of the Kārikas of the Kavyaprakāsa and that there is overwhelming evidence to prove that Mammata is the author of both the Kārikās and the Vrtti

It is, however, not very difficult to imagine how this idea of Bharata's authorship of the Kārikas must have originated. Mammata's Kāvyaprakāśa attained great popularity and became an authority in Alamkārasastra. Authoritative works in Sanskrit are usually associated with the names of old and revered sages. Mammata was too modern a writer to be raised to the dignity of a sage. But some of his Kārikās were found in Bharata's Nātyaśāstra and Bharata was an ancient and revered sage. So it was imagined that all the Kārikās must have been composed by him.

All Purāṇas are indiscriminately ascribed to the mythical sage Vyāsa or Bādarāyaṇa, the reputed author of the Mahābhārata, and are held in great veneration. Chapters 336-346 of the Agnipurāṇa are devoted to the treatment of some of the topics of the Alamkāraśāstra. In these chapters are found several stanzas, which are identical with those in the Nātyaśāstra.46 The real reason for this is that the author of this portion of the Agnipurāṇa is indebted to Bharata as he is to Bhāmaha and Dandin for the definitions of some of his figures. But uncritical commentators could not reconcile themselves to the fact that a purāṇa has drawn upon other works for its contents. They, therefore, thought that Bharata must have borrowed from the Agnipurāṇa. The next step was to imagine that in composing the Kārikās of the Kāvyaprakāśa also Bharata drew upon the Agnipurāṇa. That is how the idea that Bharata is the author of the Kārikās of the Kāvyaprakāśa and that in composing them he drew upon the Nātyaśāstra arose, we think.

Mammata and Allata

Rājānaka Ananda (1665 A.D.), the author of a commentary on the Kāvyaprakāsa, called Kāvyaprakāsa-nidarśana

46 Compare for example नाट्यशास्त्र 6.36 and अग्निपुराण 338.12, नाट्यशास्त्र 6.39 and अग्निपुराण 338.7-8, नाट्यशास्त्र 16.60-62 and अग्निपुराण 342.15-16, and नाट्यशास्त्र 20.28-29 and अग्निपुराण 337.11-12

46 Compare for example Natyashastra 6.36 and Agnipurana 338.12, Natyashastra 6.39 and Agnipurana 338.7-8, Natyashastra 16.60-62 and Agnipurana 342.15-16, and Natyashastra 20.28-29 and Agnipurana 337.11-12

परमाकृष्टचेतसि कृति। इत्याहु। वामनाचार्य p. 700

Paramakrṣṭacetasi kṛti. ityāhu. Vāmanācārya p. 700

Page 28

or Siṭikantha-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 Kāvyaprakāśa, both

early and late, such as Manikyacandra, Ruyyaka and Somesvara, haye

also referred to the joint authorship of the Kavyaprakaśa in general

terms48 A manuscript of the Kāvyaprakāśa dated Samvat 1215 ( = A 49

D 1158 ) possesses the colophon ‘ Krti Rajanaka Mammata Alakayoh49

Further, in a manuscript of Ruyyaka's Kavyaprakaśasamketa, seen by

Peterson at Jeypore, the colophons to the first and the tenth Ullasas

ascibe 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,

47 Read-'अत्र निदर्शनकर 'एतदर्थमन्ते मम्मटाचार्याणां कृति । तदुचकाम कृत

श्री मम्मटाचार्यवै परिकरावधि ! प्रबन्ध परित इवेषो विशिष्टाह्टः सरीण ||'

48 De ( Sanskrit Poetics Vol I, 1923, p 162 ), following Peterson

( Third Report p 19 ), states that मणिक्यचन्द्र does not comment

on the verse ‘ श्लेष मार्गो' This sttatement is inaccurate Both

the printed editions of the काव्यप्रकाश with माणिक्यचन्द्र'sककेत

(Ānandaśrama 1921 and Mysore 1922 ) have the commen

tary on this stanza.

49 Vide S R Bhandarkar's Report of a Second Tour in Search

of Sanskrt Manuscripts made in Rajputana and Central

India in 1904-5 and 1905-6 p 79

50 See p 14 of Peterson's Second Report, where these colophons

are quoted and run as follows 'इति श्रीमद्राजानककामल्ल [ लक् ]—

मम्मटरुककविरचिते निजग्रन्थकव्यप्रकाशकास्केते प्रथम उल्लास: 'इति काव्य-

प्रकाशककते दशम उल्लास: । कृतौ राजानकमम्मटालकरुककनाम । शुभम् ।'

These colophons seem to state that Mammata, Alaka and

Rucaka are the joint authors of both the Kāvyaprakaśa and

the Samketa thereon But really they represent a clumsy

way of stating that Rucaka is the author of the commentary

Samketa on the Kāvyaprakāśa, which is composed by

Mammata and Alaka

Page 29

refers to Mammata and Alaka as the authors of the seventh Ullāsa of the Kāvyaprakāśa and of the Kāvyaprakāśa generally 51.

From this it will be seen that the idea that two authors viz Mammata and Alaka or Allata were responsible for the composition of the Kāvyaprakāśa seems to have been prevalent among commentators from very early times We are, however, not inclined to accept this view We hold that Mammata alone is the author of the entire Kāvyaprakāśa, as is generally supposed

Our reasons for entertaining this belief are as follows

(1) Alaka or Allata, who is the supposed continuator of the Kāyyaprakāsa from the end of the figure Pañkara, is known to have written a commentary on Ruyyaka's Alamkārasarvasva 52 who comments on his book, would, therefore, be about 1200 A D From this it will be seen that it is chronologically impossible for Alaka of 1200 A D to collaborate with Mammata of 1050 A D

It is also not possible to suppose that Alaka may have completed Mammata's unfinished Kāvyaprakāsa more than a hundred years after For, Māṇikyacandra and Ruyyaka, who preceded Alaka by about fifty years, have commented on the whole of the Kāvyaprakāsa

(2) There is no unanimity among writers, who have referred to this dual authorship of the Kāvyaprakāsa, as regards the portion which each of the two authors is supposed to have composed. Thus, while Māṇikyacandra, Ruyyaka and Someśvara make a general statement that two authors, whom they do not even mention by name, were responsible for the composition of

51 Read 'यदिोदीहते दोषनिर्णये स्सम्मतोलकान्यासु-प्रसादे वत्रस्व प्रकृतय सुन्द०

अमृतस्तक p 29 (निर्णयसागर) and 'अत्र केनचिद् वायुपदेन झगुप्सान्चीलम्मिति

दोषमावक्षते । तया चेदेशो कुत्रभविताननेदुपदर्शनाभावपि कमल्भरिमलोद्रारिणो

मूलमात्रस्य प्रतीतिनं भवति, भवति चाश्लीलप्रतीते, तदा वाग्देवतादेश इति

व्यवस्थितव्य एवासौ । किं तु हृदयेकमय्यीवरलङ्क्रम्मादौ काव्यप्रकाशकारकौ प्रायेण

दोषदृष्टो येनैवविचेष्यापि परमार्थसहितोयान्नद्रप्रदेशे सरसकविदस्संमेधु दोषमेव साक्षाद्-

कुरुताम् । उक्तं च महावातिन्के 'न चात्रातीव कतव्य दोषदृष्टेरपरे मन । दोषो

प्रविभानोज्ज्वलि तवित्तानां प्रकारणते ।' (कुमारिलभट्ट's श्लोकवार्तिक प्रथकारप्रतिष्हा 4)

इति 1" p. 55

52 Vide Peterson's Second Report pp 17 ff

Page 30

the Kavyaprakaśa, Rajanaka Ananda says that Mammata wrote

the Kavyaprakasha, Rajanaka Ananda says that Mammata wrote

the Kavyaprakaśa up to the end of Parikara and that Allata

the Kavyaprakasha up to the end of Parikara and that Allata

completed it by supplying the remaining portion Ananda 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 Ananda, speaks of Mammata and Alaka, as

the joint authors of the seventh Ullasa and of the whole of the

Kavyaprakaśa generally54 From this it appears to us that none of the

Kavyaprakasha 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

(3) The style and the manner of treating topics in the portion of

the Kavyaprakaśa up to the end of Parikara and in that which follows

the Kavyaprakasha 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 peculiartes of

portion which follows Parikara, it would have shown peculiarities of

style and treatment different from Mammata's, inspite of 'samyag

vinirmita samghatana' Bāna's son completed his father's unfinished

vinirmita samghatana' Bana's son completed his father's unfinished

Kadambari But the Uttarabhaga 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

such thing is seen in the case of the Kavyaprakasha55

53 Read यदुक्तम्। कृत श्रीमम्मटाचार्यवैयें परिकरावधि प्रबन्ध पूरित शेषो

53 Read yaduktam. krta śrīmammṭācāryavaiyena parikarāvadhi prabandha pūrita śeṣo

विधायालटसुरिणा । अन्येनायुक्तम् । काव्यप्रकाश इह कोऽपि ( व 1 काव्यप्रकाश

vidhāyālaṭsuriṇā. anyenāyuktam. kāvyaprakāśa iha ko'pi (v. 1 kāvyaprakāśa

दर्शकेपि ) निबन्धकृत्कृत्या द्वाभ्या कृतेऽपि कृतिना रसतत्त्वलाभ । लोकेऽस्ति

darśakepi) nibandhakṛtkṛtyā dvābhyāṃ kṛte'pi kṛtinā rasatattvalābha. loke'sti

विश्रुतिमन् नितरा सङाल बन्धप्रकाराचितस्य तरो फले न स्तात् ॥ Peterson's

viśrutiman nitara saṃgāla bandhaprakārācitasye taro phale na stāt. Peterson's

Second Report p 15

54 It may here be noted that H. R. Divekar in his article 'The

Dual Authorship of the Kavyaprakaśa' J R A S, 1927, pp

Dual Authorship of the Kavyaprakasha' 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 unanımity

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 Kavyapraksa They

test to the style of the author of the Kavyaprakasha 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

Page 31

(4) It Allata had written the Kavyaprakasa from Parikara onwards, he would certainly have mentioned that fact He would have told his readers that the Kavyaprakasa was unfortunately left unfinished by Mammata and that he had, out of regard for its author and its readers, undertaken to complete it He would also have added his own Mangala. No reason can be imagined as to why Allata should have displayed such wonderful spirit of self-effacement, well worthy of a true niskama-karmayogin, as not to claim any credit for a work which he had the honour of composing

(4) If Allata had written the Kavyaprakasa from Parikara onwards, he would certainly have mentioned that fact. He would have informed his readers that the Kavyaprakasa was left unfinished by Mammata and that he had completed it out of respect for the author and readers. He would also have added his own Mangala. It is unimaginable why Allata showed such a wonderful spirit of self-effacement, worthy of a true niskama-karmayogin, and did not claim credit for the work he composed.

(5) Colophons in the manuscripts of either the Kavyaprakasa or of its commentaries cannot be relied upon as decisive pieces of evidence to settle such a question as that of joint authorship For, one is never sure whether these were written by the authors themselves or by scribes who copied their works long afterwards Thus, none of the manuscripts on which printed editions of the Kavyaprakasa, available at present, are based, apparently had that colophon, which ascribes its authorship to Mammata and Alaka For, none of the printed editions possesses it Similarly, a manuscript of

(5) Colophons in the manuscripts of either the Kavyaprakasa or its commentaries cannot be relied upon as decisive evidence to settle the question of joint authorship. One can never be sure whether these were written by the authors themselves or by scribes who copied their works later. Thus, none of the manuscripts on which the printed editions of the Kavyaprakasa available today are based apparently had the colophon attributing its authorship to Mammata and Alaka, as none of the printed editions contain it. Similarly, a manuscript of

55 Attention must here be drawn to V Sukthankar's article 'The Two Authors of the Kavyaprakasa', Z D M G, 1912, pp 477 ff, wherein he tries to support the dual authorship of the Kavyaprakasa on the ground that Mammata and Aallata draw their material from two different sources in writing their respective parts of the Kavyaprakasa While Mammata, Allata depends for his whole material practically on the Kavyalamkara of Rudrata. This is Sukthankar's thesis His theory of different sources is not justifiable It is well known that Mammata in many places draws material from

55 Attention must be drawn here to V Sukthankar's article 'The Two Authors of the Kavyaprakasa', Z D M G, 1912, pp 477 ff, where he attempts to support the dual authorship of the Kavyaprakasa on the grounds that Mammata and Aallata drew their material from two different sources in writing their respective parts. While Mammata drew from Rudrata, Allata depended entirely on the Kavyalamkara of Rudrata. This is Sukthankar's thesis. His theory of different sources is not justifiable. It is well known that Mammata drew material from various predecessors, including Rudrata, in many places.

his predecessors, including Rudrata If towards the end of his treatment of Arthalamkaras he seems to depend almost entirely on Rudrata, this is evidently because most of the figures here dealt with are not found in the older rhetoricians Further, Sukthankar does not seem to have noticed that in what he calls the second part of Allata the definition of Samdeha-Samkara is almost verbatim adopted from Udbhata Thus, the theory of two sources, on which dual authorship is based, does not rest on a secure foundation,

His predecessors, including Rudrata. If towards the end of his treatment of Arthalamkaras he seems to depend almost entirely on Rudrata, this is evidently because most of the figures discussed here are not found in the older rhetoricians. Further, Sukthankar does not seem to have noticed that in what he calls the second part of Allata, the definition of Samdeha-Samkara is almost verbatim adopted from Udbhata. Thus, the theory of two sources, on which the dual authorship is based, does not rest on a secure foundation.

Page 32

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

(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 Ratnāvalī to Harṣa which his been repeated by almost all commentors of the Kāvyaprakāśa

For these reasons we hold that there is no truth whatsoever in the idea that Allata 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 'Ityesa 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 The wording of the stanza is general enough to lend 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 'Ityesa 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 Allata came to be associated with Mammata 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, Alata and Allata. 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 Allata with the double

Page 33

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

would appear to be the most correct for two reasons. First, Kashmīrian names are known to end in ta. This ta is usualiy, though not invariably, preceded by a syllable with a similar double consonant as can be seen from such names as kallata, Bhallata, Mammata and Lollata. The form Allata agrees with these. Secondly, Stein tells us that 'this form (viz Allata) of the name is the only one known to the tradition of the Kashmīrian Pandits. Thus Allata would appear to be the most authentic form of the name. Kane, however, thinks that Alaka would also be as good a Kashmīrian name, For, we have such well-known names as Kuntaka, Sankuka, Lankaka and Mankhaka

We have seen before that this Allata is known to have written a commentary on Ruyyaka's Alamkārasarvasva He would also appear to be the same Alaka, who is the author of Visamapado-Jyota, a commentary on Runtākara's Haravijaya In the colophon at the end of his commentary on each Canto Alaka styles himself as the son of Rājānaka Jayānaka

V THE CONTENTS OF THE KĀVYAPRAKĀSA

V THE CONTENTS OF THE KAVYAPRAKASA

The Kāvyaprakāśa, as we noted before, consists of three constituents viz, the Kārikās, the Vrtti and the illustrations. The Kārikās, number 142 in all and the illustrations a few more than 600 The work is divided into ten chapters, called Ullāsas or Flashes, in continuation of the metaphor contained in its title, which means the Light of Poetry,

Parts of a Kārikā, or one or more Kārikās taken singly or together, which deal with one complete topic, are termed Sūtras by some commentators. According to Vāmānācārya's numbering the 142 Karikas are divided into 212 Sūtras This nomenclature appears to us to be entirely unjustifiable The word Sūtra in Sanskrit

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

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

Page 34

Introduction

possesses a technical sense 63 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 Kavyaprakasa represents an elaboration of the definition of poetry given in the first Ullāsa 59 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, indi cative 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, bhava, rasabhasa and bhavabhasa, further sub-divisions of dhvani

58 Note ‘स्वल्पाक्षरमसदिग्धं सारवद् विश्वतोमुखम् । अस्तोभमनवद्यञ्च सूत्रे सूत्रविदो विदु ॥’

59 This definition runs ‘तददोषौ शब्दार्थौं सगुणावनलंकृती पुनः क्वापि ।’

Page 35

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

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-sastra in his book, except those that fall under dramaturgy

VI MAMMATA A CRITICAL APPRECIATION

Among writers on rhetoric Mammata occupies a position of unique importance The Alamkarasastra 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 Alamkarasastra at the stage of development which it had reached in his days Further, the Kāvya prakasa became the starting point for futher exegesis and develop ment of the Alamkarasastra Its position in Alamkara is, there fore, analogous to that of Patanjāli's Mahabhasya in Vyakarana, Sabara's Bhasya in Mimamsa and Samkara's Sarırakabhasya 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 Vāmana 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

Page 36

Kamalākarabhatta says that there are a thousand commentaries on the Kāvyaprakāśa

Thus 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 distinguished themselves in different sciences

Thus, famous rhetoricians like Ruyyaka and Viśvanatha, grammarians like Nagoji Bhatta, Naiyayikas like Jagadiśa, Gadadhara, Jayarama and Narasimha Thakkura, Dharmaśāstrins and Mimamsakas like Vacaspati miśra and Kamalakarabhatta, Vaiśnavas like Baladeva Vidyabhushana, Samnyasins like Narahari alias Sarasvatītīrtha, Tantrīkas like Gokulanatha and Jainas like Manikyacandra thought it an honour to write commentaries on the Kavyaprakāśa

Among Pandits in Western India an idea prevails that nobody is properly entitled to the honorific title Bhatta unless he writes a commentary on the Kavya prakāśa

This idea is responsible for Vamanacarya styling himself Bhatta on the title-page of his edition of the Kavyaprakasa

The causes of this immense popularity of Mammata'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 Mammata 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 objective, is good from the practical point of an aspirant to poetic fame

Then again, his division of Lakasnā into 'ix kinds is from the

Read 'काव्यप्रकाशे टिप्पण्यः सन्ति युष्माभिः । तान्यस्मद्वस्स्या विगेषे अ पणिडतैः सोज्ज्वलार्यताम् ॥ ' Introductory stanza 3 to his commentary, as quoted in Julus Eggehing's Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office- Part III, p 327
Read 'काव्यप्रकाशे टिप्पण्यः सन्ति युष्माभिः । तान्यस्मद्वस्स्या विगेषे अ पणिडतैः सोज्ज्वलार्यताम् ॥ ' Introductory stanza 3 to his commentary, as quoted in Julus Eggehing's Catalogue of the Sanskrit Manuscripts in the Library of the India Office- Part III, p 327

62 This stanza runs , इत्थेष मार्गों विदुषा विमित्रोऽप्यमित्ररूप प्रतिभासते यत् । न तत्र विचित्र यदुन सम्यग्विवनिरमिता सङटनैव हेतुः ॥'

Page 37

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kāvyaprakāśa

practical point of view far more useful than Viśvanātha's division of the same function into eighty kinds, which, though scientifically accurate, is not in many cases true to expressions current in the language

From a practical point of view, it is far more useful than Viśvanātha's division of the same function into eighty kinds, which, though scientifically accurate, is not true to expressions current in the language in many cases.

Out of the large number of commentaries on the Kāvyaprakāśa a dozen have so far been published Extracts from some others are found in well known Catalogues or Manuscripts such as those of Aufrecht and Eggeling and Reports in search of Sanskrit Manuscripts such as those of Buhler, Peterson and Bhandarkar From a study of the printed material one is able to say that most of the commentators have nothing very original to offer Though some of them show original exegesis here and there, commentators as a class rest content with repeating what others have said before them The most famous, original and learned of these commentaries is the Pradīpa of Govinda Thakkura, with its own commentaries, the Prabhā of Vaidya nātha Tatsat and the Udyota of Nāgoji Bhatta.

Out of the large number of commentaries on the Kāvyaprakāśa, a dozen have so far been published. Extracts from some others are found in well-known catalogues or manuscripts such as those of Aufrecht and Eggeling, and reports in search of Sanskrit manuscripts such as those of Buhler, Peterson, and Bhandarkar. From a study of the printed material, one is able to say that most of the commentators have nothing very original to offer. Though some of them show original exegesis here and there, commentators as a class rest content with repeating what others have said before them. The most famous, original, and learned of these commentaries is the Pradīpa of Govinda Thakkura, with its own commentaries, the Prabhā of Vaidyanātha Tatsat, and the Udyota of Nāgoji Bhatta.

Besides being a popular writer Mammata is also a respected author in the Alamkāraśāstra The fact that rhetoricians like Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha, who criticize him in their works, have written commentaries on the Kāvyaprakāśa, bears this out Jagannatha often refers to Māmmata with respect and styles him 'The ancients', though he sometimes criticizes his views Nagoji Bhatta quotes him as an authority in his Vaiyākaraṇa SiddhāntaMaņjūsā (p 148 Chowkhambs Sanskrit Series) We have already seen that Bhīmasena regards him incarnation of Sarasvati Arjunavarmadeva also considers him an inspired writer

Besides being a popular writer, Mammata is also a respected author in the Alamkāraśāstra. The fact that rhetoricians like Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha, who criticize him in their works, have written commentaries on the Kāvyaprakāśa, bears this out. Jagannatha often refers to Māmmata with respect and styles him 'The ancients', though he sometimes criticizes his views. Nagoji Bhatta quotes him as an authority in his Vaiyākaraṇa SiddhāntaMaņjūsā (p. 148 Chowkhambs Sanskrit Series). We have already seen that Bhīmasena regards him as an incarnation of Sarasvati. Arjunavarmadeva also considers him an inspired writer.

In the composition of his Kāvyaprakāta Mammata draws upon his predecessors, Bharata, Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Vāmana, Rudrata, Anandavardhana, Mukulabhatta and Abhinavagupta Not only words and expressions, occurring in Kankas, but also illustrations are borrowed from predecessors Mammata's greatest debt is due to Rudrata Though all this is true, Mammata, is by no means a slavish follower of his predecessors He often shows independence of opinion and at one place or another has controverted the view of Bhamaha, Udbhata, Vamana, Rudrata, Anandavardhana and Mukulabhatta. He is also not afraid of finding faults with great poets like Kalidasa and Bhavabhuti

In the composition of his Kāvyaprakāśa, Mammata draws upon his predecessors, Bharata, Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Vāmana, Rudrata, Anandavardhana, Mukulabhatta, and Abhinavagupta. Not only words and expressions occurring in Kārikās, but also illustrations are borrowed from predecessors. Mammata's greatest debt is due to Rudrata. Though all this is true, Mammata is by no means a slavish follower of his predecessors. He often shows independence of opinion and at one place or another has controverted the views of Bhamaha, Udbhata, Vamana, Rudrata, Anandavardhana, and Mukulabhatta. He is also not afraid of finding faults with great poets like Kālidāsa and Bhavabhuti.

Regarding this question of the debt of rhetoricians to their predecessors one point strikes us as rather strange Many rheto-

Regarding this question of the debt of rhetoricians to their predecessors, one point strikes us as rather strange. Many rheto-

Page 38

rians 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 Apparently 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 succeed 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 Kārikas 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 स्वपरा निर्देशना p 62 and अधिकरण p 113 and our Notes thereon

Page 39

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 Laksanā 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 Utpreksā and Samāsokt 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 Mammata was no poet Nowhere in his Kavyaprakāsa does he offer any illustrations as being his own compositions Critical acumen and poetic genius are generally not found together Mammata 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 65

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 Upanisads, in the Nyāyaśāstra and especially in the treatment of rasa in the Alamkāraśāstra 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

65 Read ' निर्माय नूतनमुदाहरणानुरूपं काव्ये मयात्र निहितो न परस्य किचित् । किं शेयते इम्नसां मनसापि गन्ध कर्तृकृत्तिकरणनिराक्षिप्ता सृजोण ॥ ' रसगङ्गाधर Introductory stanza 6

65 Read ' निर्माय नूतनमुदाहरणानुरूपं काव्ये मयात्र निहितो न परस्य किचित् । किं शेयते इम्नसां मनसापि गन्ध कर्तृकृत्तिकरणनिराक्षिप्ता सृजोण ॥ ' Rasagangādhara Introductory stanza 6

Page 40

Introduction

Classification of figures, based on some definite principles, is found in the works of some of the Sanskrit rhetoricians Most of them adopt, either tacitly or expressly, the classification, according to which figures are divided into three kinds viz figures of word, figures of sense and figures of both word and sense Bhāmaha treats of 39 figures of which two viz Anuprāsa and Yamaka are figures of word and 37 figures of sense Dandin deals with 38 figures of which three viz Yamaka, Citra and Prahelikā are Śabdalamkaras and 35 Arthālamkaras Dandin is the first rhetorician who makes a definite distinction between figures of sense and figures of word by treating them in two different chapters viz in the second and the third Paricchedas respectively, though he does not mention the terms Śabdālamkāra and Arthālamkāra Udbhata treats of 41 figures, which are made of four figures of word and 37 figures of sense Vāmana is the first rhetorician who makes use of the terms Śabdālamkāra and Arthālamkāra He treats of 33 figures of which two viz Yamaka and Anuprāsa belong to word and 31 to sense

Classification of figures, based on some definite principles, is found in the works of some of the Sanskrit rhetoricians. Most of them adopt, either tacitly or expressly, the classification according to which figures are divided into three kinds, viz., figures of word, figures of sense, and figures of both word and sense. Bhāmaha treats of 39 figures, of which two, viz., Anuprāsa and Yamaka, are figures of word, and 37 figures of sense. Dandin deals with 38 figures, of which three, viz., Yamaka, Citra, and Prahelikā, are Śabdalankāras, and 35 Arthālamkāras. Dandin is the first rhetorician who makes a definite distinction between figures of sense and figures of word by treating them in two different chapters, viz., in the second and the third Paricchedas, respectively, though he does not mention the terms Śabdālamkāra and Arthālamkāra. Udbhata treats of 41 figures, which are made of four figures of word and 37 figures of sense. Vāmana is the first rhetorician who makes use of the terms Śabdālamkāra and Arthālamkāra. He treats of 33 figures, of which two, viz., Yamaka and Anuprāsa, belong to word, and 31 to sense.

Rudrata is the first rhetorician who gives a scientific classification of the figures of sense In common with his predecessors he first divides figures into two kinds viz figures of word and figures of sense He deals with five figures of word viz, Vakrokti, Anuprasa, Yamaka, Slesa and Citra in Chapters 2 to 5 Then, he divides the figures of sense into four broad classes according as they are based on vāstava (realistic description), aupamya (similartity), atiśaya (strikingness) and slesa (paronomasia) 66 In all he treats of 68 figures of sense, which are made of 23 vāstava, 21 aupamya, 12 atisaya and 10 śleśa with the addition of 2 kinds of samkara These occupy Chapters 7 to 10 of his Kāyālamkāra The total number of figures dealt with by him thus comes to 73 Nine of his figures of sense viz Sahoktı, Samuccaya, Visama, Hetu, Uttara, Upreksā, Purva, Adhuka and Virodha are in cluded in two classes so that the number of figures treated by Rudrata is reduced to 62 No one before Rudratā had attempted to classify figures of sense according to some principle Rudrata is thus the first rhetorician to introduce such a classification

Rudrata is the first rhetorician who gives a scientific classification of the figures of sense. In common with his predecessors, he first divides figures into two kinds, viz., figures of word and figures of sense. He deals with five figures of word, viz., Vakrokti, Anuprasa, Yamaka, Slesa, and Citra, in Chapters 2 to 5. Then, he divides the figures of sense into four broad classes according as they are based on vāstava (realistic description), aupamya (similartity), atiśaya (strikingness), and slesa (paronomasia). In all, he treats of 68 figures of sense, which are made of 23 vāstava, 21 aupamya, 12 atisaya, and 10 śleśa, with the addition of 2 kinds of samkara. These occupy Chapters 7 to 10 of his Kāyālamkāra. The total number of figures dealt with by him thus comes to 73. Nine of his figures of sense, viz., Sahokti, Samuccaya, Visama, Hetu, Uttara, Upreksā, Purva, Adhuka, and Virodha, are included in two classes, so that the number of figures treated by Rudrata is reduced to 62. No one before Rudratā had attempted to classify figures of sense according to some principle. Rudrata is thus the first rhetorician to introduce such a classification.

The Agnipurana67 (circa 900 A. D ) for the first time introduces the threefold division of figures into Śabdālamkaras, Arthālamkaras

The Agnipurana (circa 900 A.D.) for the first time introduces the threefold division of figures into Śabdālamkaras, Arthālamkaras

66 Read 'अर्थालङ्कारा वास्तवौपम्यमतिशय श्लेष । एषामेव विशेष अन्ये तु भवन्ति न शेषा ॥' काव्यालङ्कार 7 9

67 Vide Chapters 343-345

Page 41

and Sabdarthalakaras Bhoja in his Sarasvatīkanthabharana (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.

and Sabdarthalakaras Bhoja in his Sarasvatīkanthabharana (Chapters 2, 3, and 4) elaborates this division and gives 24 figures for each of these classes. His total number 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

The only division of figures that Mammata gives is this threefold 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 Śabdalamkāras, 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

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 Śabdalankāras, Arthālamkāras, and Ubhayalamkāras. Then, he divides the figures of sense into four kinds according to whether 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.

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 Rudrata and Vidyānātha base their divisions are connected with mental processes But their divisions cannot be said to have proceeded from purely psychological considerations

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 Rudrata 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

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

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

68 Vide प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण pp 337–339, from which read ‘तत्र प्रथमं शब्दार्थोभयगततवेन त्रिविधसमलङ्करणानाम् । अथोल्क्रान्तराणां चातुविध्यम् । केचित् प्रतीममानौपम्या । केचित् प्रतीममानवस्तु । केचित् प्रतीममानरसभावादय । केचिदस्फुटप्रतीमामानाः इति ।’ The other nine groups of अर्थालङ्कारs are (1) साधर्म्यमूल (2) अध्यवसायमूल (3) विरोधमूल (4) वाक्यन्यायामूल (5) लोकव्यवहारमूल (6) तर्कन्यायामूल (7) श्रुति

68 See प्रतापरुद्रयशोभूषण pp. 337–339, from which read ‘तत्र प्रथमं शब्दार्थोभयगततवेन त्रिविधसमलङ्करणानाम् । अथोल्क्रान्तराणां चातुविध्यम् । केचित् प्रतीममानौपम्या । केचित् प्रतीममानवस्तु । केचित् प्रतीममानरसभावादय । केचिदस्फुटप्रतीमामानाः इति ।’ The other nine groups of Arthālankāras are (1) Sādharmyamūla (2) Adhyavasāyamūla (3) Virodhamūla (4) Vākyanyāyāmūla (5) Lokavyavahāramūla (6) Tarkanyāyāmūla (7) Śruti

नित्यपक्षमूल (8) उपहासमूल and (9) विशेषवैचित्र्यमूल

nityapaksamūla (8) Upahāsamūla and (9) Viśesavaicitryamūla

Page 42

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 observe 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 सादृश्य ( दृश्यदृश्यात्मक ज्ञानम् ), उल्लेख ( उल्लेखात्मक ज्ञानम् ), रूपक ( अभेद ), अपह्नुति ( अपह्नुतिवैकल्पिकमेद ), अतिशयोक्ति ( अत्यवसानम् ) and भ्रान्तिमान ( अनधीयानमेदज्ञानम् ), where we find that the knowledge that the upameya 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 दृष्टान्त and निदर्शना, दीपक and तुल्ययोगिता, समासोक्ति, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा (5th variety ), सामान्य and विशेष, and प्रतिप 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 proceed 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 ), अधिक, विशेष and व्याघात are based on certain specific aspects of contradiction and thus form a separate group विरोधोक्ति (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 ) सूक्ष्म 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

Page 43

Thus, these three grounds of division account for 31 figures Of the remaining 31 four are based on Chain दृश्‍कल्‍म They a.e मालदीपक, कारणमाला, सार and एकावली Five more are founded on some kind of Reasoning ( तर्क )viz काव्यलिङ्ग, अर्थान्तरन्यास, अननुमान and तस्‍स (first variety)

Thus, these three grounds of division account for 31 figures Of the remaining 31 four are based on Chain They are Maladipaka, Karṇamālā, Sāra and Ekāvalī Five more are founded on some kind of Reasoning (tarka) viz Kāvyalinga, Arthāntaranyāsa, Anumāna and Tadas (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, पर्योयोक्त, व्याजोक्ति and प्रत्‍यनीक, सदेहोक्ति and विनोक्ति मालिका and उदात्तम्, समुच्‍चय and समाधि, परिसंख्या and उत्‍तरोत्‍तर (2nd variety ), अन्योन्‍य, सम and तद्‍गुण and संस्‍ृष्टि and सकर go together श्लेष, यथासंख्‍य, स्‍वभावोक्ति, परिक्‍ृति and पर्योय stand more or less by themselves.

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-Ākṣepa, Vyājastuti, Paryāyokta, Vyājokti and Pratynīka, Saṃdehoktī and Vinoktī Mālikā and Udāttam, Samuccaya and Samādhi, Parisamkhyā and Uttarottara (2nd variety), Anyonyam, Sam and Tadguṇa and Saṃsṛṣṭi and Sakara go together Śleṣa, Yathāsaṃkhyam, Svabhāvokti, Parikṛti and Paryāya 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 abopted 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, Udbhaṭa in adopting no principle in the treatement of the figures of sense

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 adopted 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, Udbhaṭa 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 Sanskṛit literature, the employment of literary devices like the अलंकारs is very old. study of the Vedic Samhitās tells us that in them, particulary in Ṛgveda 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. Ṛgvedic poets have made abundant use of अलंकारs like उपमा, उत्प्रेक्षा, रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति. e oldest references to something very near to the science of poetics are much later निदर्शन mentions words like र्य, र्या under the vague form उपमा Pāṇini uses a number of technical terms like उपमा उत्प्रेक्षित समास्या Inscriptions, paticularly the Junagadh Rock inscription ( 150 A. D, ) throw interesting light on the development of the science.

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 Alankaras is very old. Study of the Vedic Samhitās tells us that in them, particularly 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 Alankaras like Upamā, Utprekṣā, Rupaka and Atisayokti. The oldest references to something very near to the science of poetics are much later Nidarśana mentions words like Rya, Ryā under the vague form Upamā Pāṇini uses a number of technical terms like Upamā Utprekṣita Samāsyā 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

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

(6) IMPORTANT AUTHORS IN THE ALAMKĀRAŚĀSTRA

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

Page 44

numerous places quoted the opinions of other rhetoricians in order to

present a historical and comparative study of the various topics dealt

with by Mammata. 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 Alamkārasastra

who preceded and followed Mammata together with some brief

information about them

Predecessors of Mammata

(1) Bharata, the author of Nātyasastra. The Nātyasastra was first

published by the Nirnayasagara 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 Nātyasastra was also published at Benares in

1929 in the Kashi Sanskrit Series

The Nātyasastra 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 Nātyasastra is about the beginning of the

Christian era It is our oldest extant work on the Alamkārasastra

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

Kāvyalamkāra, also called Bhāmahālamkāra, was first published by

K. P Trivedi as Appendix VIII to his edition of Vidyānātha's Pratāpa-

rudrayasobhūsana 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

Paricchedas. 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 ) Dandin, the author of the Kāvyādarsa. The Kāvyādarsa with

the commentary of Premacandra Tarkavāgiśa was first published in

Page 45

काव्यप्रकाशः

the Bibliotheca Indica in Calcutta in 1863 Another edition with a German translation by O Bohtlingk was published at Leipzig in 1890 A third edition with two commentaries was published in Madras in 1910 And a fourth with a new commentary by Rañgācārya Raddi was brought out by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute at Poona in 1938

The Kāvyādarsa is divided into three Paricchedas The Madras edition splits up the third Pariccheda into two so that it has four Paricchedas There are in all 660 (Calcutta and Poona) or 663 stanzas (Madras) Dandin's date is approximately the same as Bhamaha's viz 6th century A D

Dandin is partly an exponent of the Alamkāra school and partly of the Riti school He treats of the figures of sense in the second Pariccheda

(4) Udbhata, the author of the Kāvyālamkārasamgraha The Kāvyālamkārasamgraha with the commentary called Laghuvṛtti of Pratihārendurāja (about 950 A D) was published by the Nirṇayasāgara Press in 1915 It has also been published with the same commentary in the Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series in 1925

Udbhata's Kavyalamkarsamgraha is divided into six Vargaś and treats of figures of speech only He is an important exponent of the Alamkara school. His date is about 800 A D

(5) Vamana, the author of the Kāvyālamkārasutrāṇi Vamana's book was published by the Nirnayasagara Press, Bombay, first in 1889 It has also been published in the Benares Sanskrit Series, Benares (1908) and in the Śri Vani Vilasa Series, Śrirangam (1909) These two latter editions are accompanied by a commentary, called Kamadhenu.

As the name suggests the Kāvyālamkārasutrāṇi is composed in the Sūtra style The Sutras are accompanied by Vamana's own Vṛtti The illustrations are mostly borrowed from others, but some of them are Vamana's own The book is divided into five Adhikaranaś, which are made of two or three Adhyayas each. Each Adhyaya consists of a certain number of Sutras. There are in all 12 Adhyayas and 319 Sutras Vamana was a contemporary of Udbhata His date is, therefore about 800 A. D. As Vamana quotes a large number of previous

69 Read 'अपिर्निदर्शनेऽसौ : स्तैयै परकीयैश्च पुंस्कैले। शब्दद्वैचित्र्यगम्योऽयं उपमेयमुपपन्नः प्रपञ्चितः II' वृत्ति on काव्यालङ्कारसूत्र 4. 3.33

Page 46

Introduction

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 Kavya

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 science 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 re

garded as a supporter of the Alamkāra school, though he knows the

Rasa theory of Bharata and remarks that kāvya should be possessed

of Rasa 71

(7) Anandvardhana, the author of the Dhvanyāloka The

Dhvanyaloka, 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 atrributed 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 Pratīhārendurāja

and Mahimabhatta, who make no such distinction, but indiscrimnately

attribute the Kārikas and the Vṛtti to Anandavardhana. 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 ‘रीतिरासा काव्यस्य । विशिष्टा पदरचना रीति । विशेषो गुणात्मा ।’

काव्यालङ्कारसूत्र 1 2 6-8

71 Read ‘ननु शब्दार्थौ काव्यम्’ 2 1 and ‘तस्मात् तत् कर्तव्यं यत्नेन महीयसा

रसैयुक्तम्’ 12 2

Page 47

vardhana. whose name was supposed to be Sahrdaya. They went under the comprehensive title Kāvya-dhvani, or Kāvya, or Dhvani. Anandavardhana merely wrote the Vṛtti on these Kārikās and supplied the illustrations His work is, therefore, known as Dhvanyāloka, Kāvyāloka, or sahrdayāloka. According to this view Sahrdaya is the Dhvanikāra and Anandavardhana the Dhvanyālokakāra

Anandavardhana for the first time elaborately formulated, either himself or from the Karikas of a predecessor, the Dhvani theory of poetics He is therefore, rightly regarded as the founder of the Dhvani school His work marks an epoch in the history of Alamkara literature His date is about 850

( 8 ) Mukulabhatta, the author of the Abhidhāvṛttimātṛkā has been published by the Nirnayasāgara Press in 1916 It is a small book consisting of 115 Kārikās and the author's Vṛtti thereon It treats of the two powers of word viz primary ( mukhya ) and secondary ( laksanika ) This book deserves notice, because Mammata criticizes the views of Mukulabhatta in two places and his divisions of Laksanā are by some regarded as having been based on Mukulabhatta's Mukulabhatta's date is 925 A. D

( 9 ) Kuntala, or Kuntalaka, or Kuntaka, the author of the Vakroktijīvita. The Vakroktijīvita consists of at least four Chapters, called Unmesas The first two Unmesas have been edited by S K De and published in the Calcutta Oriental Series in 1923

The Vakroktijīvita consists of Kārikās, Vṛtti and illustrations The Kārikās and Vṛtti are by Kuntala and the illustrations are cited from previous authors.

Kuntala is the founder of the Vakrokti school of poetics According to him Vakrokti or a striking mode of expression is the soul of poetry 72 He denies to dhvani or suggested sense an independent existence and includes it under the .all pervading term Vakrokti

72 Read ' शब्दार्थों सहितौ वक्रोक्तिव्यापारशालिनी । बन्ये व्यवस्थितौ तौ काव्ये तत्त्वविदाबाधा

दकारिणी 118 वाच्योर्थैः वाचकः । शब्द प्रसिद्धामिति यद्यपि । तथापि काव्यार्थे तस्मिन्

परमार्थो यमेतयोः 119 शब्दो विवक्षितोऽथैकवाक्यकोऽन्येपु सत्स्वपि । अर्थः सहृदयाह्ला

दकारिस्वादसुन्दर । 10 । उभावेतावलंकृत्यौ तयोः पुनरलंकृति । वक्रोक्तिरेव

वैदग्ध्यभङ्गीभणितिकवच्यते । 11' उन्मेष 1 The ṛtti explains वक्रोक्ति as प्रसिद्धामिधानव्यतिरेकिणी विचित्रैवाभिधा । p. 21

Page 48

His date is somewhere between 925–1025 A D

( 10 ) Bhoja, the author of the Sarasvatīkanthābharana. The Sarasvatīkanthabharana 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 Nirnayasāgara Press in 1925

The Sarasvatīkanthābharana 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 Mammata

( 11 ) Ruyyaka or Rucaka, the author of the Alamkārasarvasva Ruyyaka's Alamkārasarvasva with the commentary of Jay aratha was published by the Nirnayasāgara 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 Alamkārasāstra Later writers like Viśvanātha profusely draw upon it Ruyyaka often quotes and sometimes criticizes Mammata. His date is about 1150 A. D

( 12 ) Vidyādhara, the author of the Ekāvalī The Ekāvalī, with the commentary, called Tarala, of Mallinātha, has been published in the Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series in 1903

The work consists of three parts viz. 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) 73 It is divided into eight Chapters called Unmesas Vidyādhara's date is about 1300 A. D

( 13 ) Vidyānātha, the author of the Pratāparudrayaśobhūsana The Pratāparudrayaśobhūsana with the commentary, called Ratnapana of Kumārasvāmin, son of Mallinātha, has been published in the Bombay Sanskrit and Prakrit Series in 1909.

73 Read 'एष विद्याधरस्तेऽपु कान्तासमितलक्षणम् । करोति नरसिंहस्य चाटुज्ञोकारुदाहरणम् ॥ 7 अन्तरेण नरसिंहभूपतिं नेतरेषु स्तमम वादयमोचित । चन्द्रचूडमपद्याय जाहवीवारि वोढुमपर क ईश्वर ॥8' एकावली उन्मेष 1

Page 49

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

This work also consists of three parts viz the Kārikās, the Vritti and the examples As in the Ekavali, so here also all examples are composed by the author and are in praise of his patron Pratāparudradeva ,also called Virarudra or Rudra, the Kākatīya king of Telangana, whose capital was Ekaśilā ( modern Orangal or Warangal )74 The work is divided into nine chapters called Prakaranas. The date of Vidyānātha is about 1325 A. D

( 14 ) Viśvanātha the author of the Sahityadarpana. The Sāhitya-darpāna has been published several times The Nirmayasāgara Press published its first edition with the commentary of Rāmacarana in 1902

Next to the Kāvyaprakāśa the Sāhityadarpana is the most popular work in Alamkārāsastra. Its peculiarity is that it treats the whole of the science of poetics including dramaturgy It is evidently modelled on the Kāvyaprakāśa It consists of Kānikās, Vritti and illustrations, which are drawn from previous rhetoricians or poets Viśvanātha's date is about 1350

( 15 ) Appayya Dīkṣita He is the author of three books in the Alamkārasastra viz Vṛttivārtika, Kuvalayananda and Citramīmamsa, all of which have been published by the Nirmayasagara Press

The Vṛttivārtika is divided into two Paricchedas and deals at length with the two functions of word viz Abhidha and Lakṣaṇa The Kuvalayānanda is a treatise on figure of sense and is based on the Candra loka of Jayadeva ( about 1250 A D ) It treats of 124 figures in all. The Citramīmāṃsā is a more learned work. It first deals with the three kinds of poetry and then with tve' re figures of sense and remains unfinished in the midst of Atisaya,ukti A stanza at the end says that even the half finished Citramimāṃsā causes delight like half-developed Aruna and the half moon75 The date of Appayya Dīkṣita is between 1550 and 1625 A D

( 16 ) Jagannātha He is the author of two works in the Alam-kāraśāstra viz Rasagangādhara and Citramīmāṃsākhaṇḍana, beth of which are published by the Nirmayasagara Press.

Jagannātha is the last great writer on the Alamkārasastra. He was a typical product of ancient India, a scholar, a critic

74 Note 'प्रतापरुद्रदेवस्य गुणानाश्रित्य निर्मिते । अलङ्कारप्रबन्धगोधे सन्तः कवयस्तस्य स्तु वचः ॥ 9 कावतीयरत्नदर्प यथो भूषयितुं कृताः । विध्वानार्थकृतिक्षेप स्वप्ने तेन विनिर्मिते ॥ 10' प्रतापरुद्रयशोमुषण काव्यप्रकरण p. 14

75 Read 'अर्धेऽप्यचित्रमीमांसा न मुने कस्म मांसला । अनूपारिष्ट भनागोरेङ्गेन्दुरिव घृण्टे· ॥' चित्रमीमांसा p 104

Page 50

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 Kāvyaprakāsa 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 Dīkṣita

Objections against these had already been raised in the Rasagaāgādhara The Citramīmāmsākhandana briefly recapitulates them 76 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 77 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 (doṣah), excellence (guṇah) 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 'रसगङ्गाधरे चित्रमीमासाया भयोदिता । ये दोषास्तेऽत्र संक्षिप्य कथ्यन्ते विदुषां मुदे ॥' 'चित्रमीमांसाखण्डन p 1

77 Read 'सूक्ष्म विभाव मयका समुदीरिताना मप्यद्यदीक्षितिकृताविह गुणानाम् । निर्मत्सरो यदि समुंदरर्ण विदध्यादस्थाहमुज्ज्वलमतेश्ररञ्जौ वहामि॥'चित्रमीमांसाखण्डन p 1

Page 51

काव्यप्रकाशः

(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 नाट्यशास्त्र 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 रुष्ट were also the followers of this school

(3) The Riti School - वामन who defined poetry as रीतिरात्मा काव्यस्य विशिष्टा पदरचना रीति। 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 गुण's 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 वक्रोक्ति जीवित 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 आनन्दवर्धन 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 प्रतिहारेदुराज, कुन्तल भट्टनायक and महिमभट्ट

Page 52

मम्मटविरचितः

Composed by Mammata

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

प्रथमद्वितीयतृतीयचतुर्थपञ्चमो‌ऽल्लासः

First, second, third, fourth, fifth Ullasa

Page 54

काव्यप्रकाश:

प्रथम उल्लास:

मङ्गलम्

ग्रन्थारम्भे विध्नविघाताय समुचितेष्टदेवता ग्रन्थकृत् परामृशति—

नियतिः कृतनियमरहिता हृदैकमयिमनन्यपरतन्त्राम् ।

नवरसरुचिरां निर्मितिमाधुर्यती भारतीं कवेज्जयति ॥ १ ॥

नियतिशक्त्या नियतरूपा, सुखदुःखमोहस्वभावा, परमाण्वाद्युपादानकर्म्म-

दिसहकारिकारणपरतन्त्रा, घटादृशा, न च हृदयैकतैः, तादृशी ब्रह्मणो निर्मिति-

निर्मीणम्, एतद्विलक्षणा तु कविवाङ्‌निर्मितिः । अत एव जयति । जयत्यर्थेन च

नमस्कार आक्षिप्यते इति ता प्रति यस्मि प्रणत इति लभ्यते ।

LIGHT OF POETRY

FIRST FLASH

At the commencement of his work the author mentally thinks of the appropriate and favourite deity for the removal of obstacles [that might stand in the way of the completion of his work]

Victorious is the Poet's Speech, which unfolds a creation, that is unfettered by, or free from, restrictions or laws prescribed by Destiny or Nature, that consists of joy alone, that is not dependent on anything else, that is possessed of nine flavours and is [always] charming 1

Of settled form owing to the power of Destiny or Nature, of the nature of pleasure, pain and delusion, dependent on material causes such as atoms and auxiliary causes such as action, possessed of [only] six flavours and not invariably pleasant on account of them—such is the creation of Brahman But different from this is the creation of the Poet's Speech Hence, indeed, it is victorious And by the sense [the verb] 'is victorious salutation is implied Thus the sense 'I am bowing to her' is obtained

Page 55

इहाभिधेय सप्रयोजनमियाह —

Here the subject-matter is possessed of purposes

काव्यं यशसेर्ऽयकृते व्यवहारविदे शिवेतरक्षतये ।

Poetry leads to fame, the acquisition of wealth,

सद्धः परनिर्वृतये कान्तासंमिततयोपदेशयुजे ॥ २ ॥

the knowledge of the ways of the world, the removal of inauspicious things, the instantaneous [attainment of the] highest bliss [and] the conveyance of advice in the manner (sammitatā) of a beloved

कालिदासादीनामिव यशः , श्रीहर्षादिवीरौदीनामिव धनम्, राजादिगतोचिता-चारपरिज्ञानम्, आदित्यादेर्मयूरादीनामिवानर्थनिवारणम्, सकलप्रयोजनमौलिभूत समनन्तरमेव रसास्वादनसमुद्भूत विगलितवेद्यान्तरमानन्दम्, प्रभुसमितशब्दप्रधान-वेदादिशास्त्रेभ्यः सुहृत्समितार्थतया तद्विषयत्वपुराणादितिहाससेम्यः

thus states [the author in the following stanza] Poetry, which is the creation of a poet skilled in giving extraordinary descriptions—that poetry produces for the poet and the appreciative reader, according to capability, fame as [in the cases] of Kālidāsa and others, wealth as [in the cases] of Bāṇa and others from Śriharṣa and others, thorough (pari) knowledge of the proper manners belonging to kings and others removal of evil as [in the cases] of Mayūra and others from the Sun and others,

शब्दार्थयोरगुणभावेन रसादिर्भूतव्यापारप्रवणतया विलक्षणं यत् काव्य लोकोत्तरवर्णनानिपुणकविकर्म्म,

the absolutely instantaneous (samanantaram eva) joy, which has become the crown of all purposes, which springs from the relishing of flavour, in which all other objects of consciousness drop off, and advice in the form (tattva) 'We should behave like Rāma and others, not like Rāvaṇa and others,' after having attracted him by creating in him the state of being possessed of delight (rasaḥ), like a beloved, being different from authoritative works (Śāstram) beginning with the Veda, in which the word is important and which are

तत् कान्तेव सरसतापदेनेभिमुखीकृत्य, रामादिवद्वर्तितव्य न रावणादिवदित्युपदेशं च यथायोगं कवे सहृदयस्य च करोति तत् यत्नीयम् ।

९ 'भावकादीनां०' इति पाठः प्रायः सर्वेषु मुद्रितपुस्तकेषु ।

Page 56

एवमस्य प्रयोजनमुक्त्वा कारणमाह —

Having thus declared its purpose, he states its cause —

शक्तिनिपुणता लोकाश्रयकाव्याधिकारवेधणात् । काव्यज्ञशिक्षयाभ्यास इति हेतुस्तदुद्दृशने ॥ ३ ॥

A (peculiar) faculty, proficiency arising from the observation of the world, the sciences, poetical works and the like, practice under the instruction of those who know [how to produce and criticize] poetry — these [conjointly] form the cause of its origination

शक्ति: कवित्वबीजरूप: संस्कारविशेषो या विना काव्यं न प्रसरेत् प्रस्तुतं वा उपहासनीय स्यात् । लोकस्य स्थावरजङ्गमात्मकतया लोकवृत्तस्य, शास्त्राणां छन्दो- व्याकरणाभिधानकोशकलाचतुर्वर्गगजतुरगवाजिदिकक्षणप्रस्थानाम्, काव्यानां च महा- कविनिबन्धानाम्, आदिग्रहणादितिहासादीनां च विमर्शो नाद् व्युत्पत्ति । काव्यं कृत्‍ विच्चारयितु च ये जानान्ति तदुपदेशेन करणे योजने च पौन पुन्येन प्रवृत्तिरिति त्रय समुद्धिता , न तु व्यस्ता , तस्य काव्यस्योद्भवे निमित्तेऽस्मुल्ल्ये च हेतु , न तु हेतव ।

A peculiar faculty means a particular mental impression which is of the form of the seed of poetry, without which poetry would not arise, or if it were to arise, it would be ridiculous. Proficiency means scholarship arising from the close study of the world i.e. of the ways of the world consisting of stationary and movable entities, of the sciences i.e. of the works which deal with metre, grammar, collections (kośah) of words, arts, the group of the four aims of human life, elephants, horses, swords and the like, of poetical works i.e. of the compositions of great poets and of historical works and others as under-

१ 'महाकविसंनिधानाम्' इत्यपि पाठः

Page 57

एवमस्य कारणमुक्त्वा स्वरूपमाह —

Having thus stated its cause, the author now declares its nature—

तददोषौ शब्दार्थौ सगुणावनलंकृती पुनः काव्यम् ।

It [i.e. poetry] consists of word and sense, which are free from defects, are possessed of excellences and again are sometimes without figures.

दोषगुणालङ्काराः वक्ष्यन्ते । कावीत्यनेतदाह-यत् सर्वत्र सालङ्कारौ, काचित् तु स्फुटालङ्कारविरहे ऽपि न काव्यत्वहानि । यथा—

य· कौमारहरः स एव हि वरस्त एव चैत्ररात्रयः

Who deprived me of my maidenhood that same, indeed, is my lover, those same are the nights in the month of Caitra,

स्ते चोन्नीलितमालतीसुरभयः प्रौढा कदम्बानिलाः ।

and those same are the Kadamba-breezes, luxuriant and fragrant with the fully blown Mālatī-flowers,

सा चैवास्मि तथापि तत् सुरतव्यापारलीलाविधौ

and I am the same. Yet my heart yearns for the performance of graceful actions leading to amorous activities

रेवारोधसि वेतसीतरुले चेत समुल्कण्ठते ॥ १ ॥

there on the bank of the Revā at the bottom of the tree covered with cane-creepers.

अत्र स्फुटो न अलङ्कारः । रसस्य हि प्राधान्येनालङ्कारता ।

Here [there is] no distinct figure. For, the sentiment, being principal does not constitute a figure.

तद्वेदानं क्रियते—

stood from the use of the word ādi ['Practice etc' means] repeated exercise in producing and expounding poetry with the advice of those who know how to compose and criticize poetry Thus, these three put together, but not separately form the cause, but not the causes, of the origination and excellence of poetry

Thus having stated its cause, the author now declares its nature—

It [i.e poetry] consists of word and sense, which are free from defects, are possessed of excellences and again are sometimes without figures

4ab

Defects, excellences and figures will be explained later 'In some cases'— by this expression the author says that word and sense that constitute poetry are generally everywhere possessed of figures , but in rare cases even in the absence of a distinct figure no loss of [their] character as poetry occurs As [in the following illustration]—

Who deprived me of my maidenhood that same, indeed, is my lover , those same are the nights in the month of Caitra , and those same are the Kadamba-breezes, luxuriant and fragrant with the fully blown Mālatī-flowers , and I am the same. Yet my heart yearns for the performance of graceful actions leading to amorous activities there on the bank of the Revā at the bottom of the tree covered with cane-creepers

Here [there is] no distinct figure. For, the sentiment, being principal does not constitute a figure.

Page 58

प्रथम उल्लासः

First Chapter

ध्वन्यपरनामकोत्तमकाव्यलक्षणम् इदमुत्तममतिशायिनि व्यङ्ग्ये वाच्याद्, ध्वनिरुच्यते; कथितः ।। ४ ।।

The definition of the best poetry, also known as Dhvani, is given. In a poem where the suggested sense (vyangya) is superior to the expressed sense (vachya), it is called Dhvani.

इदमिति काव्यम् । बुद्धैरैयाकरणैः प्रधानभूतस्फोटरूपवद्व्यङ्गचव्यञ्जकस्य शब्दस्य ध्वनिरिति व्यवहारः कृतः । अतस्तन्मतानुसारिभिरन्यैरपि न्यायभावितवाच्यव्यङ्गचव्यञ्जकत्वस्य शब्दार्थयोरलस्य । यथा—

This is poetry. The wise grammarians have termed the word that suggests a sense as 'Dhvani'. Others following their view have also accepted this term for the word and its meaning that have the capacity to suggest a sense.

निशेष्युतचन्दनस्तनतटनिर्मृष्टश्रृङ्गारोऽधरो नेत्रे दूरमनञ्जने पुलकिता तन्वी तवेयं तनु ।

Your lower lip, rubbed by the sandal paste on your breasts, is devoid of beauty. Your eyes are void of collyrium. Your slender body is horripilated.

मिथ्यावादिनि दूति वान्धवजनस्याज्ञातपीडागमे वार्तां शातुमितो गतासि न पुनस्तस्याधमस्यान्तिकम् ।। २ ।।

O messenger, you are telling a lie and do not know how agony overtakes your kinswoman. You had gone from here to the well to bathe, but not to the vicinity of that wretch.

अत्र तदन्तिकमेव नतु गतासिति प्राधान्येनाधमपदेन व्यज्यते ।

Here, the word 'wretch' (adhama) suggests that you had gone to his vicinity only to dally.

[The author now] states its divisions in order—

This [poem is] the best when the suggested sense (vyangyam) is more charming or prominent than the expressed sense (vacyam)

It is designated Dhvani by the wise

This' means a poem By the wise grammarians the designation Dhvani is given to the non-eternal form of a word, which is suggestive of the suggested sense in the form of Sphota [i e the eternal ideal form of word] that has become the principal Hence by others also, who follow their view, [the designation Dhvani is given] to the pair of word and sense which is capable of suggesting the suggested sense that has subordinated (nyagbhavita) the expressed sense As —

The slope of your breasts has its sandal completely fallen off The lower lip has its red colour clean washed out The eyes are void of collyrium at the far ends i e at the corner (duram) This slender body of yours is horripilated O you messenger, who are telling a lie and who do not know how agony overtakes your kinswoman viz myself, you had gone from here to the well to bathe, but (punah) not to the vicinity of that wretch

Here 'You had gone to his vicinity only in order to dally'—this is suggested by the word 'wretch', which is characterized by prominence [in the stanza]

Page 59

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यापरनामकमध्यमकाव्यलक्षणम्

The characteristic of middle poetry, also known as poetry where the suggested sense is subordinate

अतादृशि गुणीभूतव्यङ्गयं व्यङ्ग्ये तु मध्यमम् ।

In such a case, when the suggested sense is subordinate to the expressed sense, it is considered middle poetry.

अतादृशि वाच्यादनतिशायिनि । यथा—

When the expressed sense is not surpassed by the suggested sense. For example—

ग्रामतरुणा तरुण्या नववञ्जुलवल्ल्याऽऽनन्दकरम् ।

The village youth, with the young girl, made delightful by the new Vanjula creeper

पश्यन्त्या भवति मुहुर्नितरा मलिना मुखच्छाया ॥ ३ ॥

As she repeatedly looks, her face becomes extremely darkened, i.e., void of lustre

अत्र वञ्जुललतागृहे दत्तसकेता नागतेति व्यङ्ग्यं गुणीभूतम् । तदपेक्षया वाच्यस्यैव चमत्कारित्वात् ।

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

अव्यङ्ग्यापरनामकाधमकाव्यलक्षणम्

The characteristic of inferior poetry, also known as poetry without suggestion

शब्दचित्रं वाच्यचित्रमव्यङ्ग्यं त्वरं स्मृतम् ॥ ५ ॥

That poetry which is striking in words or striking in the expressed sense, but devoid of suggestion, is known as inferior

चित्रमिति गुणालङ्कारयुक्तम् । अव्यङ्ग्यमिति स्फुटप्रतीयमानार्थरहितम् । अवरम्

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

अधमम् । यथा—

For example—

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—

But when the suggested sense is not of that kind, it 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

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

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

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—

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

Page 60

स्वच्छन्दोच्छलद्चककुछकुहरच्छायेतराम्बुच्छटा-मूर्छेन्मोहमहर्षिह्रषितविहितस्नानाहिकाल्लाय व ।

May the Mandākinī i e the river Gangā at once (ahnāya) break up i e remove your dullness — [the Mandākinī] in which ablution and daily rites are with delight performed by great sages,

भियादुद्यदुदारदुर्दरी दीर्घोदारिदृढद्रुम-द्रोहोद्रेकमहोर्मिमेदुरमदा मन्दाकिनी मन्दताम् ॥ ४ ॥

whose delusion is being destroyed (mūrchan) by the mass of water, which is surging at its own [sweet] will, is limpid and is violent (chāitetara) in the crevices of the banks, whose valley contains large jumping frogs , and whose pride is intense (medura) owing to the great waves that rise high (udrekah) on account of the injury i e the falling in (drohah) of tall and rich trees

विनिर्गतन मानदमानम्मनिराद

भवत्युपश्रुत्य यदच्छ्यौप यदम् ।

Having heard by hearsay that [King Hayagrīva ] who cuts the pride [of his enemies,] has gone out of his palace,

ससभ्रमेन्द्रदुतपातिततागेभा

even though by chance Amarāvatī, whose bolt is quickly made to fall by Indra who is confused, has as it were closed her eyes through fear

निमीलिताक्षीव भियामरावती ॥ ५ ॥

इति काव्यप्रकाशे काव्यप्रयोजनकारणस्वरूपविशेषणनिर्णयो नाम प्रथम

Thus [ends] the First Flash in the Light of Poetry, named the Determination of the particular Purpose Cause and Nature of Poetry

उल्लास ॥ १ ॥

Page 61

द्वितीय उल्दासः

Second Chapter

ऋमेण शब्दार्थयो स्वरूपमाह —

Now, the nature of word and sense is explained in order —

त्रिविध शब्द

Three kinds of word

स्याद वाचको लाक्षणिकः शब्दोऽत्र व्यञ्जकसिद्धा ।

The word here would be of three kinds viz expressive, indicative

अत्रेति काव्ये । एषा स्वरूप वक्ष्यते ।

Here means in poetry

वाच्यादयस्तदर्थाः स्युः

The expressed sense and others would be their senses

वाच्यलक्ष्यव्यञ्जकाः ।

तात्पर्यार्थः

Purport-sense

तात्पर्यार्थोऽपि केशव्चित्॥ १ ॥

The purport-sense also [belongs to word] in the view of some.

आकाङ्क्षा — योग्यता — सन्निधि — वाक्यमात्ररूपाणां पदर्थानां

When the senses of words, whose nature is being explained [later],

समन्वये तात्पर्यार्थी विवक्षानुपपत्तिभ्यामपि वाक्यार्थ समुल्लसति — इत्यभिहितान्वय-

are combined together owing to the force of expectancy, compatibility

वादिनां मतम् । वाच्य एव वाक्यार्थ। — इत्यन्विताभिधानवादिन् ।

and juxtaposition the purport-sense, which possesses a special form and which, though not the sense of the [different] words, represents the sense of the sentence, springs up — this is the opinion of those who maintain that connection arises between [senses after they are] expressed [by the various words] The expressed sense itself represents the sentence-sense — thus hold those who maintain that words express a connected meaning

SECOND FLASH

The author now states the nature of word and sense in order —

Word here would be of of three kinds viz expressive, indicative and suggestive

Here means in poetry The nature of these [three kinds of word] will be explained later

The expressed sense and others would be their senses

[Vācyādayah means] the expressed sense, the indicated sense and the suggested sense.

The purport-sense also [belongs to word] in the view of some. When the senses of words, whose nature is being explained [later], are combined together owing to the force of expectancy, compatibility and juxtaposition the purport-sense, which possesses a special form and which, though not the sense of the [different] words, represents the sense of the sentence, springs up — this is the opinion of those who maintain that connection arises between [senses after they are] expressed [by the various words] The expressed sense itself represents the sentence-sense — thus hold those who maintain that words express a connected meaning

Page 62

सर्वेषां प्रायशोऽर्थानां व्यङ्ककत्वमपीष्यते ।

It is also desired that all meanings generally be suggestive.

तत्र वाच्यस्य यथा —

There [the suggestiveness] of the expressed sense is seen in the following—

माए घरोवअरण अजअ हुँ नत्थि त्ति साहिअ तुमए ।

Mother, you have said that there are, indeed, no provisions in the house today

ता भण कि कराणिजं एसण ण वासो ठाइ ॥ १ ॥

Therefore, say what should be done. The day would not stand just thus

[ मातृगृहोपकरणमध्ये किञ्चिद् नास्तीति साधितं त्वया ।

[by the expressed sense of the stanza]

तद् भण किं करणीयमेव न वासरः स्थायी ॥ ]

अत्र स्वैरविहारार्थीनीति व्यज्यते ।

Here the girl is desirous of wanton enjoyment — this is suggested

लक्ष्यस्य यथा—

[The suggestiveness] of the indicated sense is seen in the following—

साहेंती साहि सुहअ खणे खणे दूमिआआसि मज्ज्अए ।

Going to the fortunate one [i.e. my lover] every moment, you are, O friend, troubled for my sake.

सुभावणेहकरणिजसरिसअ दावण विरिअअ तुमए ॥ २ ॥

You have just done something which is worthy of what should be done through good feeling and friendship

[ साध्यन्ती सखि सुभग क्षणे क्षणे दूतीआसि मकृते ।

Here 'Hostility has been practised [towards me] by you, who dallied with my lover'— this is the indicated sense

सद्वावस्नेहकरणीयसदृशा तावद् विरचित त्वया-॥ ]

And by that [indicated sense] the revealing or the disclosure of the guiltiness belonging to the lover is suggested

Page 63

अत्र मथितयं रमयन्त्या त्वया शृङ्गारमाचरितमिति लक्ष्यम् । तेन च कामुकविषयं साक्षाद्‌त्वप्रकाशनं व्यङ्ग्यम् ।

Here the aim is to convey that you, the beloved, have indulged in love-sports. Therefore, the direct revelation of the lover's subject is suggested.

व्यङ्ग्यस्य यथा —

An example of the suggested sense is —

उअ णिम्मलणिपंदा भिसिणीपत्तम्मि रेहइ बलआ । णिम्मलमरगअभाअणपरिद्धिआ सइसुत्तइ व्व ॥ ३ ॥

The crane stands motionless on a leaf of the lotus-plant, like a conch-shell standing in a vessel of spotless emerald.

[ पश्य निष्कम्पनि स्पन्नां बिसिनीपत्त्रे राजते बलाका । निर्मलमरकतभाजनपरिरिठता शङ्खसूक्तिरिव ॥ ]

[See, motionless and throbness shines the crane on a leaf of the lotus-plant, like a conch-shell standing in a vessel of spotless emerald.]

अत्र निष्पन्नद्वेन आक्षेपस्तत्लम् । तेन च जनरहितत्वम् । अतः संकेतस्थानमेतदिति कयाचित् कञ्चित् प्रत्युच्यते । अथवा, मिथ्या वदसि, न त्वमत्रागतोद्भूरिति व्यज्यते ।

Here, by the expressed sense, the suggestion is made. And by that, the fact that the place is void of people is further suggested. Hence this is the place of appointment—this is said by some woman to some man. Or, you are telling a lie, you had not come here—thus is suggested by some woman to some man.

वाचकादीनां क्रमेण स्वरूपमाह—

The author now states the nature of the expressive word and others in order —

वाचकशब्दलक्षणम्

साक्षात् संकेतितं योऽर्थमभिधत्ते स वाचकः ॥ २ ॥

That is an expressive word, which expresses, a sense which is directly conventional [i.e. about which a direct convention has been established].

[The suggestiveness] of the suggested sense is seen in the following —

See, motionless and throbness shines the crane on a leaf of the lotus-plant, like a conch-shell standing in a vessel of spotless emerald

Here by throbness [which is the expressed sense] confidence on the part of the crane is suggested And by that [confidence which is thus the suggested sense], the fact that the place is void of people is further suggested Hence this is the place of appointment—this is said by some woman to some man Or, you are telling a lie, you had not come here—thus is suggested by some woman to some man

The author now states the nature of the expressive word and others in order —

That is an expressive word, which expresses, a sense which is directly conventional [i e about which a direct convention has been established]

Page 64

ईहागृहीतसकेतस्य शब्दस्यार्थप्रतीतेर्भावात् संकेतसहाय एव शब्दोऽर्थ-

Since the meaning of a word is understood because its indication is comprehended, the word conveys meaning with the help of indication alone.

विशेष प्रतिपादयतीति यस्य ब्यवधानेन सकेतो गृह्यते स तस्य वाचकः ।

That which conveys a particular meaning is called its 'vācaka' (signifier), and it is understood through indication.

सकेतो विषयो मतद्रयम्

The subject of indication is considered to be twofold.

संकेतितश्श्तुंवेंदो जात्यादिजोंतिरेव वा ।

The indicated thing is either an individual or a universal ( jāti ).

यथास्यर्थक्रियाकारितया प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्तियोग्या व्यक्तिरेव, तथापि आनन्याद्

Although it is the individual that is capable of performing the action or purpose, still, due to its being not different (from the universal),

व्यभिचाराच्च तत् संकेत कर्तुं न युज्यते इति, गौ शुकश्श्वला डित्य इत्यादीनां

it is not suitable to indicate that (individual). Hence, words like 'gauḥ' (cow), 'śukla' (white), etc.,

शब्दानां विषयविभागो न प्रामोति इति च, तदुपाधावेव संकेतः ।

do not directly indicate the individual. Therefore, the indication is related to the adjunct (upādhi).

उपाधिश्श् द्विविध -वस्तुधर्मो वाक्त्रृदच्छासनिवेशितश्श् । वस्तुधर्मोऽपि

The adjunct is of two kinds: one based on the property of the object and the other based on the convention established by the speaker.

द्विविध -सिद्ध साध्यश्श् । सिद्धोऽपि द्विविध -पदार्थस्य प्राणप्रदो विशेषाधानेहुतु श्श् ।

The property of the object is also twofold: one that is established (siddha) and the other that is to be achieved (sādhya). The established property is further divided into two: one that gives life to the object and the other that is the cause of its special attributes.

तत्रादौ जातिः । उक्त हि वाक्यपदीये ‘गौः स्वरूपेण न गौः, नापि अगौः,

Among these, the universal ( jāti ) is primary. As it is said in the Vākyapadīya, 'A cow is not a cow by its mere form, nor is it a non-cow.'

Here i e in this word owing to the absence of the comprehension of sense from a word whose convention is not grasped, a word con- veys a particular sense only when assisted by convention Hence a word is expressive of that sense in which a direct convention of that word is apprehended

The conventional sense is four-fold viz generality and others, or only [one viz] generality

Even though an individual alone is capable of being the object of our activity and passivity owing to its capacity of performing an action calculated to serve a certain purpose, yet it is not proper to establish the convention there i e in an individual on account of [the faults of] endlessness and violation, and differentiation of province would not obtain in the case of words like a bull, white, moving, Dittha For these reasons convention is made in the attribute only of an individual

And the attribute is twofold—the innate property of a thing and the attribute imposed upon a thing by the sweet will of the speaker The innate property of a thing is also of two kinds—that which is accomplished and that which is being accomplished The accomplish- ed [property is] also of two kinds—that which gives life to an entity and that which is the cause of endowing it with its speciality There, the first [accomplished property is] generality For, it is declared in the Vakyapadiya ‘A bull is not a bull owing to its form,

१ ‘ईहागृहीतसंकेतस्य पुँकस्य शब्दार्थविशेषप्रतिपत्तेरभावात्’ इत्यपि पाठः ।

Another reading is 'owing to the absence of the comprehension of the particular meaning of a word whose indication is not grasped.'

Page 65

३२

काव्यप्रकाराः

Types of Poetry

गोत्वामिसम्बन्धात् तु गौः' इति। द्वितीयो गुणः। शुकादिना हि लब्यसत्ताकं वस्तु विशिष्टते। साध्य पूर्वोपरिमूतावयवक्रियारूप डित्यादिशब्दानामन्त्यबुद्धि-निर्ग्राह्या सत्तत्क्रम स्वरूप वक्त्रा यदच्छया डित्यादिष्यर्थेषूपाधिलेन सनिवेश्यते इति सोऽयं सज्ञारूपो यदच्छात्मक इति। गौः शुक्कुश्वलो डित्य इत्यदौ 'चतुष्टयी शब्दाना अपृथक्त्वम्' इति महाभाष्यकारः।

The second quality is illustrated by the example 'gauḥ' (cow), which is related to cowness. According to Śukra and others, an object with an existing essence is specified. The final understanding of words like 'Dittha' (seen) and others, which have a form that is prior and posterior, is grasped by the intellect through the connection of their essence and the order of their parts. The speaker intentionally uses these words in a particular way, and this is known as the 'yadṛcchā' (conventional) name. The Mahābhāṣya says that the fourfold nature of words is not separate.

परमाण्वादीनां तु गुणमध्यपाठात् पारिभाषिक गुणत्वम्। गुणक्रियादृच्छानां वस्तुन एकरूपाणामप्याश्रयमेदात् भेद इव लक्ष्यते यथैकस्य मुखस्य खड्गमुकुटै-लाघालम्भनमेदात्।

The inclusion of atoms and other entities in the middle of the list of qualities is due to their being qualities in a technical sense. Although qualities, actions, and conventional names are of one form, they appear different due to the diversity of their supports, just as the same face appears different due to the presence of a sword, a crown, or a garland.

not also is it a non-bull [owing to that reason], but it is a bull on account of its connection with bullness' The second [accomplished property is] quality For, by [a quality] such as white a thing, which has obtained existence is differentiated [from others] The property, which is in the process of accomplishment is of the form of an action, parts of which have become prior and posterior ze occupy successive periods of time The [ideal] form of words such as Dittha, which is completely grasped by the apprehension of the last letter, which is divested of sequence [of the letters constituting those words], is imposed by the speaker at his own sweet will on objects such as Dittha as their attribute Hence this attribute here, which consists of ze which arises from [the speaker's] sweet will, is known as a proper name (samjñā) Four-fold is the currency of words as seen in expressions like 'The white bull, [named] Dittha, is moving' -thus [says Patañjali,] the author of the Māhābhāṣya

But the characteristic of being a quality of ze belonging to the [dimension] atomic and the like is only technical owing to their mention among qualities. Qualities, actions and proper names (yadr̥cchā), though in reality of one form, are observed as different as it were owing to the diversity of their supports, as the one face is observed to be diverse owing to the diversity of the abodes such as a sword, a mirror and oil [in which it is reflected]

९ 'गुणक्रियादृच्छासंज्ञानाम्' इत्यपि पाठः।

9 'gुणakriyādr̥cchāsanjñānām' is another reading.

Page 66

हिमपय राक्षाधाश्रयेषु परमार्थतो भिन्नेषु शुक्लादिषु यद्‌दर्शनं शुक्लं शुक्लमित्याभिन्नाभिधानप्रत्ययोत्पत्तिस्तत्त् शुक्लुादि सामान्यम्। गुडतण्डुलादिपाकादि-

In substances like snow, conch, etc., which are different in reality, the perception of whiteness and the expression 'white' and the cognition 'this is white' arise due to the universal 'whiteness'. Similarly, in the cooking of molasses, rice, etc.,

प्त्रेवमेव पाकत्वादि। बालकृद्‌दशकादुदीरितेषु दित्यादिशब्देषु च, प्रतिकषण भिन्न-

there is the universal 'cookingness'. In words like 'Dittha' uttered by a child, an old man, etc.,

मानेषु दित्यार्थेषु वा, दित्यत्वाद्‌गस्तिति सर्वेषा शब्दाना जातिरेव प्रतीयते निमित्त-

and in their meanings, the universal 'Ditthatva' is understood. The cause of the currency of all words is the universal.

मिल्यन्ये । तद्‌दान् अपोहो वा शब्दार्थ कैश्चिदुक्त इति ग्रन्थगौरवभ्यात् प्रकृतान्-

Some others say that the meaning of a word is 'exclusion' (apoha). But this view is not discussed here due to the fear of increasing the bulk of this work.

पयोगाच्च न दर्शितम् ।

and its uselessness for the matter in hand.

अभिधालक्षणम्

Definition of Abhida

स मूलयोऽर्थस्तत्र मुख्यो व्यापारोऽस्यामिधोच्यते ॥ ३ ॥

The primary sense is the primary function of the expressive word, which is called Abhida.

स इति साक्षात्केातित॰ । अस्येति शब्दस्य ।

'That' means the meaning which is directly conventional. 'Of this' means of the word.

That is the universal, whiteness and the like, through the force of which an identical expression and an identical apprehension, such as 'This is white, that is white,' arise with reference to white and the like, which, as found in the supports such as snow, milk and conch, are really different Exactly similar is the universal, cookingness and the like, in the cooking and the like of treacle, rice and others And in the words Dittha and the like, that are uttered by a child, an old man and a parrot and others, or in the entities Dittha and the like, that are changing every moment, there is the universal Dittha-ness and the like Hence generality alone is the cause of the currency of all words -thus hold others The meaning of a word has been declared by some to be an individual possessed of that viz generality, or distinction of an individual from all that it is not-all this has not been shown on account of the fear of increasing the bulk of this work and on account of its uselessness for the matter in hand

That is the primary sense The primary process of this [expressive word] there [ie with reference to the primary sense] is called Expression 'That' means the meaning which is directly conventional 'Of this' means of the word

Page 67

लक्षणालक्षणम्

Definition of Lakṣaṇā

मुख्यार्थबाधे तद्योगे रुढितोऽथ प्रयोजनात् ।

When the primary meaning is obstructed, and there is a connection with the secondary meaning, either due to convention or purpose,

अन्योऽर्थो लक्ष्यते यत् सा लक्षणारोपिता क्रिया ॥ ४ ॥

the process by which another meaning is indicated is called Lakṣaṇā.

'कर्मणि कुशल' इत्यादौ धर्मप्रहणादियोगात् 'गङ्गायां घोष' इत्यादौ च गङ्गादीनां घोषाद्यधिकरणत्वासंभवात् मुख्यार्थस्य बाधे, विवेचकत्वादौ सामीप्ये च सति, रूढित प्रसिद्धौ, तथा 'गङ्गातटे घोष' इत्यादि प्रयोगाद् येषा न तथा प्रतिपत्ति-

As in 'skilful in business' where the primary meaning is obstructed due to the connection with the attribute, or in 'A hamlet on the Gangā' where it is impossible for the hamlet to be on the Gangā, and the primary meaning is obstructed,

तेषा शैल्पावनत्वादीनां धर्माणां तथाप्रतिपादनातमन प्रयोजनाच्च, मुख्येनामुख्योऽर्थो लक्ष्यते यत् स आरोपित- शब्दव्यापार सन्तरार्थानिष्ठो लक्षणा ।

the secondary meaning is indicated through the primary meaning, and this process is called Lakṣaṇā.

शुद्धाया लक्षणाया द्वे भेदौ

There are two types of pure Lakṣaṇā

स्वसिद्धये पराक्षेपः परार्थ स्वसमर्पणम् ।

One is where the secondary meaning is indicated for its own sake, and the other is where it is indicated for the sake of something else.

उपादान लक्षणं चेत्युक्ता शुद्धैव सा द्विधा ॥ ५ ॥

Thus, pure Lakṣaṇā is of two kinds: Upādāna Lakṣaṇā and the other.

Indication is that process, which is superimposed on a word and by which (yat) another sense is conveyed through usage and (atha) through motive, when there is, the incompatibility of the primary sense and when there is the connection of that [primary sense with the other i.e the secondary sense that is conveyed]

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 Gangā' on account of the impossibility of the Gangā and the like being the support or the site of a hamlet and the like, when there is the connection 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-

Page 68

द्वितीय उल्लासः

Second Chapter

‘कुन्ता प्रविशन्ति’ ‘यष्षयः प्रविशन्ति’ इत्यादौ कुन्तादिभिरालम्बनप्रवेशसिद्ध्यर्थं स्वस्योगिन् पुरुषा आक्षिप्यन्ते, तत उपादानेनैव लक्षणा ।

In expressions like 'Lances enter' and 'Staffs enter' the words lances and others imply by implication convey the sense of men connected with them in order to establish i.e make possible their entrance.

‘गौरवकृत्य’ इत्यादौ ‘श्रुतिचोदितमनुबन्ध कथ मे स्याद्’ इति जात्या व्यक्तिराक्षिप्यते, न तु शब्देनोच्यते ‘विशेष्य नामिधा गच्छेत् क्षीणशक्तिरिव-लक्षणे’ इति न्यायाद्-इत्युपादानलक्षणा। तु नोदाहर्तव्या । न हात्र प्रयोजनमस्ति । न वा रूढिरियम्। व्यक्तिविनाभावित्त्वात् तु जात्या व्यक्तिराक्षिप्यते, यथा क्रियात-

In expressions like 'A bull should be slaughtered,' the individual [bull] is indicated by the generality bullness, thinking (iti) 'How can slaughter, enjoined by the Veda, be mine?, but the [individual bull] is not denoted by the word on account of the rule (nyāyaḥ) Denotation, whose power is exhausted in [expressing] the qualification [viz bullness in the present case], would not go i.e would not express the qualified -But this [viz the sentence 'A bull should be slaughtered'], should not be quoted as an illustration of Inclusive Indication For, there is no motive here Nor is this a usage.

मित्यत्र कर्ता, कुर्वित्यत्र कर्म । ‘प्रविश्ना’ ‘पिण्डीम्’ इत्यादौ ‘गृहं’ ‘भक्ष्यम्’ इत्यादि च ।

And here viz in 'Let [it] be done' the subject is inferred, here viz in 'Do' the object is inferred, and in cases like 'Enter' and 'A sweet ball' appropriate words like 'a house' and 'eat' are inferred.

‘पीत्नो देवदत्तो दिवा न भुङ्क्ते’ इत्यत्र च रात्रिभोजन न लक्यते । श्रुतार्थोपत्तेर-

And here viz in 'Fat Devadatta eats not by day' his eating at night is not indicated For, that [expression forms] the province of Verbal Presumption or Factual Presumption.

clusive Indication Thus, that Pure Indication alone is declared to be two-fold

In expressions like Lances enter and Staffs enter the words lances and others imply i e by implication convey the sense of men connected with them in order to establish i e make possible their entrance Thence this Indication is characterized by inclusion or acceptance [of the primary sense in the secondary sense conveyed]

In expressions like A bull should be slaughtered, the individual [bull] is indicated by the generality bullness, thinking (iti) 'How can slaughter, enjoined by the Veda, be mine?, but the [individual bull] is not denoted by the word on account of the rule (nyāyaḥ) Denotation, whose power is exhausted in [expressing] the qualification [viz bullness in the present case], would not go i e would not express the qualified -But this [viz the sentence 'A bull should be slaughtered'], should not be quoted as an illustration of Inclusive Indication For, there is no motive here Nor is this a usage But here the individual is inferred from generality on account of the generality being invariably connected with the individual, as here viz in 'Let [it] be done' the subject is inferred, here viz in 'Do' the object is inferred, and in cases like 'Enter' and 'A sweet ball' appropriate words like 'a house' and 'eat' are inferred

And here viz in 'Fat Devadatta eats not by day' his eating at night is not indicated For, that [expression forms] the province of Verbal Presumption or Factual Presumption

Page 69

'गङ्गाया घोष.' इत्यत्र तटस्य घोषाधिकारणत्वसिद्धये गङ्गाशब्द: स्वार्थमरपयति इत्येवमदौ लक्षणेनैषा लक्षणा । उभयरूपा चेयं शुद्धा । उपचारेणामिश्रितत्वात् । अनयोर्मेदयोरलौकस्य लक्षणस्य च न मेदरूपं ताटस्थ्यम् । तटादीनां गङ्गादिशब्दै: प्रतिपादने तत्वप्रतिपत्तौ हि प्रतिपिपादयिषितप्रयोजनसप्रत्यय: । गङ्गामकन्यमात्रप्रतीतौ तु गङ्गातटे घोष इति मुख्यशब्दाभिधानलक्षणया• को मेद: ।

Here viz in 'A hamlet on the Gangā' the word Gangā abandons its own meaning [viz the stream] in order to establish the bank as the abode of the hamlet Thus, in cases like this Indication is characterized by abandonment of the primary sense And this Indication of both kinds [viz Inclusive Indication and Exclusive Indication is] pure, because it is not mixed with the secondary use of a word based on similarity (upacārah)

सारोप्यमाण आरोपविषयश्च यत्रापहतुमेदौ सामानाधिकरण्येन निर्दिश्येते सा लक्षणा सारोपा ।

साध्यवसानिकाया लक्षणाया लक्षणम्

विषयन्तःकेतडन्यस्मिन् सा स्यात् साध्यवसानिका ॥ ६ ॥

In these two divisions of Indication [viz Upādāna-lakṣaṇa and Lakṣaṇa-lakṣaṇa] there is no separateness (tātasthyām) amounting to distinction between the indicated sense and the indicative i e primary sense, for when the senses the bank and the like are conveyed by the words Gangā and the like, the apprehension of the motive that is sought to be established arises after the identity [of the indicated sense viz the bank with the primary sense viz the stream] is comprehended But if merely the connection [of the bank] with [the stream of] the Gangā is apprehended, what difference would there be between expression by means of primary words in the form (iti) 'A hamlet on the bank of the Gangā' and Indication [in the form 'A hamlet on the Gangā' ]?

But another variety is Indication with Superimposition where the object superimposed (viṣayan) as well as the object superimposed upon are mentioned.

Where the thing superimposed and the object of superimposition are both expressed in one and the same case with their distinction unconcealed that Indication is superimposition.

6 ab

Page 70

निगिरोद्द्रुमाग्रेनान्न तेन निगिर्णे अन्यस्मिन्नारोपविषये सति सा साध्यवसाना स्यात् ।

When the object of superimposition is put within it is swallowed by the superimposing thing

इमौ भेदौ गौणौ शुद्धौ च भेदाविमौ च साध्य्यात् संबन्ध्यन्तरतस्तथा । गौणी शुद्धा च विज्ञेया इमावारोपाध्यवसानरूपौ साध्यस्यहेतू भेदौ 'गौरीहीक' इत्यत्र 'गौरयम्' इत्यत्र च ।

These two divisions should be understood as Qualitative and as Pure

गौणलक्षणाविषये मतत्रयम्

On the topic of qualitative indication, there are three views

अत्र हि स्वार्थसहचारिरिणो गुणा जाडचमान्चदयो लक्षणमाणा अपि गोशब्दस्य परार्थाभिधाने प्रभृत्तिनिमित्तत्वमुपयान्ति इति केचित् । स्वार्थसहचारिगुणाभेदेन परार्थगता गुणा एव लक्षणेन्त न तु परार्थोऽभिधीयते इतन्ये । साधारणगुणा श्रयतेन परार्थ एव लक्षण्यते इत्यपरे ।

Some say that the qualities associated with the primary sense, such as dullness and stupidity, become the cause of the use of the word to express the other entity. Others say that the qualities themselves, belonging to the other entity, are indicated owing to their identity with the qualities associated with its primary sense, but the other entity is not expressed. Still others believe that the other entity itself is indicated on account of its being the abode of common qualities

When the object of superimposition is put withın : e is swallowed by the superimposed thing : e by the thing which is being superimposed, tlıc Indication would be with introsusception

English translation of the Sanskrit text

And these two divisions should be understood as Qualitative [ : e as divisions of Gaunī Lakṣaṇā] and as Pure [ : e as divisions of Suddhā Lakṣaṇā], when they arise respectively from resemblance [between the expressed sense and the indicated sense] and from any other relation between them

English translation of the Sanskrit text

These two divisions, of the form of Superimposition and Introsusception caused by resemblance are respectively illustrated here viz in 'The Vāhīka is a bull and here : e in 'This is a bull'

English translation of the Sanskrit text

Here indeed, qualities like dullness and stupidity, associated with the primary sense [of the word gauh] though indicated, become the cause of the use of the word 'go' to express the other entity [viz the Vāhika]—thus hold some The qualities themselves, belonging to the other entity [viz the Vāhīka] are indicated [by the word gauh] owing to their identity with the qualities associated with its primary sense, but the other entity is not expressed [by the word gauh]—thus maintain others The other entity itself is indicated [by the word gauh] on account of its being the abode of common qualities [ : e qualities which are common to both the primary and the secondary sense]—thus believe still others

English translation of the Sanskrit text

Page 71

उक्तं चान्यत्र — 'अभिधेयाविनाभूतप्रतीतिलक्षणोच्यते । लक्षणमाण-

It is said elsewhere—Indication is said to be the apprehension connected with (avinabhuta) the primary sense (abhidheyam.)

गुणैयोगाद् वृत्तेरिष्ठा तु गौणता' इति । लक्षणमाण-

The process is, however, admitted to be qualitative on account of the connection [of the expressed sense viz bull] with the qualities of [the entity viz the Vahika] that is being indicated

अविनाभावोऽत्र सबन्धमात्र, न तु नान्तरीयकलम् । तत्त्वे हि 'मक्षिका

क्रोशन्ति' इत्यादौ लक्षणा न स्यात् । अविनाभावे चाक्षेपेणैव सिद्धेर्लक्षणाया

And if invariable association were to exist [between the expressed sense and the indicated sense] the indicated sense would be established by inference itself and therefore there would be no use for Indication—this has been stated by us before

नोपयोग इत्युक्तम् । 'आयुर्घृतम्', 'आयुर्वेदम्' इत्यादौ साध्र्यादनयत कार्यकारणभावादि

And in cases like 'Ghee is life' 'This is life itself' there is a different relation [between the expressed sense and the indicated sense of the word ayuh], such as the relation of effect and cause, other than resemblance And in such instances the Superimposition and Identification are caused by (pūrva) relations such as the one that exists between the effect and the cause

सबन्धान्तरम् । एवमादौ च कार्यकारणभावादिलक्षणपूर्वं ऽरोपाध्यवसाने ।

अत्र गौणमेदयोमेदेडपि तादृप्रतीति: सर्वथैवभेदावगमश्र प्रयोजनम् ।

and the capability of bringing about the result, in a manner different from [and hence superior to] others [in Suddhā Sāropā] and invariably [in Suddhā Sādhya-vasānikā] and the like [form the purpose]

शुद्धमेदशोस्तु अन्यवैलक्षण्येन अन्याभिचारण च कार्यकारित्वादि ।

But in the two pure varieties [i e in the two varieties of Suddhā Lakṣaṇā] apprehension of complete identity respectively form the purpose

And it is said elsewhere Indication is said to be the apprehension [of the sense] that is connected with (avinabhuta) the primary sense (abhidheyam.) The process is, however, admitted to be qualitative on account of the connection [of the expressed sense viz bull] with the qualities of [the entity viz the Vahika] that is being indicated

Here 'the state of not being without' means connection only, but not invariable connection For, if it were that [i e if avinabhava were to mean invariable association], there would be no indication in such cases as 'Bedsteads cry' And if invariable association were to exist [between the expressed sense and the indicated sense] the indicated sense would be established by inference itself and therefore there would be no use for Indication—this has been stated by us before

Here in the two Qualitative varieties [i e in the two varieties of Gaunī Lakṣaṇā] the apprehension of identity [between the thing superimposed and the thing on which it is superimposed], though there is a distinction [between the two in our consciousness,] and the capability of bringing about the result, in a manner different from [and hence superior to] others [in Suddhā Sāropā] and invariably [in Suddhā Sādhya-vasānikā] and the like [form the purpose] But in the two pure varieties [i e in the two varieties of Suddhā Lakṣaṇā] apprehension of complete identity respectively form the purpose

Page 72

काचित् तादर्थ्यादुपचारः। यथा इन्द्रार्थी स्थूणा इन्द्रः । काचित् स्वस्वामिभावसंबन्धात्। यथा राजकीयः पुरुषो राजा । काचिदव्ययवाच्यविभावात्। यथा अप्रहस्त इत्यत्र अप्रहस्ते डवयविनि हस्तः । काचित् तालकर्म्यात् । यथा अतक्षा तक्षा । आाङ्मेदादाम्या सह । सा च प्रकारान्तरेण लक्षणया भेदत्रयम् ।

Sometimes there is indication (upacārah) due to the purpose being served by another, as in 'a sacrificial post intended for Indra' (Indra is indicated). Sometimes it arises from the relation of master and servant, as in 'a king's officer' (king is indicated). Sometimes it arises from the relation of parts and whole, as in 'The foremost hand [i.e., the palm]' (hand occurs in the sense of the part which is the foremost). Sometimes [indication arises] from the quality of doing the work of him, i.e., from identity of occupation as 'A carpenter', which is used to designate one who is not a carpenter [by caste, but does the work of a carpenter].

व्यञ्ज्येन रहिता रहितौ, सहितौ तु प्रयोजने । प्रयोजन हि व्यञ्जनाव्यापारगम्यमेव । तच्च गूढमगूढं वा तच्चैति व्यञ्ज्यचम् । गूढ यथा —

For, the motive is to be understood only through the process of Suggestion And that [suggested sense] is either concealed or not-concealed And 'that' means the suggested sense Concealed suggested sense exists in the following—

लक्षणा तेन षड्‌विधा ॥ ७ ॥

Indication is hence six-fold

Page 73

मुखं विकसितस्मितं वशितवक्रिम प्रेक्षितं संमुग्चालितविभ्रमं गतिरपास्तसंस्था मति: । उरो मुकुलितस्तनं जघनमसंवन्धोद्वदयं बतेंद्रवदनातनौ तरुणिमोद्यमो मोदते ॥ ४ ॥

The face has a blooming smile. The glance has mastered crookedness. The gait exhibits sportive movements. The mind has abandoned steadiness. The bosom has budding breasts. The hips are ready [for enjoyment] owing to well-developed parts. O Joy ! In the body of this girl of moon-like face the rise of youth is rejoicing.

अगूढं यथा— श्रीपरिचयाज्जडोऽपि भवन्त्यमिज्ञा विदग्धचरितानाम् । उपदिशति कामिनीना यौवनमद एवं ललितानि ॥ ५ ॥

Owing to familiarity with wealth even dullards become proficient in the manners of the wise. Exuberance of youth itself teaches graces to young ladies.

अत्र ‘उपदिशति’ इत्यत्र अनायासेन शिक्ष्णं अभिधेयवत् स्फुटं प्रतीयेते ।

Here from the word 'teaches' the learning of the amorous movements by young ladies without any troubles is understood clearly as if it were expressly stated.

तदेषा कथिता त्रिधा ॥ ८ ॥ अव्यङ्गया गूढय्यङ्गया अगूढव्यङ्गयेत चेतिं ।

Therefore, this is declared to be three-fold. Without a suggested sense, having a concealed suggested sense and having an obvious suggested sense--thus Indication is three-fold.

लक्षणशब्दलक्षणम् तद्बूलक्षणिक: शब्द इति संबध्यते । तदूदस्तादृशय: ।

An Indicative word is the abode of that [Indication]. The word 'word' is to be understood and is to be connected with the word 'Indicative'. Its abode means its support.

Page 74

द्वितीय उल्लासः

Second Chapter

तत्र व्यापारो व्यञ्जनात्मकः ।

In that context, the function is suggestive.

लक्षणामूलव्यञ्जनाया लक्षणम

The definition of Indication-based Suggestion

कृत इत्याह—

The author says—

यस्य प्रतीतिमाधातुं लक्षणा समुपास्यते ॥ ९ ॥

Where Indication is resorted to in order to facilitate understanding. (9)

फले शब्दकलpanायुक्त व्यञ्जनाभ्युपायो विधिः।

The process that is a means of Suggestion, which is associated with the fruit and the word-imagination.

प्रयोजनप्रतिपादयिषया यत्र लक्षणया शब्दप्रयोगस्तत्र नान्यतस्तत्प्रतीति,

Where the use of a word through Indication, with the intention of conveying a purpose, leads to the understanding of that purpose, not from anywhere else.

अपि तु तस्मादेव शब्दात् । न चात्र व्यञ्जनादते डन्यो व्यापार ।

But from that very word. And there is no other process than Suggestion here.

व्यञ्जनाया अवश्यक्ता

The necessity of Suggestion

तथाहि—

Thus—

नामिधा समयाभावात्

Due to the absence of a convention regarding the name

गङ्गाया घोष इत्यादौ ये पावनत्वादयो धर्मास्तटादौ प्रतीयन्ते न तत्र

In expressions like 'The Gaṅgā's shore', the properties like purity are understood to be related to the bank, not to the Gaṅgā.

गङ्गादिशब्दा सकेतिताः ।

The words like Gaṅgā are not conventionally used.

हेतुभावात् लक्षणा ॥ १० ॥

Indication is due to the causal relation. (10)

There [i e in that Indicative word] exists a function, which is of the nature of Suggestion

Whence is this so? To this (iti) the author replies—

With reference to this fruit, for conveying the apprehension of which Indication is resorted to and which is understood from the [Indicative] word alone, there is no other process than suggestion

When a word is used in a secondary sense with the desire of conveying the motive, there the apprehension of that motive does not arise from anything else, but from that word alone And here i e with reference to this motive there is no other process except Suggestion

To explain the same (tathā hi)—

Expression is not that process, because there is no convention [of the Indicative word with reference to the motive]

The word Gangā and others have no convention with reference to those properties, holiness and others which are understood as belonging to the bank and others in such expressions as ‘A hamlet on the Gaṅgā’

Owing to the absence of the condition, Indication is not the process

Page 75

मूल्यार्थवाधादित्रयं हेतु। तथा च लक्ष्यं न मुख्यं, नाप्यत्र बाधो, योगः फलेऽनो। न प्रयोजनमेतस्मिन्, न च शब्दः सकलद्रति: ॥ ११ ॥

The three such as the incompatibility of the primary sense.

Cause means the three such as the incompatibility of the primary sense. And so— The indicated sense is not the primary sense, also here there is no incompatibility [of the indicated sense], there is no connection [of the indicated sense] with the fruit, there is no motive in this, and the word Gangā is not powerless (to convey the sense of a bank) As the word Gangā indicates the bank, because it is incompatible [in the present context] in [its primary sense of] the stream, like that if it were incompatible [in the present context] in its indicated sense of the bank also, then it would further indicate the motive And the bank is not the primary sense [of the word Gangā] Also here there is no incompatibility And there is no connection of the bank, which is the [indicated] sense of the word Gangā, with [properties] like holiness, which are to be [further] indicated [by that word] Also there is no motive with reference to the motive which is supposed to be indicated Also the word Gangā is not unable to convey the motive, as it is to convey the sense of the bank [in the absence of the three conditions]. Also in this way there would be absence of finality, which would cause the destruction of the very root (of the whole thing) 12 ab 'Also in this way' means if the motive were to be indicated, it would be indicated by another motive, that second motive also would be in-

यथा गङ्गाशब्द: स्वोतसी सबाध इति तत्र लक्षणा, तद्वत् यदि तटेऽपि सबाध: स्यात्, तदा प्रयोजनं लक्ष्येत । न च तत्र मुख्योऽर्थ: । नाप्यत्र बाध: । न च गङ्गाशब्दार्थस्य तटस्य पावनत्वादिलक्षणीयै: सबन्ध: । नापि प्रयोजने लक्ष्ये किंचित् प्रयोजनम् । नापि गङ्गाशब्दस्तटटमिव प्रयोजन प्रतिपादयितुमसमर्थ: ।

एवम्प्रयानवस्था स्याद् या मूललक्ष्यकारिणी । एवमपीति प्रयोजनं चेहलक्ष्यते, तत् प्रयोजनान्तरेण, तदपी प्रयोजनान्तरेण, इति प्रकृता प्रतीतिकृत अनवस्था भवेत् ।

विशिष्टलक्षणा न युक्ता

Page 76

ननु पावनत्वादिर्धर्मयुक्तमेव तट् लक्ष्यते, 'गङ्गायास्तटे घोः' इत्यतोऽधिकस्यार्थस्य प्रतिपत्तौ विशिष्टं प्रयोजनमिति विशिष्टे लक्षणा । तत् किं व्याख्यानेनैवत आह —

प्रयोजनेन सहिते लक्षणीयं न युज्यते ॥ १२ ॥

A secondary meaning is not reasonable in a case where the primary meaning is accompanied by a motive.

तत्र इत्याह —

ज्ञानस्य विषयो ज्ञान्यः फलमन्यदुदाहतम् । प्रत्यक्षादेरनालम्बनविषयं फलं तु प्रकटता संवित्तिरेव । विशिष्टे लक्षणा नैवम् निगदनेनैव व्याख्यातम् ।

विशेषः स्वयुस्ट लक्षिते ॥ १३ ॥

The particulars have been indicated in the case of the suggested meaning.

dicated by another 1 e a third motive Thus, want of finality or regressus ad infinitum, causing the non-apprehension of the matter in hand viz the first motive, would occur

If some one were to say 'The bank as possessed of the properties such as holiness itself is indicated [by the word Ganga] , and the motive [for such Indication] is the apprehension of the sense, which is additional to, that which is had from 'A hamlet on the bank of the Ganga' Thus the Indication here is with reference to a qualified object Then what have we to do with Suggestion ?—To this the author replies—

The indicated sense, qualified by the motive, is not reasonable

Why [so] ? To this the author replies—

For, the object of knowledge is different [from knowledge], similarly the fruit of knowledge is admitted to be different from it ( i e knowledge)

The object of direct perception etc is a blue [thing] and the like But the fruit is knownness or self-consciousness

With reference to a qualified object Indication is thus not possible

[This expression] is explained by its very mention

But qualities would be perceived in the indicated object

Page 77

तटादौ ये विशेषा पावनत्वादयस्ते चाभिधातात्पर्यलक्षणाभ्यो व्यापारान्तरेण गम्या। तच्च व्यञ्जनाच्छन्नद्योतनादिशब्दवाच्यमव्ययमेषितव्यम्। एव लकक्षणामूल व्यङ्गयत्वमुक्तम्।

And those properties such as sanctity which [are realised as residing] in the bank and the like, are apprehended by a process other than Expression, Purport and Indication And that process, which is designated by the terms Suggestion, Reverberation and Illumination should necessarily be admitted

अभिधामूलव्यञ्जनाया लक्षणम्

Thus, suggestiveness based on Indication, has been explained But now the author states [suggestiveness] based on Expression—

अनेकार्थस्य शब्दस्य वाचकत्वे नियत्रिते। सयोगादेरवाच्यार्थींकृतद् व्याप्तिरक्षणम्॥ १४ ॥

When the expressive power of a word, which has more than one primary sense, is restricted to [one sense] by means of conjunction and the like, the process (vyāprtiḥ), which produces the apprehension (dhi) of a sense that is not expressed is Suggestion

संयोगो विप्रयोगश्च साहचर्य विरोधिता। अर्थ प्रकरण लिङ्गं शब्दस्यान्यस्य सन्निधिः॥ सामर्थ्यमौचिती देशः कालो व्यक्तिः स्वरादयः। शब्दार्थस्यावच्छेदे विशेषस्मृतिहेतवः॥

Conjunction, disjunction, association, antagonism, motive (arthaḥ), context, special attribute or (lingam), proximity of another word, power, propriety (aucuī) place, time, gender, accent and others are the causes of the recollection :e apprehension of a particular meaning, when there is no determination regarding the meaning of a word

इत्युक्तदिशा

According to the direction thus stated—

Page 78

तृतीय उल्लासः

Third Chapter

सशाङ्खचक्रो हारि, अशाङ्खचक्रो हारीत्यच्युत इति । रामलक्ष्मणाविति दाशरथौ । रामार्जुनगतिस्थितयोरिति भागवकार्तवीर्यो । स्याणु भज भवच्छिदे इति हरे । सर्वे जानाति देव इति युष्मदर्थे । कुपितो मकरध्वज इति कामे । देव्यः पुरारातेरिति शंभौ । मधुना मत्त कोकिल इति वसन्ते । पातु वो दयितामुखमिति सामुध्ये । भात्यत्र परमेश्वर इति राजधानीरुपाद देशाद राजनि । चित्रभानुरविभाति दिने रवी, रात्रौ वह्नौ । मित्रं भाति सुहृदाद, मित्रा भाति रवी । इन्द्रशत्रुरित्यादौ वेद एव, न काव्ये, स्वरोऽर्थविशेषप्रतीतिकारकृत् ।

In 'Hari with the conch and discus' and 'Hari without the conch and discus' [the word Hari, which has more than one primary sense is, by means of conjunction and disjunction respectively, restricted] to Acyuta. In 'Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa,' [the word Rāma is by means of association restricted] to the son of Daśaratha. In 'Their [is] the position of Rāma and Arjuna' [the words Rāma and Arjuna are by means of antagonism restricted] to the son of Bhrgu and the son of Kṛtavīrya. In 'Worship Sthāṇu for the destruction of transmigratory existence' [the word Sthāṇu is by means of motive restricted] to Hara. In 'The deva knows all' [the word deva is by context restricted] to the sense of you. In 'Angry [is] Makaradhvaja' [the word Makaradhvaja is by means of special attribute restricted] to Kāma. In 'Of Deva, the enemy of the cities' [the word Deva is by means of the proximity of another word restricted] to Sambhu. In 'The cuckoo intoxicated with madhu' [the word madhu is by means of power restricted] to spring. In 'May the mukha of the beloved protect you' [the word mukha is by means of propriety restricted] to favourableness. In 'Here shines the parameśvara' [the word parameśvara is] by means of the place in the form of the capital [restricted] to 'the king'. In 'The Citrabhānu shines' [the word Citrabhānu is by means of time restricted] to the sun during the day [and] to the fire during the night. In 'The mitram shines' [the word mitra is by means of its neuter gender restricted] to [the sense of] the friend. In 'The mitrah shines' [the word mitra is by means of its masculine gender restricted] to [the sense of] the sun. The accent creates the apprehension of a special sense only in the Veda in such [expressions] as Indraśatruh, not in poetry.

Page 79

आदिम्रहणात्

Due to the mention of the first

एतद्वह्मेत्तथ्यणिआ एतद्वह्मेतेहि अच्छिखितोहि । एतद्वह्मेत्तवल्या एतद्वह्मेतेहि दिअएहि ॥ ६ ॥

[The girl] possessing breasts of this much size, endowed with petal-like eyes of this much measure, has been reduced to this much condition in days of this much number

[ एतावन्मात्रस्तनिका एतावन्मात्राभ्यामक्षितिपात्राभ्याम् । एतावन्मात्रावस्था एतावन्मात्रैर्दिवसैः । ]

इत्यादावभिनयादयः ।

Owing to the mention of the wordādi [in the above couplets] gestures and the like are to be included in the list as in cases like the following-

इत्य सयोगादिभिरर्थान्तराभिधायकत्वे निवारितेऽप्यनेकार्थस्य शब्दस्य यत्कविर्दर्शनान्तरप्रतिपादन तत्र नामिधा । नियमनात् तस्या । न लक्षणा । मुख्यार्थबाधादभावात् । अपि तु व्यञ्जनमेव व्यापार । यथा —

When, though the power to express other primary senses of a word having more than one primary sense is thus blocked by means of conjunction and others it still conveys another sense in some cases,

भद्रात्र्मनो दुरधिरोहतनोरवंशाल — वशोन्ते कृतशिलीमुखसग्रहस्य । यस्याऽनुप्लुतगते परवरणस्य दानाम्बुसेकसुभग सतत करोऽभूत् ॥ ७ ॥

-there Expression does not convey such another sense on account of its being restricted, and not Indication [also] on account of *the absence of the incompatibility of the primary sense and the other conditions, butañjana e vyañjana or Suggestion itself is the process [that conveys such another sense] For example- The hand [also punningly, the trunk] of that king [lit of whom], who is of noble soul [also punningly, who belongs to the Bhadra species] whose body is unassailable [also punningly, difficult to mount upon], the eminence of whose family is great [also punningly whose height is like a big bamboo], who has made a store of arrows [also punningly, who has attracted a collection of bees], whose march is

Page 80

द्वितीय उल्लासः

Second Chapter

व्यञ्जकशब्दलक्षणम्

Definition of Suggestive Word

तदुक्तो व्यञ्जकः शब्दः

That is why it is said that the word is suggestive

तदुक्तो व्यञ्जनयुक्त ।

It is said to be endowed with suggestion

शब्दस्य व्यञ्जकत्वे अर्थस्य सहकारित्वम्

In the suggestiveness of a word, the meaning cooperates

यत्तत् सोज्ज्वलोन्तरयुक् तथैव ।

That which is endowed with brilliance and other qualities is thus

अर्थोऽपि व्यञ्जकस्तत्र सहकारित्वं मतः ॥ १५ ॥

The meaning also becomes suggestive there, it is considered to cooperate

तथेति व्यञ्जक ।

Thus it is suggestive

इति काव्यप्रकाशे शब्दार्थस्वरूपनिर्णयो नाम द्वितीय उल्लासः ।

Thus ends the second chapter of Kavyaprakasha, named the Determination of the Nature of Word and Meaning

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 [: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

Page 81

तृतीय उल्लासः ।

Third Flash

आर्थी व्याख्या

अर्था: पोक्ता: पुरा तेषाम्

The senses of those words have been stated before

अर्था वाच्यलक्ष्यलक्षणैः च अर्थाः । तेषां वाच्यलक्षणैक्यशक्तीनाम् ।

Of those means of the expressive, indicative and suggestive words

अर्थव्यञ्जकतया च ते ।

कीटशैल्या-ह-वकृवोधदवकाकूनां वाक्यवाच्यान्यसनिधे: ॥ १ ॥

प्रस्तावदे शकादेवैशिष्ट्यात् प्रतिबाजुषाम् ।

The suggestiveness of the senses is now being explained

योऽर्थस्यान्यार्थधीहेतु व्यपारो व्यक्तिरेव सा ॥ २ ॥

वाच्यार्थ प्रतिपाद्य । काकुर्व्यापारनेरेकार । प्रस्ताव प्रकरणम् । अर्थस्य वाच्यलक्ष्यव्यङ्गच्यातमन । क्रमेणोदाहरणानि —

Of what nature is the suggestiveness of the senses? To this the Author replies-That operation of the [three-fold] sense, which owing to the speciality of the speaker, the person addressed, the modulation of voice or intonation (kakuh), the sentence, the expressed sense, the proximity of another, the occasion (prastāvah), the place, the time and the like, becomes the cause of the apprehension of another sense [in the case] of persons possessing poetic genius, is Suggestion (vyaktzh) itself

The senses of those words have been stated before

Of those means of the expressive, indicative and suggestive words

The suggestiveness of the senses is now being explained

The person addressed means the person who is communicated with Intonation means a modification of the voice Occasion means context Of the sense means of the sense consisting of the expressed, indicated and suggested

The following illustrations are given in order—

Page 82

अइपिठूल जलकुम्भ घेत्तण समागदहि सहि तुरीअम् । सम्सेअसल्लिलणीसासणीसहा वीसमामि खणम्र् ॥ १ ॥

Taking a very big pitcher of water I have come here in haste, O friend Exhausted on account of the water of perspiration and breathlessness due to exertion I shall rest for a while

Here concealment of stolen dalliance is suggested

[ अतिप्रथुल जलकुम्भ गृहीत्वा समागतास्मि सखि त्वरितम् । श्रमस्वेदसलिल्लनि:श्वासनि सहा विश्रान्त्यामि क्षणम्र् ]

अत्र चौर्यरतगोपन गम्यते ।

ओणिणद्द दुव्वल्त्र् चिंता अलसत्तण सणीससिअम्र् । मह मदमाइणिए केर सहि तुह णि अहह परिहवड ॥ २ ॥

Sleeplessness, weakness, anxiety, lassitude accompanied by breathlessness or heavy breathing—[all this] alas, overpowers you also, O friend, for the sake of me who am of poor luck

[ औन्निद्र्य द्वैवल्य चिन्ता आलस्यत्व श्वसितम्र् । मम मन्तर्भागिन्या कृते सखि त्वामप्यहह परिभवति ॥ ]

अत्र दूत्यास्तत्कामुकोपमोगो व्यज्यते ।

तथाभूता दष्ट्रा चृपसदासी पाण्णाल्तनया वने ल्यागदु सार्थे मृगिसम्भृत वत्कलधरे । विराटस्यवासे स्थितमनुचितारम्भनिमृत्त गुरु खेद खिन्ने मधि भजति नायापि कुरुषु ॥ ३ ॥

Having [helplessly] witnessed the daughter of the Pāñcāla king reduced to that condition in the assembly of kings, we lived for a very long time in the forest, dressed in bark-garments, in the company of hunters Then we dwelt at the residence of Virāṭa, concealing ourselves by means of occupations most improper [And with all this] does our worthy brother entertain anger towards me, who am enraged, not even now towards the Kurus ?

Here enjoyment of the messenger by her lover is suggested

Page 83

अत्र मयि न यद्यि खेदं कुरुषु तु योग्य इति काकः प्रकाश्यते। न च वाच्यसिद्धयर्थमात्र काकुरिति गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यत्वं श्राङ्ग्यम्। प्रक्षोभात्रेणापि कार्कोर्वश्रान्ते।

Here, the crow is made to say, 'Though I am not angry with you, I am angry with the Kurus, for they are worthy of it.' It is not that the crow is speaking only to establish the literal meaning, but rather it is an example of Gunibhūtavyangya.

तइआ मह गडस्थलणिमि दिठिं ण णेसि अपणत्तो। पहिं सवजेअ मह ते अ कपोलाहि ण गा दिल्ली ॥ ४ ॥ [तदा मम गण्डस्थलगिम्ना दृष्टिर्न नयसन्यान्त्र। इदानों सैवाह तौ च कपोलौ न सा दृष्टिः ॥]

At that time, my glance was not directed towards your cheeks, now it is. Your cheeks are the same, but my glance is not the same.

Here, anger towards me is not proper, but towards the Kurus it is proper --this is revealed by the modulation And here it should not be suspected that this stanza is an example of Gunibhūtavyangya [i.e. of mediocre poetry], because here the modulation is subservient to the establishment (siddhi) of the expressed sense For, modulation could rest even with suggesting a mere query

अत्र मत्तस्खी कपोलप्रतिबिम्बिता पश्यतस्ते दृष्टिरेवाभूत्, चलिताया तु तस्यामन्यैव जाता इत्यहो प्रच्छन्नकामुक्त्वं ते इति व्यज्यते।

At that time you would not take anywhere else your glance, riveted on the region of my cheeks Now I am exactly the same, and the cheeks are the same, but the glance is not the same

उद्देशोऽयं सरस्कदलीश्रेणीशोभातिशायी कुञ्जोत्तकण्डकुरितरमणीविव्रम्मो नर्मदाया। किं चैतस्मिन्नुरतसुहृदस्तत्र ते वान्ति वाताः येषामग्रे सरति कलितकाण्डकपोतो मनोभूः ॥ ५ ॥

This region [on the bank] of the Narmadā, where mental perturbation (vibhramah) sprouts up in attractive women owing to the excellence of the bowers, is splendid (atiśāyin) owing to the loveliness of the rows of juicy plantain trees Moreover, in this region blow, [O] slender lady, those breezes, friends of sexual enjoyment, in front of which moves the mind-born [Cupid] who has developed sudden anger

Here, your glance was quite different as you were looking at my friend, who was reflected in my cheeks, but when she moved away, it became different, thus, oh, you are a stealthy lover of hers--this is suggested

Page 84

अत्र रतार्थं प्रविशोति व्यङ्ग्यम्‌ ।

Here, the suggested sense is to enter for sexual enjoyment.

णोलेहड्‌ अण्णअमणा अत्ता म घरभरम्मि सअलम्मि । खणमेत्त जइ सञ्ञाइ होइ ण व होइ वीसमो ॥ ६ ॥

The mother-in-law of un-soft i.e cruel mind drives me to all the house-hold burden. For just a moment, possibly (yadi), in the evening there would be respite or not at all!

[ नुदत्यनर्थमनया निःश्वासं गृहभरे सकले । क्षणमात्र यदि संध्याया भवति न वा भवति विश्रामः ॥ ]

अत्र सङ्या सकेतकाळ इति तटस्थ प्रति कयाचिद् ध्वन्यते ।

Here, the evening is the time of appointment—this is suggested by some lady to [some one] who is [apparently] indifferent [to the talk].

सुअल्‍ड समागमिस्सदि तुज्झं पिओ अज्ज पहरमेत्तेण । एअह किअत्ति चिट्ठिसि ता सही सजेसु करणिज्जम्‌ ॥ ७ ॥

It is reported that your lover would arrive to-day just within three hours. For what reason are you sitting just thus i.e idly then? O friend, make ready whatever is to be done.

[ श्रूयते समागमिष्यति तव प्रियोऽद्य प्रहरमात्रेण । एवमेव किमिति तिष्ठसि तत् सखि सजय करणीयम्‌ ॥ ]

अत्रोपपत्ति प्रत्यमिसर्‍तं प्रस्तुता न युक्तामिति कयाचिन्निवायर्ते ।

Here, a girl, ready to move towards a paramour is being warded off by some woman, thinking ‘it is not proper for her to do so’.

अञ्ञत्त यूअ कुसुमावचाय करुअवमन्त्रास्मि करोअमि सअल्‍यह । णाह हि डूर भ्रमिअं सअर्‍त्थं पसीदताइ रचितोडण्णालअरेह ॥ ८ ॥

Elsewhere make you the collection of flowers. Here I do the same. For, I am unable to wander afar. Be pleased. Here I fold my hands to you.

[ अन्यत्र यूयं कुसुमावचाय करुणावमन्त्रास्मि करोमि सल्यक्‌ । नाह हि दूर भ्रमितं सार्थं प्रसादताइ रचितोऽण्णालकैः ॥ ]

अत्र विन्नोअ देह इति प्रच्‍छन्नकामकलुसङ्या अभिसन्धीयमानाविलाषा प्रति कयाचिन्निवेद्यते ।

Here, this region is solitary therefore, the disguised lover should be directed by you to this place—this is being conveyed by some girl to her confidante.

Page 85

गुरुणपरवस पिय कि भणामि तुह मदभाइणी अहकमर । अज्ज पवास वचासि वच्च सुअ जेव्व सुणासि करणीजम् ॥ ९ ॥ [ गुरुजनपरवश प्रिय किं भणामि तव मन्त्रभागिन्यहकम् । अद्य प्रवास क्रजसि, व्रज, स्वयमेव शृणोषि करणीयम् ।]

O dear, who are dependent on the elderly people, what shall I, who am dull in luck, say to you? You are going on a journey to-day. Go! You would hear just yourself what would be done by me.

Here, if you go to-day in the time of the spring, then, as for myself, I shall be no more, but I do not know what will be your fate—this is suggested.

अत्रात्र मधुरसमये यदि व्रजसि, तदाह तावन्न भवामि, तव तु न जानामि गतिमिति व्यज्यते । आदिग्रहणाच्चेष्ट्यते । तत्र चेष्टया यथा — द्वारोपान्तनिरत्तरे मति तथा सौन्दर्यासरश्रिया प्रोल्लास्योरुयुग परस्परसमासक्त समासादितम् । आनीत पुरत शिरोऽधुकमथ क्षितौ चले लोचने वाचस्तत्र निवारित प्रसरण सकौचिते दोलते ॥ १० ॥

When I was close to the neighbourhood of the door she, who shone with the essence of beauty, having extended her two thighs, made them cling to each other, brought her head-garment in front, cast her unsteady eyes downwards, restrained the flow of speech there, and folded her creeper-like arms.

Owing to the mention of ādi [in kānkā 2 a above] gesture and the like are included. There the following is an illustration of gesture—Here, special feeling with reference to the disguised lover is suggested by the gesture. In order to secure absence of expectancy [on the part of the pupil] and because occasions for separate illustrations arrived, examples are given again and again [i.e. separately for each circumstance]. When circumstances like the speaker and others mutually combine, [the suggestiveness of the expressed sense should be illustrated] by means of the division of the combination of twos and the like. In this order suggestiveness of the indicated and the suggested sense should be illustrated.

अत्र चेष्टया प्रच्छन्नकान्तविषय आकूतविशेषो हन्यते । निराकाड्क्षप्रतिपत्तये प्राप्तावसरतया च पुनः पुनरुदाहियते वक्त्रादीनां मिथः सयोगे द्विकादिमेदेन । अननेन क्रमेण लक्ष्यव्यङ्गघद्योः व्युत्कत्वमुदाहायिम् ।

Page 86

तृतीय उल्लासः

Third Flash

अर्थस्य व्यञ्जकत्वे शब्दस्य सहकारित्वम्

In the suggestiveness of the sense, the co-operation of the word exists

शब्दप्रमाणवेद्योऽर्थो व्यनक्त्यर्थान्तरं यतः ।

Because a sense, which is known from the word as a means of proof, suggests another sense,

अर्थस्य व्यञ्जकत्वे तच्छब्दस्य सहकारिता ॥ ३ ॥

therefore, in the matter of the suggestiveness of the sense, co-operation of the word exists

न हि प्रमाणान्तरवे द्योऽर्थो व्यञ्जक इति काव्यप्रकाशे डष्टव्यञ्जकतानिर्‌णयो नाम तृतीयोऽल्लासः ।

Thus ends the Third Flash in the Light of Poetry, named the Determination of the Suggestiveness of Sense

Since a sense, which is conveyed by the means of proof viz word, suggests another sense, therefore, in the matter of the suggestiveness of the sense, co-operation of the word exists

[The expression] Sabda [-pramānavedyah arthah] means Because a sense which is known from any other means of proof, is not suggestive

Thus ends the Third Flash in the Light of Poetry, named the Determination of the Suggestiveness of Sense

Page 87

दशम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter

अर्थालङ्कारानाह —

Now, about the Figures of Sense —

( ९ ) उपमा

(9) Simile

सादृश्यमुपमेयोपमयोर, न कार्यकारणादिकयोः , साधर्म्यं भवतीति तयोरेव समानेधर्मेण सम्बन्ध उपमा । भेदग्रहणमनन्वयव्यवच्छेदाय ।

Simile is the relation between the object compared and the standard of comparison based on a common property, not between cause and effect, etc. The mention of 'distinction' is to exclude non-distinction.

पूर्णा लुप्ता च

It is Complete and Elliptical

उपमानोपमेयसाधारणधर्मोऽपमाप्रतिपादकानामुपादाने पूर्णा । एकस्य द्वयोर्याणा वा लोपे लुप्ता ।

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

श्रौत्यार्थी न भेदः कार्यो वाच्यो समासतोऽथवा ।

The distinction is not to be made verbally or by compounding.

अथ्रिमा पूर्णा लुप्ता च ।। ९ ।।

Thus, Simile is Complete and Elliptical.

TEN7H FLASH

Tenth Flash

The author now treats of figures of sense

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

Similarity 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 afix

First means Complete

Page 88

दशम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter

यथैववादिशब्दा यत्परास्तैयैवोपमानताप्रतीतिरिति यद्याप्युपमानविवक्षाभाग्येते, तथापि शब्दशक्तिमहिम्ना श्रुतेनैव पश्र्चाद्वत् सकृन्म्रतिपाद्यन्तीति तत्सदृशे श्रौती उपमा । तथैव “तत्र तस्येव” इत्यनेनैव अर्थे त्रिहितस्य वतेरुपादाने ।

Just as words like 'yathā' and 'iva' convey the sense of 'upamāna' (comparison), even though they are not intended to convey the meaning of 'upamāna', still, due to the power of words, they convey the meaning directly, hence they are called 'śruti upama'. Similarly, the word 'vati' is used in the sense of 'tatra tasya eva' (in that, it is like that).

‘तेन तुल्य मुखम्’ -इत्यादावुपमेये एव, ‘तत्तुल्यमस्य’ -इत्यादौ चोपमाने एव ‘इदं च तत् तुल्यम्’ इत्युभयत्रापि तुल्यादिशब्दानां विश्रान्तौ सारूप्यलिङ्ग-नया तुल्यताप्रतीतिरिति साधर्म्यस्थार्थवात् तुल्यादिपदोपादानेन आर्थी । तद्वत् “तेन तुल्य क्रिया चेद् वति ” इत्यनेन त्रिहितस्य वते स्थितौ ।

In the sentence 'tena tulya mukham' (his face is like that), the word 'tulya' is used in the sense of 'upameya' (the object being compared). In the sentence 'tattulyam asya' (it is like that), the word 'tulya' is used in the sense of 'upamāna' (the standard of comparison). In both cases, the word 'tulya' conveys the sense of similarity. Hence, the comparison is called 'ārthī' (based on meaning). Similarly, in the sentence 'tena tulya kriyā ced vati' (if the action is like that), the word 'vati' is used to convey the sense of similarity.

“इवेन नित्यसमासो विभक्त्यलोप पूर्वपदप्रकृतिस्वरत्व च” इति नित्यसमासे इवशब्दयोगे समासगा ।

When 'iva' is used in a compound, it is always in the form of a 'samāsa' (compound word), and the 'iva' is dropped, and the first member of the compound retains its original accent.

That word only, after which words such as yathā, iva and vā occur, is apprehended as the standard of comparison, hence (iti) even though these words viz Yathā, iva and vā are the attributes of the standard of comparison, yet, by the glory of their power as word, they convey, even as they are heard, the connection [viz similitude between upamāna and upameya], like the genitive case Hence, when they are present, the Comparison is Direct, Comparison is Direct Similarly also, [the of iva, according to 'Tatra tasyeva is used

The English translation of the given Sanskrit text.

Words like tulya etc have their power exhausted in the object of comparison alone in sentences like Face is similar to that,' in the standard of comparison alone in sentences like 'That is equal of this,' and even in both the object of comparison and the standard of com parison in This and that are similar Hence in all such cases ap- prehension of similitude (tulyatā=sādharmyam) arises on account of our reflecting on the similarity existing between the two objects Thus, as similitude is implied, the Comparison is Indirect when words like tulya are used Similarly the Comparison is Indirect, when vat, prescribed by Tena tulyam kriyā ced vatih occurs

The English translation of the given Sanskrit text.

When the word iva is used in a necessary compound, according to the rule 'A necessary compound is formed with iva there is no loss of the case-teımination [of the noun which is thus compounded with iva] and [the same noun which forms] the first member of the compound retains its natural accent, the comparison is found in a compound

The English translation of the given Sanskrit text.

Page 89

क्रमेणोदाहरणम्‌।

स्वप्नेऽपि समरेपु त्वा विजयश्रीने मुक्त्ति । प्रभावप्रभव कान्त स्वाधीनपतिका यथा ॥ १ ॥

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

चकितहरणोल्लोललोचनाया कृष्णि तरुणारुणतारहारिकान्ति । सरसिजोदरमानन च तस्या सम्मोहति चेतोसी सम्पद विधत्ते ॥ २ ॥

He entertains exultation in his heart with the thought (iti) that this [red] lotus, which has a lustre brilliant and attractive like young dawn, 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

अत्यायतैन्यमकारिरभिरुद्रताना दिल्यै. प्रभाभिरनपायमयैरुपायै । शौरिमुजैरिव चतुर्भिरद सद्‌ यो लक्ष्मीविलासभवनैरुश्रवण भार ॥ ३ ॥

[The king,] who always supported this world with the four expedients (upāyah), like Kṛṣṇa (Saurih) 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]

अवितथमनोरथपथमप्रथनेपु प्रगुणगरिमगीतश्री । सुरतसदृशा स भवानभिलषणीय किलतीश्वर न कस्य ॥ ४ ॥

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?

Page 90

दशम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter

गाम्भीर्येगिरसा तस्य सत्य गाङ्गभुजगवत् ।

In profundity, he is like the Ganges, true to his word, like a serpent.

दुरालोक स समरे निदाघाम्बररत्नवत् ॥ ५ ॥

Difficult to behold in battle, like a gem in the summer sky. || 5 ||

स्वाधीनपतिका कान्त भजमाना यथा लोकोत्तरचमत्कारमू तथा जयश्री-रुचदासेवनत्-इत्यादिना प्रतीममानेन विना यद्यपि नोक्तैवैचित्र्यम् । वैचित्र्य चाक्कार , तथापि न ध्वनिगुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्ययथयवार , न खलु व्यङ्ग्यध्वनसंस्पर्शीपरामर्शोदत्र चारुताप्रतीति , अपि तु वाच्यवैचित्र्यप्रतिभासादेव । रसादिस्थु व्यङ्ग्यचोदर्थोंडलकारान्तर च सर्वत्राव्यभिचारिल्यगणयित्वैव तदल्कारा उदाहता । तद्रहितवेन तु उदाहियमाणा विरसतामावहन्तीति पूर्वंपरविरुद्धाभिधानमिति न चोदनीयम्।

Even though there is no strikingness (vaitryam) 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 Guniibhūta-vyangya. 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.

तद्धत धर्मस्य लोके स्यात् श्रौती तद्धिते पुनः ।

Verily, the greatness of his depth is like that of the lover of Gangā viz the ocean. In battle he is difficult to be looked at like the jewel of the sky i.e. the sun in summer.

Verily, the greatness of his depth is like that of the lover of Gangā viz the ocean In battle he is difficult to be looked at like the jewel of the sky i e the sun in summer

Even though there is no strıkingness (vairitryam) 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 strıkingness is the very essence of a figure, yet the stanza should not be designated Dhvani and Guniibhūta-vyangya 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

When the [common] property is omitted [the Elliptical Comparison] would be like that [i e like Complete Comparison], but in [the Elliptical] the Direct does not occur in a nominal affix

Page 91

वर्म साधारण । तद्वृत्ते कल्पपादौ त्वाथ्येय । तेन पद्य । उदाहरणम्—

The property means the common property. In a nominal affix such as kalpa [the Elliptical is] Indirect only. Therefore, [the Elliptical has] five varieties. Here are the illustrations—

धन्यस्यानन्यासामान्यसौजन्योल्कार्थगालिनः ।

Truly, O mind, the word, which is like nectar, of him, who is blessed and shines with an excellence of uncommon goodness, should be adopted

करणीय वचश्श्रेष्ठ सत्य तस्यामृत यथा ॥ ६ ॥

आइक्षत्रववालोडसौ सपराये परिभ्रमन्‌।

This king, wandering about on the battle-field with a drawn sword, was seen by the army o' the enemy as being like the god of death

प्रत्यर्थिसैन्यया डष्टं कृतान्तेन सम प्रभु ॥ ७ ॥

करवालडवाचारस्तस्य वाग्मृतोपमा ।

If, O friend, you would know that his conduct is like the sword, speech comparable to nectar and mind similar to poison, then you would live

विषकल्प मनो वेत्सि यदि जीवसि तत् सुखे ॥ ८ ॥

उपमानानुपादाने वाक्यगाथ समासगा ।। २ ।।

When the standard of comparison is not mentioned, [then the Elliptical is of two kinds viz] belonging to a sentence and belonging to a compound

सड्अलकरणपरवीसामसिरिविअरण ण सरसकवस्स ।

Nothing is seen or heard which is similar in just the slightest degree to charming poetry, that yields an abundance of the highest relief to all senses

दीसइ अहव णिसम्मइ सारिस अस्समेत्थ ण ॥ ९ ॥

This very [Elliptical comparison, which is illustrated in the above stanza would be the one] belonging to a compound with the reading kavvasamam in place of Kavvassa and nūṇam in place of sarisam

Page 92

[ सकलकरणपरविश्रामश्रीवितरण न सरसकाव्यस्य । दृश्यतेऽधवा निशाम्यतेऽत्र सदृशमराश्रयामात्रेण । ]

[The beauty of a poem lies not in its elaborate ornamentation, but in its ability to be appreciated either by being seen or heard, with the help of a similar object or subject.]

कव्वस्सेत्यत्र कव्वसममिति, सादिसमिल्यत्र च पूणामिति पाढे एशैव समासगा । वादलोपी समासे सा कमोधारक्याच्च क्याडि ।

Here, in the context of 'kavvassa', it is 'kavvasamamiti', and in 'sadisam', it is 'poornamiti paade eshaiva samaasaga'. In the compound 'vaadalopee', it is 'sa kamodhaarakyaac ca kyaadi'.

वाशब्द उपमाद्योतक इति वादेरुपमाप्रतिपादकस्य लोके षट्समासेन, कमेणोऽधिकरणाच्चोत्पत्तेन क्यच्, कर्तु क्यड्, कर्मकर्त्रो रूपपदयोण्णमुल च भवेत् ।

The word 'vaa' is indicative of comparison, etc. Thus, 'vaaderupamaapratipadakasya' in the world, by means of six compounds, 'kamenaadhikaranac ca utpattena kyac', 'kartu kyaD', 'karmakartroo roopapadayorNAmul ca bhavet'.

उदाहरणम्—

Example—

तत् कुमुदनाथेन कामिनीगण्डपाण्डुना । नेत्रानन्देन चन्द्रेण माहेन्द्री दिगलंकृता ॥ १० ॥

Then the direction belonging to Mahendra was adorned by the moon, the lord of night-lotuses, pale like the cheek of a passionate woman and the delight of eyes.

तथा

So—

When [words expressive of comparison such as] vā etc are omitted, that [Elliptical Comparison occurs] in a compound, in a kyac affix applied to a word signifying an object and a support and in a ṇamul applied to a word signifying an object and an agent

The word vā is denotative of comparison etc Thus, when vā is a word expressive of comparison is omitted, [the Elliptical Comparison] would be of six kinds viz by means of a compound, by means of the termination kyac, which has arisen from an object and location, by means of the affix kyan enjoined for the agent and by means of the affix ṇamul, applied to preceding words [signifying] an object and an agent

The word vā is denotative of comparison etc. Thus, when vā is a word expressive of comparison is omitted, [the Elliptical Comparison] would be of six kinds viz by means of a compound, by means of the termination kyac, which has arisen from an object and location, by means of the affix kyan enjoined for the agent and by means of the affix ṇamul, applied to preceding words [signifying] an object and an agent

Illustrations are the following—

Then the direction belonging to Mahendra is the east was adorned by the moon, the lord of night-lotuses, pale like the cheek of a passionate woman and the delight of eyes

Page 93

असितभुजगभीषणासिपत्रो रुहरहिकाहिताचित्ततर्णचार, ।

Whose leaf-like sword is terrible like a black serpent,

पुलकिततनुरुक्पोलकान्ति प्रतिबिम्बविक्रमदर्शनेड्यमासीत् ॥ ११ ॥

whose pace is quick owing to his mind being filled with violent anxiety, whose body is horrificated, the lustre of whose cheeks is flushed—such became this warrior at the sight of the valour of opposing heroes 11

पौर शुतीयति जन समरान्तरेडसा-

[That king,] who is renowned (cuñcu) for his extraordinary deeds,

वन्त पुरीयति विचित्रचरित्रचुच्यु ।

treats the citizen-people like his son and conducts [himself] in the midst of battle as though he were in his harem

नारोयते समरसिद्धि कृपाणपाणे-

Having seen the deeds of him who wields a sword in his hand within the border of the battle field, the army of the enemy acts like a woman

रालोक्य तस्य चरितानि सपत्नसेना ॥ १२ ॥

मृधे निदाघघर्मांशुर्दर्शी पश्यन्ति तं परे ।

In the battle the enemies look upon him as they would look upon the summer-sun

स पुनः पार्थसंचार सच्चरत्यवनीपतिः ॥ १३ ॥

That king again moves [on the battle-field], as Arjuna would move 13

एतद्‌द्विलोके किऽस्मासगा॥३॥

In the omission of these two, [the Elliptical Comparison] occurs in the affix Kvip and in a compound

एत्योर्धर्मवाचो । उदाहरणम्—

Of these two means of the common property and of the word expressive of comparison

सविता विध्ववति विधुरपि सवितरति तथा दिनन्ति यामिन्य ।

To illustrate—

यामिन्यन्ति दिनानि च सुखदुःखशीत्कते मनःसी ॥ १४ ॥

When the mind is overpowered by joy and sorrow, the sun acts like the moon and the moon also acts like the sun , nights act like days and days act like nights 14

Page 94

परिपन्थिमनोराज्यशतैरपि दुराक्रम्‌ । सपरायप्रवृत्तोडसौ राजते राजकुञ्जरः ॥ १५ ॥

This elephant-like king, ready for battle, shines such as is difficult to be overpowered by even hundreds of vain mental aspirations of his enemies

धर्मोपमांयोलंपे वृत्तौ वाक्ये च दृश्यते । टुण्टुण्णन्तो मरिळ्हसि कण्टअकलिआइँ केअइवणाइँ । मालइँकुसुमसरिच्छ भग्गर भमन्तो ण पाविहिसि ॥ १६ ॥

Jumping over Ketakī forests, filled with thorns, you will die Wandering about, you will not obtain, O bee, a flower similar to the Mālatī flower

[ टुण्टुणायमानो मरीष्यसि कण्टककलितानि केतकीवनानि । मालतीकुसुमसदृक्ष भग्न्रपि न प्राप्त्यसि ॥ ]

कुसुमेण सममिति पाटे वाक्यगा । क्यचि वाक्युपमेयासे आसे निरासे ।

In the omission of vā etc and the object of comparison [the Elliptical Comparison occurs] in the affix Kyac

The word āse means in the omission

अरातिविक्रमालोकविकस्वरविलोचन । कृपाणोद्ग्रदोदण्ड से सहस्रायुधीयते ॥ १७ ॥

He, whose eyes dilate [with joy] at the sight of the valour of enemies and whose club-like arm is terrific on account of the sword, conducts himself like Sahasrāyudha.

Page 95

अत्रात्मा उपमेय ।

Here the self is the object of comparison.

त्रिलो पे च समासगा ॥ ४ ॥

And in the omission of three [the Elliptical Comparison] belongs to a compound 4 d

त्र्याणा वादिधर्मोपमानानाम् । उदाहरणम् —

Of three means of vā etc of the common property and of the standard of comparison

तरुणिमनि कुलावलोकन ललितविलासवतीर्णर्णवि्रहा । स्मरशरविसरान्वितान्तरा मृगनयना हरते मुनिर्नमन् ॥ १८ ॥

The deer-eyed girl, who has cast a glance at ze just entered youth, who has given up her body to amorous sports and whose mind is filled with a number (visarah) of Love's arrows, attracts the mind of the sage

अत्र साम्युपमानेत्यादिना यदा समासलोपौ भवत तदेदमुदाहरणम् ।

Here when the compound and the omission of the word nayana occur, according to [the rule] ‘Saptamyupamāna etc’ then this becomes an example of the omission of three.

कूरस्य आचारस्य अय शौलतया अभ्यवसायात्, 'अय शूलेनान्विच्छति आय शूलिक:' इत्यतिशयोक्तौ न तु ऋराचरोपमेय-तैकण्यधर्मवादिना लो पे त्रिलोपयसमुपमा ।

Cruel conduct having been ascertained as identical with an iron lance, the word āyaḥśūlikah meaning one who deals with an iron rod ie is very cruel in his conduct, is an example of Atiśayokti, but not an example of this Comparison with three omissions, where the three viz cruel conduct which is the object of comparison, severity which is the common property and vā etc are omitted

एवमेकोनविंशतिल्क्षा । पूर्णाभि सह पञ्चविंशति ।

Thus nineteen are Elliptical Comparisons With the six Complete Comparisons altogether number twenty-five

Page 96

दशाम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter

अनयेनैव राज्यश्रीर्दैन्येनैव मनस्विता । मसौँ साथ विषादेन पबिनीव हिमाम्बसा ॥ १९ �

The glory of the kingdom with injustice, like high-mindedness with poverty, she then withered with dejection, like a lotus-plant with the water of frost

इह अभिन्ने साधारणे धर्मे—

Here the common property being not different i.e. the same—

ज्योत्स्नेव नयनानन्द सुरेव मदकारणम् । प्रभुत्वेव समाकृष्टसर्वलोका नितम्बिनी ॥ २० ॥

A woman of attractive buttocks is a delight to the eyes like the moon-light, a cause of intoxication like wine and an attraction to all people like sovereignty

इह भिन्ने च तस्मिन्—

And here i.e. in the above example, that common property being different—

एकस्यैव बहूपमानोपादाने मालोपमा । यथोत्तरमुपमेयस्योपमानत्वे पूर्ववदभिन्नाभिन्नधर्मत्वे —

Garland Comparison occurs when for one and the same [object of comparison] many standards of comparison are mentioned

अनवरतकनकवितरणजललवभृतकरतरद्वितार्थितते । भणितिरिव मतिमतिरिव चेष्टा चेष्टेव कीर्तिरितिविमला ॥ २१ ॥

Of him in whose hand, filled with particles of water in the ceaseless bestowal of gold, rows of mendicants gather like waves, the mind is like the word, the action is like the mind and the fame is like the action, all extremely spotless

Page 97

मतिरिव मूर्तिमंधुरा मूर्तिरिव सभा प्रभावचिता ।

The mind is as if embodied in sweetness, and the assembly is as if embodied in magnificence.

तस्य सभेव जयश्रीः शक्या जेता नृपस्य न परेपाम् ॥ २२ ॥

His assembly is endowed with prowess like the figure and his glory of victory is impossible to be conquered by the enemy like the assembly.

इत्यादिका रशानोपमा च —

And so on, the comparison is like a girdle —

पचविधवैचित्र्यमहत्त्वसम्भवात् । उत्कर्षे दानवित्रमौच्य ।

Because of the presence of five types of beauty, it is possible to have a thousand such striking comparisons, and because they do not exceed the divisions mentioned.

( २ ) अनन्वय

(2) Self-Comparison

उपमानोपमेयत्वे एकस्यैवैकवाक्यगे ।

When one and the same thing becomes the standard of comparison and the object of comparison in one sentence,

अनन्वयः

the figure is Self-Comparison.

उपमानान्तरसवन्धाभावोऽनन्वय. ।

Non-connection means absence of connection with any other standard of comparison except itself.

उदाहरणम् —

The following is an illustration —

न केवलं भाति नितान्तकान्तिर्‌नितम्विनी सैव नितम्बिनींव ।

Not only does that same attractive girl of exceeding beauty shine like the attractive girl.

यादृद् विलासायुधलास्यवासस्ते तद्विलासा इव तद्विलासा ॥ २३ ॥

But also (yāvat) those sportive movements of hers, the abodes of the dance of Cupid (vilāsāyudhah), shine like her sportive movements.

( ३ ) उपमेयोपमा

(3) Reciprocal Comparison

विपर्यस्त उपमेयोपमा तयोः ॥ ५ ॥

The inversion of those is the figure Reciprocal Comparison.

That king's figure is sweet like the mind, his assembly is endowed with prowess like the figure and his glory of victory is impossible to be conquered by the enemy like the assembly

These two viz Garland Comparison and Girdle Comparison are not defined, because a thousand of such strikingnesses is possible and because they do not exceed the divisions mentioned

When one and the same thing becomes the standard of comparison and the object of comparison in one sentence, the figure is Self-Comparison

Non-connection means absence of connection with any other standard of comparison except itself i e except the object of comparison

The following is an illustration —

Not only does that same attractive girl of exceeding beauty shine like the attractive girl i e like herself, but also (yāvat) those sportive movements of hers, the abodes of the dance of Cupid (vilāsāyudhah), shine like her sportive movements

The inversion of those is the figure Reciprocal Comparison

Page 98

तयो उपमानोपमेयो, परिप्रत्ति अर्थात् वाक्प्रद्यये, इतरोपमानव्यवच्छेदपर उपमेयोपमा इति उपमेयोपमा ।

Of those, the comparison where the standard and the object are presented through a sentence, and the other standard is excluded, is called Upameyopama.

Of those means of the standard of comparison and the object of comparison Inversion means inter-change, occurring of course in two sentences Reciprocal Comparison is so called because it is a comparison with an object of comparison, intended to exclude another standard of comparison

उदाहरणम् —

This is an illustration—

कमलेव मर्तिमतीरिव कमला तनुरीव विभा विमेव तनु ।

Her body is like a lotus, her beauty is like the earth, her splendor is like her body, and her body is like splendor.

Whose intellect always shines like his wealth and wealth like intellect, splendour like the body and the body like splendour, courage like the earth and the earth like courage

धरणीव धृतिरिव धरणी सतत विभाति बत यस्य ॥ २४ ॥

Her courage is like the earth, and the earth is always shining, alas, of her.

( ४ ) उत्प्रेक्षा

(4) Utprekṣā

संभावनमथोत्प्रेक्षा प्रकृतस्य समेन यत् ।

Utprekṣā is the probability of the object under description as being identical with a similar object.

Poetical Fancy is that which constitutes the probability of the object under description as being identical with a similar object

समेन उपमानेन ।

With a similar object means with the standard of comparison.

With a similar object means with the standard of comparison

उदाहरणम्—

To illustrate —

उन्मेष यो मम न सहते जातिवैररी निशाया-मिन्दोरिन्दीवृदलदलशा तस्य सौन्दर्यदर्प ।

The pride of beauty of that moon, who, a natural enemy [of mine], does not tolerate my blooming at night.

The pride of beauty of that moon, who, a natural enemy [of mine], does not tolerate my blooming at night,

नीत शान्तिं प्रसभमनया चक्रकान्त्योत हर्ष-

Has been forcibly extinguished by this girl, whose eyes are like the petals of a blue lotus.

has been forcibly extinguished by this girl, whose eyes are like the petals of a blue lotus,

च्छाया मन्ये चुलिततनु ते पादयोः पद्मलक्ष्मी ॥ २५ ॥

With the splendor of her face—thus through joy the Beauty of the day-lotus has, I think, O girl of graceful body, become attached to your feet.

with the splendour of her face—thus through joy the Beauty of the day-lotus has, I think, O girl of graceful body, become attached to your feet

Page 99

लिम्पतीव तमोडङ्गानि वर्षतीवाञ्जन नभ ।

As if darkness smears the limbs, as if the sky rains collyrium.

Darkness as though besmears the limbs The sky as it were showers collyrium Like service rendered to a bad man, the eye sight has attained fruitlessness

असत्पुरुपसेवेव दृष्टिरिंफलता गता ॥ २६ ॥

Like service rendered to a bad man, the eye sight has attained fruitlessness. 26

इत्यादौ व्यञ्पनादिलेपनादिरूपनया समावितम् ।

In cases like this, pervading and the like are fancied to be identical with (rūpatayā) smearing and the like

( ५ ) ससंदेह

(5) Sasandeha

ससंदेहस्तु भेदेऽभेदौ तदनुक्तौ च संशयः ॥ ६ ॥

Sasandeha is a doubt, when the difference [between an upameya and an upamāna] is expressed and when it is not expressed 6 cd

But the Doubtful is a doubt, when the difference [between an upameya and an upamāna] is expressed and when it is not expressed

भेदोक्तौ यथा—

When the difference is expressed, the figure Doubtful occurs in the following—

अय मार्तण्ड किं स खलु तुरगैः ससभिरित

Is this the sun? He, indeed, is accompanied by seven horses

कुरालु किं सर्वा प्रसरति दिशो नैव नियतम् ।

Is this fire? Surely, this does not spread in all directions

कृतान्त किं साक्षान्महिषवहनोऽसाविति चिर

Is this Death incarnate? That has a male buffalo as his conveyance—thus

समालोक्यास्त्वा विदभति विक्लान्पान् प्रतिभटा ॥ २७ ॥

hostile warriors entertain doubts for a long time after having seen you in the battle 27

hostile warriors entertain doubts for a long time after having seen you in the battle

भेदोक्ताविल्येन न केवलमय निश्चयगर्भो, यावन्निश्चयान्तोऽपि संदेह

By this statement 'When the difference in expressed' [occurring in the definition of this figure] not only is this doubt wherein there is determination in the middle, but also the doubt, in which there is determination at the end, is to be accepted as a variety of the figure

स्वीकृत । यथा—

To illustrate —

Page 100

दशाम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter:

इन्दु कि क कळाङ्क सरसिजमेतत् किमम्भु कुतः गतं । ललितसविलासवचनैमुखमिति हारिणाक्षि निश्चित परत ॥ २८ ॥

Is this the moon? Where is the spot? Is this a lotus? Where has the water gone? By your charming and sportive words I afterwards determined that it was your face, O deer-eyed lady.

किंतु निश्चयगर्भ इव नात्र निश्चय प्रतिप्रयमान इति उपेक्षितो भटृोद्भटेन ।

But this variety viz niscayānta sandeha has been neglected by Bhaṭṭodbhaṭa, because the determination is not here suggested as in the doubt where there is determination in the middle.

अस्या सर्गाविधौ प्रजापतिरभूच्चन्द्र्रो नु कान्तिप्रद शृङ्गारेकरस स्तय नु मदनो मासो नु पुष्पाकरः । वेदाभ्यासजड कय नु विषयव्यावृत्तकौतहलो निर्मातु प्रयवनन्मनोहरमिदं रूप पुराणो मुनिः ॥ २९ ॥

In the act of the creation of this [lady] was possibly the moon, who grants beauty, the creator? [Or was] possibly Cupid himself, whose one sentiment is love, the creator?, [Or was] possibly the month, the mine of flowers, the creator? How possibly would the ancient sage [Nārāyaṇa], who is dull on account of his study of the Vedas and whose interest in objects of senses is lost, be able to create this attractive form?

( ६ ) रूपकम्

(6) Metaphor

तद् रूपकमभेदो य उपमानोपमेययोः । अतिसाम्यात् अनपह्नुतमेदयो अमेदः ।

That is Metaphor, which consists in the identification of the standard of comparison and the object of comparison.

The identification between [the upamāna and the upameya], the difference between which is not concealed, arising from extreme similarity leads to Metaphor

Page 101

समस्तवस्तुविषयम् श्रौता आरोपिता रुदा ॥ ७ ॥

The metaphor is universal or has all entities for its province, when the entities superimposed are expressed.

आरोपविषया इव आरोप्यमाणा यदा शब्दोपात्ता तदा समस्तानि वस्तूनि विषयोऽस्येति समस्तवस्तुविशयम् । आरोपिता इति बहुवचनविवक्षितम् ।

When, like the objects of superimposition, the entities, which are 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.

यथा —

To illustrate —

ज्योत्स्नाभस्मच्छुरणधवला त्रिभ्रती तारकास्थि- न्यन्तर्धानव्यसनरसिक रात्रिकपालिकीयम् । दीपाद दीपं भ्रमति दधती चन्द्रमुद्राकपाले नystं सिद्धाज्जनपरिमलं लाञ्छनस्य च्छलेन ॥ ३० ॥

This Kāpāluki in the form of the night wanders from continent to continent—[the Kāpāluki] who is white owing to the smearing of the ashes in the form of the moonlight, who bears bones in the form of the stars, who takes delight in the sport (vyasakram) of disappearance and who holds in her consecrated skull-vessel in the form of the moon the powder (parimalak) of the magic ointment placed therein under the guise of the spot.

अत्र अनन्तधनव्यसनरसिकत्वमारोपितधर्म एवेति पादत्रये रूपकपरिप्र साधकतम्तीति तत्कराशङ्का न कार्य्या ।

Here, fondness for the sport of disappearance is just a property of the entity superimposed [viz the Kāpāluki], 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.

श्रौता आर्थोश तै यस्मिश्छकदेशविवर्ति तत्र ।

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

Page 102

दशाम उल्लास.

Tenth Chapter.

४९

केचिदारोप्यमाणा शब्दोपात्ता केचिदर्थसामध्योदवसेया -इत्येकदेशाविवर्तनात् एकदेशविवर्ति। यथा -

Some entities that are superimposed are mentioned in words and some are to be inferred by the force of the sense—thus as the metaphor resides in only one region it is called Ekadeśavivarti. The following is an illustration -

जस्स रणन्तेउरए करे कुणन्तस्स मण्डलगलअम् । रसणमुही वि सहसा परमुही होइ रिउसेणा ॥ ३१ ॥

The army of the enemy, though ready to enjoy the sentiment [viz love or heroism], suddenly turns its face away from him, who was grasping in his hand a creeper-like sword in the harem in the form of the battle-field

[ यस्य रणान्त पुरे करे कुर्वतो मण्डलाग्रलताम् । रससमुल्यपि सहसा पराङ्मुखी भवति रिपुसेना ॥ ]

[The army of the enemy, though ready to enjoy the sentiment [viz love or heroism], suddenly turns its face away from him, who was grasping in his hand a creeper-like sword in the harem in the form of the battle-field]

अत्र रणस्यांत पुरत्वमारोप्यमाण शब्दोपात्तम्, मण्डलाग्रलताया नायिकात्वम्, रिपुसेनायाश्च प्रतिनायिकात्वम्, अर्थसामध्योदवसीयते इति एकदेशे विशेषण वर्तना-एकदेशविवर्ति।

Here the character of harem which is being superimposed on the battle field is stated in words, but the character of the heroine super imposed on the creeper-like sword and the character of a rival heroine superimposed on the enemy's army are inferred by the power of the sense—thus as the Metaphor specifically resides in one region, it is called Partial

साझ्झमेतनू

This Metaphor is called Possessed of Parts or Entire

उक्तोद्रिमेद मावयवम् ।

This i e the Metaphor, two varieties of which are mentioned above, is possessed of parts

निरद्ध तु शुद्धम्

But the Metaphor, which is pure i e which stands alone, not having been mixed with any other, is known as Partless

८ c

8 c

८ cd

8 cd

का ४

kā 4

Page 103

यथा——

For example——

कुरङ्गीविलासिनि स्तिमितयति गीतध्वनिषु यत् सर्वी कान्तोदन्त श्रुतमपि पुनः प्रक्षीयति यत् । अनिद्रं यच्चान्तः स्वपिति तदहो वेद्म्यभिनवा प्रवृत्तोऽस्याः सेतुः हृदि मनसिज प्रेमलतिकाम् ॥ ३२ ॥

Since like a female deer, she makes motionless her limbs at the notes of music, since she again asks her friend news about her lover, though it had been heard [before], and since she lies inside the house without sleep, therefore, oh, I know that the mind born [Cupid] has commenced to sprinkle the new plant in the form of love in her heart

मालोपमायामिवैकस्मिन् बहवः आरोपिताः ।

As in a Garland Simile, [so in a Garland-Metaphor] many entities are superimposed on one

यथा——

For example——

सौन्दर्यस्य तरङ्गिणी तरुणिमोर्त्कर्षस्य हर्षोद्रम कान्ते कामिनः कमे नरहरिरसामूल्लासनावासभूः । विद्या वाग्विलासिनि विधिरनवधिप्राविण्यसाक्षाक्रिया वाणापञ्चशिलोमुकस्य ललनाचूडामणिः सा प्रिया ॥ ३३ ॥

That beloved is the river of beauty, the rise of the joy of the excellence of youth, the practice of subjugating magic (Kārmamam) on loveliness, the abode of the flourishing of sportive copulation (rahaḥ), the science of crooked words, the visible manifestation of the unlimited skill of the creator, the arrows of the five-arrowed [Cupid] and the crest jewel of women

To illustrate

But the Garland-Metaphor occurs as before [i.e. like the Garland simile]

As in a Garland Simile, [so in a Garland-Metaphor] many entities are superimposed on one For example——

Page 104

दशम उल्लासः.

Tenth Chapter.

नियतारोपणोपायः स्यादारोपः परस्य यः ।

The means of fixed superimposition is the superimposition of one thing on another.

तत् परंपरितं शिष्टे वाचके भेदभाजि वा ॥ ९ ॥

That is either directly or indirectly related to the expressed word which is distinguished or not.

विद्वन्मानसहंस वैरिकमलासंकोचदीप्तिमता

O swan in the Mānasa lake in the form of the mind of the learned,

दुर्गामर्गणनीललोहित समिलस्वीकारवैश्वानर ।

the sun (diptadyutih) for the blooming (asankocah) of lotuses (kamalam) in the form of the contraction or destruction (Sankocah) of the glory (kamalā) of enemies,

सत्यप्रीतिविधानदक्ष विजयप्राग्भावभीम प्रभो

Siva in the search (mārganam) of Pārvatī (Durgā) in the form of the non search (amārganam) of forts (durgah),

साम्राज्य वरवीर वत्सरद्वात वैरिषुमुद्रै कियाः ॥ ३४ ॥

fire in the acceptance of fuels (samidh) in the form of the acceptance of battles (samit), Dakṣa in entertaining disaffection (aprītih) towards Satī in the form of affection for truth, Bhīma in the precedence-in-birth over Arjuna (Vijayah) in the form of the earlier snatching of victory,

अत्र, मानसमेव मानसम्, कमलाया सकोच एव कमलानामसकोच ,

Here the Mānasa lake in the form of (eva) the mind, the non-contraction of lotuses in the form of the contraction of glory,

दुर्गोणाममार्गणमेव दुर्गोया मार्गणम्, समिता स्वीकार एव समिधा स्वीकार, सत्ये

the search of Durgā in the form of the non search of forts, the acceptance of fuels in the form of the acceptance of battles, disaffection towards Satī in the form of affection for truth,

प्रीतिरेव सत्याम्प्रीति , विजय परपराभव एव विजयोऽर्ज्जुन ,-एवमारोपणिमित्तो

Vijaya [meaning] defeat of enemies-the superimposition of swan and others on the king is caused by these superimpositions

हसादेरारोप ।

Consequential Metaphor would be that which consists in the superimposition of another, being the cause of the relevant superimposition, when the expressive word is paronomastic or possessed of distinction

Consequential Metaphor is a metaphor that arises from the superimposition of one thing on another, where the expression used is either paronomastic or possesses distinction.

Here is an example—

O swan in the Mānasa lake in the form of the mind of the learned,

the sun (diptadyutih) for the blooming (asankocah) of lotuses (kamalam) in the form of the contraction or destruction (Sankocah) of the glory (kamalā) of enemies,

Siva in the search (mārganam) of Pārvatī (Durgā) in the form of the non search (amārganam) of forts (durgah),

[O] lord, excellent warrior, gloriously enjoy universal sovereignty for a hundred years of Brahman (Varinca)

Here the Mānasa lake in the form of (eva) the mind, the non-contraction of lotuses in the form of the contraction of glory, the search of Durgā in the form of the non search of forts, the acceptance of fuels in the form of the acceptance of battles, disaffection towards Satī in the form of affection for truth, Vijaya [meaning] Arjuna in the form of victory,

vijaya [meaning] defeat of enemies—the superimposition of swan and others on the king is caused by these superimpositions

Page 105

यद्यपि शब्दार्थालङ्कारोऽयमित्युक्तं, वक्ष्यते च, तथापि प्रसिद्धचतुरो-

Although it has been said before and it will be said again that this is a figure of both word and sense,

धादत्रोक्त । एकदेशेनिवर्ति हीदमन्यैरिभिधीयते ।

yet it has been treated here out of regard for the well-known usage [of ancient rhetoricians, who include it under figures of sense], for this Conseqential Metaphor is by others designated Partial or residing in one region

भेदभाजि यथा —

When the words expressive of the superimposition, which is the cause, are possessed of distinction i.e are distinctly stated, the following is an illustration —

आलानं जयकुञ्जरस्य डिपदां सत्त्वाविपद्वारिधे

O king, your hand, which gives widowhood to the wives of brave enemies, shines — [the hand] which is the tying post of the elephant in

पूर्वीन्द्रि करवालचण्डमहसो लीलोपधानं श्रियम् ।

the form of victory, the bridge of stones across the ocean in the form of adversity, the eastern mountain of the sun in the form of the sword,

सङ्ग्रामामृतसागरप्रमथनक्रिडाविधौ मन्दरो

the graceful pillar of [military] glory and the Mandara mountain for indulging in the sport of the churning of the ocean of nectar in

राजन् राजति वीरवैरिवनितावैधव्यदस्ते भुज । ॥ ३५ ॥

the form of battle

अत्र जयादिर्मिन्नशब्दवाच्यस्य कुञ्जरवाच्यारोपे भुजस्य आलानत्वारोपो

Here when the character of the elephant and the like is superimposed on victory and the like, which are expressed by separate words

युज्यते ।

the superimposition of the character of the tying post and the like on the hand becomes reasonable

अलौकिकमहालोकप्रकाशितजगत्प्रभो ।

O lord, by whom are you not praised you who have illumined the three worlds with your great extraordinary lustre and who are the excellent pearl in the good bamboo in the form of the good family ?

स्तूयते देव सदृशामुक्तारल न कैर्मवान् ॥ ३६ ॥

Although it has been said before and it will be said again that this viz Consequential Metaphor based on paronomasia is a figure of both word and sense, yet it has been treated here out of regard for the well-known usage [of ancient rhetoricians, who include it under figures of sense], for this Consequential Metaphor is by others designated Partial or residing in one region

When the words expressive of the superimposition, which is the cause, are possessed of distinction i.e are distinctly stated, the following is an illustration —

O king, your hand, which gives widowhood to the wives of brave enemies, shines — [the hand] which is the tying post of the elephant in the form of victory, the bridge of stones across the ocean in the form of adversity, the eastern mountain of the sun in the form of the sword, the graceful pillar of [military] glory and the Mandara mountain for indulging in the sport of the churning of the ocean of nectar in the form of battle

Here when the character of the elephant and the like is superimposed on victory and the like, which are expressed by separate words the superimposition of the character of the tying post and the like on the hand becomes reasonable

O lord, by whom are you not praised you who have illumined the three worlds with your great extraordinary lustre and who are the excellent pearl in the good bamboo in the form of the good family ?

Page 106

दशाम उल्लासः

निरवधि च निराश्रय च यस्स स्थितमनिवर्तितकौतुकप्रपञ्चम् ।

प्रथम इह भवान स कूर्ममूर्तिरर्जिति चतुर्दशलोकवहिकन्द ॥ ३७ ॥

इति च अमालारूपकमपि परपरित दृश्यव्यम् ।

किसलयकैरल्लतानां करकमलै कामिनां मनो जयति ।

नोलनीनां कमलकमुखैः कमनीयैः मदनः ॥ ३८ ॥

इत्यादि रसानुरूपक न वैचित्र्यादिति न लक्षयितम् ।

( ७ ) अपह्नुति

प्रकृतं यत्रिष्यद्गान्त्र साध्यते सा त्वपह्नुति: ।

उपमेयम् असत्य कल्पोपमान सत्यतया यत् स्थाप्यते सा तु अपह्नुति ।

उदाहरणम् —

अवाप्त प्राग्लब्य परिगतरुच शैलतनये

कलङ्को नैवायं विडम्बति शशाङ्कस्य वपुषि ।

You there, who have assumed the form of a tortoise, are first Victorious in this world (iha)—you whose position from which manifoldness of admiration has not returned, is limitless and supportless and who are the root of the creeper in the form of the fourteen worlds

—And in these two stanzas Consequential Metaphor, not of the form of garland, should be seen

Cupid vanquishes the mind of passionate people with the palms in the form of the tender leaves of creepers, with the lotuses in the form of hands [of women], with the faces in the form of the lotuses of lotus-plants and with the moons in the form of the faces of women

Girdle-Metaphor, occurring in stanzas like the above, has not been defined, because it is not possessed of any special strikingness

But when, having denied the object under description, another is established in its place, that is Concealment

But when, having made the object of comparison false, the standard of comparison is established in its place as true, that is Concealment To illustrate ---

O daughter of the mountain, this is certainly (eva) not the spot, which, having attained prominence, is shining on the body of the moon, whose splendor is fully developed I think this is the beautiful

Page 107

अमुषुयि मन्ये विगलदमृतस्नन्दशिशिरे रतिश्रान्ता शेते रजनिरमणी गाढमुरसि ॥ ३९ ॥

In this, I think, the night lady, tired from love, lies soundly on his chest, cool owing to the flow of trickling nectar

lady in the form of the night, who, being fatigued with enjoyment, is sleeping soundly on his chest, cool owing to the flow of trickling nectar

इथ वा —

Or the figure may be illustrated thus--

वत सखि कियदेतत् पश्य वैरि स्मरसि प्रियाविरहकुरुङ्गडक्ष्मन् रोमलोकं तथा हि ।

Alas, friend, see how much is this enmity of Cupid towards people in love, who have grown emaciated owing to separation from their lovers

उपवनसहकारो द्वाभिमृग्यृच्छतेन प्रतिविशिखमननेनोद्दृकित कान्नकूटम् ॥ ४० ॥

Under the guise of the bees shining on the mango-blossoms in the garden, he has displayed the deadly poison of every arrow

For, here, these are not mango blossoms with bees thereon, but arrows with deadly poison--this is the apprehension

अत्र हि न सम्भ्रान्ति सहकाराणि, अपि तु सकालकूटा शरा, इति प्रतीति ।

Or thus

एव वा —

Verily, Cupid, scorched by Śiva, fell in this lake of nectar in the form of loveliness situated on the expansive hip region of this deer-eyed lady

अमुषिमृग्लावण्यामृतसरसि नूनं मृगदृशा स्मर शर्वप्लुष्ट: पृथुजघनभगे निपतिति ।

since this tuft of smoke, suggestive of the extinction of the embers in the form of his limbs, becomes changed in the form of a line of hair going into the cave of her navel

यदद्धाङ्काराणा प्रशामपिसुना नामिकुहरे धूमशिखा धूमस्येयं परिणमिति रोमावलिबपु ॥ ४१ ॥

Here the apprehension is that this is not a line of hair, but a tuft of smoke Thus, this should be inferred by other methods as well

अत्र न रोमावलिः, धूमशिखेयमिति प्रतिपत्ति ।

एवमियं भक्तघनतरेप्यपूया ।

Page 108

दशम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter

(८) श्लेष

(8) Śleṣa

श्लेषः स वाक्ये यत्रैकस्मिन् यत्रानेकार्थता भवेत् ॥ १० ॥

Śleṣa is where in a single sentence there are multiple meanings.

एकार्थप्रतिपादकानामेव शब्दानां यत्रानेकोऽर्थः स श्लेष ।

It is Śleṣa where a single word conveys multiple meanings.

उदाहरणम् —

Example —

उदयमयते दिङ्मौलिनिर्निराकृतेतरः ।

The sun rises, having the directions as its crown, and not being defeated by others.

नयति निधाननिद्रामुद्रा प्रवतयति क्रिया ।

It brings the treasure of sleep and stimulates action.

रचयतितरां स्वैराचारप्रवर्तनकर्त्तन्

It creates a great deal of unrestrained behavior.

वत वत लसतेज पुज्जो विभाति विभाकर ॥ ४२ ॥

Oh, how the brilliant sun shines, illuminating the world.

अत्राभिधाया अनियन्त्रणात् द्वावप्यर्थौ वाच्यौ ।

Here, due to the lack of control over the meaning, both meanings are conveyed.

(९) समासोक्ति

(9) Samāsokti

परोक्तिमेदकः दृष्टः समासोक्तिः

Samāsokti is where the expression is not directly stated.

प्रकृतार्थप्रतिपादकवाक्येन दृष्टविशेषणमाहात्म्यात्, न तु विशेष्यस्य

It is not the subject that is described, but the attributes that are described through the sentence conveying the primary meaning.

सामर्थ्यादपि, यत्‌ अप्रकृतस्याभिधानं, सा समासेन सक्षेपणार्थद्योतनात्

Due to the power of the sentence, the अप्रकृत (unexpressed) is also conveyed, and this is called Samāsokti because it is conveyed through the समास (compound word).

समासोक्तिः । उदाहरणम् —

Samāsokti. Example —

That is Paronomasia where words convey more than one sense in one sentence

Where words, which primarily convey one sense only, have more than one sense, that is Paronomasia The following is an illustration--

The mine of brilliance [i e the sun and a very brilliant king], whose mass of lustre is shining, attains rise, completely removes the darkness of the quarters, puts an end to the seal of sleep, stimulates actions, completely effects the cutting of the stimulus to wanton conduct and, how joyful, shines pre-eminently

Here on account of the expressive power of words not having been restricted, even both the sun and the king are expressed

The Speech of Brevity is the statement of another by means of paronomastic adjectives

When a sentence, which conveys a relevant matter, also suggests [lit expresses] an irrelevant matter through the prowess of paronomastic adjectives, but not through the power of the substantive also, that is the Speech of Brevity, so called because of its conveying two

Page 109

लहिऊण तुज्ज बाअहुफ्फस जिएँ स को वि उल्हासो । जअलच्छी तुह विरहे ण हूज्जला दुब्बला ण सा ॥ ४३ ॥

That Glory of victory, who felt that indescribable joy after having obtained the touch of your arm is certainly not orilliant in your separation, but has, indeed, grown weak.

लङ्ग तव बाहुस्पर्शी यस्मा स कोप्युल्लासः । जयलक्ष्मीस्तव विरहे न खलु ज्वलति दुर्बला ननु सा ॥

अत्र जयलक्ष्मीशब्दस्य केवलं कान्तावाचकत्वं नास्ति ।

( १० ) निदर्शना

निदर्शना

Illustration

अभवन् वस्तुसम्बन्ध उपमापरिकल्पकः । निदर्शन द्यष्टान्तकरणम् ।

क सूर्यप्रभवो वंश क चाल्पविषया मति । तितीर्षेदुस्तर मोहादुदुपेनास्मि सागरम् ।। ४४ ।।

Where is the race arising from the sun and where my intellect covering a small province ? Through infatuation I have become desirous of crossing the ocean, difficult to be crossed, by means of a raft

अत्र, उदुपेन सागरतरणमिव मन्त्रण्या सूर्यवंशवर्णनमित्युपमाया पर्यवस्यति ।

यथा वा—

Or as in the following—

Page 110

उदयति विततोध्वैररिमरजावहिमरुचौ हिमधात्री याति चास्तम् ।

When [the sun] of hot light, who has spread his cord-like rays upwards, is rising and when [the moon,] the abode of coolness is setting,

वहति गिरिय विलम्बिघण्टाद्वयपरिवारितवारणेन्द्रलीलाम् ॥ ४५ ॥

this mountain assumes the grace of a lordly elephant, surrounded by two bells dangling on his sides

अत्र, कथमन्यस्य लीलामन्यो वहतीति तत्सदृशीमिल्युपमाया पर्यवसानम् ।

Here, how can one assume the grace of another ?—hence the grace which the one viz the mountain, assumes must be similar to that of the lordly elephant—thus the stanza ultimately ends in comparison

दोर्म्यां तितीर्षति तरङ्गवतीभुजग-

मादातुमिच्छति करे हरिणाङ्कविभ्रमम् ।

मेरु लिलङ्गयिषति ध्रुवमेष देव

यस्ते गुणान् गदितुमुचमममादधाति ॥ ४६ ॥

O lord, this man, who puts forth an effort to proclaim your virtues, desires to cross the lover of rivers i e the ocean with his arms, wishes to grasp the orb of the moon in his hand and certainly wishes to cross the mountain Meru

इत्यादौ मालारूपाप्येषा दृश्यते ।

In stanzas of this kind this figure should be seen to be of the form of a Garland

स्वस्वहेतुन्न्यस्योक्तिः क्रियपैव च सापरा ।

And that is another Illustration, which consists in the statement of the connection between itself and its cause by means of the action alone

क्रिययैव स्वस्वरूप-स्वकारणयो सम्बन्धो यदवगम्यते, सा अपरा निदर्शना ।

When by means of the action alone the connection between its own nature and its own cause is understood, that is another Illustration

यथा——

As in the following—

Page 111

उन्नत पद्मावाप्यो लघुर्हेलयैव स पतेधिति भुवन् ।

Having attained an elevated position he, who is worthless, would fall very easily—thus proclaiming, a particle of stone, which had gone on the peak of a mountain, but which was swept away by a gentle breeze, falls down

शैलशिखरगतो ऽपकर्णश्रवणुमारुतधुत पतत्यघ ॥ ४७ ॥

अत्र पतत्रिया पतनस्य, लाघवे सति उन्नतपदप्राप्तिरूपस्य च, सत्वन्य स्याप्यते ।

Here by the action of falling, the connection [of the form of effect and cause] between falling which is an effect and [the cause] having the form of the attaintment of an exalted position by [an entity] inspite of its smallness or insignificance is made known

( ११ ) अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा या सा सैव प्रस्तुताश्रया ॥ १२ ॥

Indirect Description is that which consists in the description of the irrelevant, based on i e leading to the matter in hand

अग्राकरणकस्याभिधानेन प्रकारणिकस्याक्षेपो ड्यप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ।

The suggestion of the relevant by the statement of the irrelevant is Irrelevant Description

कार्ये निमित्ते सामान्ये विशेषे प्रस्तुते सति ।

And when an effect, a cause, a general statement or a particular statement is relevant [there is] the description of something which is other than that and when a similar is relevant, there is the description of an irrelevant similar—thus the figure is five-fold

तदन्यस्य वस्तुल्ये तुल्यस्येति च पञ्धा ॥ १३ ॥

तदन्यस्य कारणादे ।

Of other than that means of a cause and the like The following are illustrations in order—

क्रमेणोदाहरणानि —

Page 112

याता किं न मिलन्ति सुन्दरी पुनराश्विन्तां ल्वया मुक्ते नो कार्यो नितरा कुशासि कथयतयेव सबाष्पं मयि । लज्जामन्यतराकरण निपतत्पीताश्रुणा चक्षुषा दृष्टा मा हसितेन भाविमरणोत्साहस्तया सूचित || ४८ ||

O Beautiful lady, do not people, who have gone on journeys meet again? Anxiety for my sake should not be entertained by you You are exceedingly slender — while thus I was saying with tears, enthusiasm for impending death was suggested by her with a laugh, after having seen me with an eye, whose pupil was languid through bashfulness and which checked the tears as they were falling

अत्र प्रस्थानात् निद्धृत्तोडसीति किमिति कार्ये पृष्टे कारणमिहितम् राजन् राजसुता न पाठयति मा दैवयोडपि तर्ण्णी स्थिता कुज्जे भोजय मा कुमारसचिवैरियापि कि भुज्यते । इत्य नाथ शुक्तस्वारिभवने मुक्तोडस्मै पज्ञरा-चित्रस्थानवलोक्य शून्यवलभोवकेकमाभाषते ॥ ४९ ॥

राजन् राजसुता न पाठयति मा दैवयोडपि तर्ण्णी स्थिता कुज्जे भोजय मा कुमारसचिवैरियापि कि भुज्यते । इत्य नाथ शुक्तस्वारिभवने मुक्तोडस्मै पज्ञरा-चित्रस्थानवलोक्य शून्यवलभोवकेकमाभाषते ॥ ४९ ॥

O king, the princess does not teach me , even the queens sit silent O hump-backed woman, feed me , why are the princess and the ministers not taking their meal yet?—thus, O lord, the parrot, let loose from the cage in the palace of your enemy by the passers by, speaks to each one seeing them painted in portraits on the deserted terrace

अत्र प्रस्यानोच्हवत भवन्त ज्ञात्वा सहसैव त्वरय पलाय्य गता'— इति कारणे प्रस्तुते कार्यमुक्तम । पतत् तस्य मुखात कियत् कमलिनीपात्रे कण वारिणो यन्मुक्तामणिरिल्यमस्त स जड शृण्वनदस्मादपि ।

Here, having learnt that you were ready for march, your enemies all at once went running — thus the cause being relevant, the effect is stated How much is this from his mouth that that fool considered a drop of water on the leaf of a lotus plant as an excellent pearl? Hear another thing more wonderful than even this When that drop dis-

१ 'प्रस्थानात किमिति निद्धृत्तोडसीति' इति सर्वेधु मुद्रितपुस्तकेषु पाठ ।

Page 113

अङुल्यग्रलघुक्रियाप्रविलयिन्याडीयमाने शनैः

As the tips of his fingers were slowly taken up

appeared at the slight movement of the tips of his fingers, while it was being slowly taken up, that fool gets no sleep day after day through inward grief, thinking 'Where has my excellent pearl gone flying?'

कुत्रोदीय गतो ममेयमुदिन निद्राति नान्न शुचा ॥ ५० ॥

that fool gets no sleep day after day through inward grief, thinking 'Where has my excellent pearl gone flying?' 50

अत्र अस्थाने जडाना ममत्वभावना भवतीति सामान्‍येऽपि प्रस्तुते विशेष उक्तः ।

Here, fools entertain attachment towards an improper object—this general proposition being relevant, a particular propostion is mentioned

सुहृदधूना षजलप्रसारण

Who effects the washing away of the water of tears of the wives of friends by the retaliation (pratiyātanam) of enmity

करोति वैरप्रतियातनेन य ।

he alone is praiseworthy

स एव पूज्यः स पुरुषः स नीतिमान्

he, a man, he a politican, his is an excellent life

सुजीवित तस्य स भोजनं श्रियः ॥ ५१ ॥

he is the abode of glory 51

अत्र कृष्ण निहन्ति नरकासुरवधूना यदि दु ख प्रशमयसि, तत् त्वमेव श्लाघ्य —

Here the particular proposition viz 'If, having killed Krṣṇa, you would extinguish the grief of the wives of the demon Naraka, then you alone would be praiseworthy' being relevant a general one is stated

इति विशेषे प्रकृते सामान्‍यमभिहितम् ।

There are three varieties when, a similar being relevant, another similar but irrelevant is expressed--for, paronomasia, the speech of brevity or mere resemblance [becomes] the cause of the suggestion of a similar from a similar Here are illustrations in order—

तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिधाने त्रयः प्रकाराः — श्लेषः, समासोक्तिः, साध्‌रस्यमात्र

चा, तुल्यात् तुल्यस्य व्याक्षेपे हेतुः । क्रमेणोदाहरणम् —

If he would lose, even manhood, if he would even go down, if he would become even low in supplication, even then he would save the

पुस्त्वादपि प्रवृचछल्द्र यदि यशोधराडपि

यायाद् यदि प्रणयने न महानपि स्यात् ।

Page 114

अभ्युद्यरते तदपि विश्वमितीदिशीय केनापि दिक् प्रकटिता पुरु षोत्तमेन ॥ ५२ ॥

O Moon, it would be proper for you only to retaliate against that sun by whom, as he rose, you were made to attain paleness, but not again to hold just his rays [also punningly, feet] If this was done by you, because you were exhausted, then why do you not feel a little ashamed ? Let it be so

येनास्यभूदितस्ते चन्द्र गमित शान्ति र्वौ तत्र ते युज्जेत प्रतिकृतुम्भेव न पुनस्तस्यैव पादग्रह । धीणेतदनुधिंष्ठा यदि तत्त किं लज्जसे हो मना- गस्वेव जडधामता तु भवतो यद् व्योम्नि विस्फूर्जसे ॥ ५३ ॥

But this is due to your being the abode of coolness ,[also, punningly, stupidity] that you shine refulgently in the sky

आदाय वारि परित सरिता मुखेभ्य कि तावदर्जितमनेन दुरण्वेन । क्षारीकृत च वडवदहने हुत च पातालकुक्षिकुहरे विनिवेशित च ॥ ५४ ॥

What possibly (tāvat) has been gained by this wicked ocean after receiving water from the mouths of rivers all round (paritah) It has been turned saline and has been sacrifised in the sub-marine fire and has been deposited in the cavern of the belly (kukṣih) of the nether world

तस्य च कचिद् वाच्ये प्रतीममानार्थी न च्यारोपेणापि भवति । यथा-अवघेरमभ स्थगितमुवानाभोगपातालकुक्षे: पोतो पाया इह हि बहवो लघ्नने डपि क्षमन्ते ।

And this variety somewhere occurs even without the superimposition of the suggested object upon the expressed As in the following— Many sea traders (potopāyah) here are, indeed, able even to cross the ocean, which has concealed i.e filled the expanse of the earth and the belly of the nether world with water Oh, if through chance this ocean were somehow to become empty, then, who possibly would

Page 115

आहो रिक्त कथमपि भवेदप दैवात तदानीं को नाम स्यादवटकुहरालोकने डप्यस्य कल्पः । काचिदच्यारोपेणैव । यथा —

Alas, even if it were not empty, by chance at that time, who would be able even to look at the hollow (kuharam) of the pit (avataḥ) of this?

कार्त्व भो कथयामि दैवहतक मा विधि शाखोटक वैराग्यादिव वक्ति साधु विदित कुस्मादिद कथ्यते । धामेनात्र वटस्तमचगजन सर्वात्मना सेवन्ते न छायापि परोपकारकरणे मार्गस्थितस्यापि मे ॥ ५६ ॥

Somewhere it occurs only with such superimposition As in the following—

'Oh, who are you?' Yes, I shall tell you Know me to be a haunted tree, killed by fortune 'As though in dejection you speak' 'Correctly have you known' 'Whence this dejection?' 'I'll tell you To the left [also punningly, characterized by evil conduct] is a Vata tree here Him the travelling people resort to with all their soul Not even the shade of me, though situated on the road [also punningly, though following the path of virtue], is useful for conferring obligation on others

काचिद्देश्यारोपण । यथा —

Somewhere it occurs with such superimposition in parts As in the following—

सोऽप्युवाच रसनाविपर्ययविधिस्नात कर्णोऽश्रुपल द्रष्टे सा मदविस्मृतस्त्वपरदिक कि भूसोत्तेल वा । सर्वे विस्मृतवानसि भ्रमर हे यद् वारोणौडप्यसा- वन्तं शून्यकरो निरेव्यत इति भ्रात क एप ग्रहः ॥ ५७ ॥

That extraordinary process of the turning of the tongue [also punningly, inconsistency of speech], that insteadiness [also, lightness] of the ears, that sight, which has forgotten its own and others' direction through ichor [also, pride],—or what is the use of saying much O bee, you have forgotten all, since this elephant [also, this master who turns devoted servants away], whose trunk is hollow inside [also, whose hand is empty], is being resorted to [also, served] [by you] even now Thus, brother, what obstinacy is this?

Page 116

अत्र रसनाविपर्य्यास शून्यकृतव च भ्रमरस्य असेवनं न हेतु, कर्णेचापल वु हेतु, मद प्रत्युत सेवनं निमित्तम ।

Here, the turning of the tongue and the quality of having a hollow trunk are no reason why the bee should not resort to the elephant, but the unsteadiness of the ears is such a cause 1chor on the contrary is a cause for resorting to the elephant

( १२ ) अतिशयोक्ति

(12) Hyperbole

निगीर्योधयसं तु प्रकृतस्य परेण यत् । प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्यत्वं यद्यथोक्तिश्च कल्पनम् ॥ १४ ॥ कार्यकारणयोरेवश पर्वोप्यविपर्ययः ।

That should be known as Hyperbole, when an object under description [i e an upameya] is, indeed (tu), ascertained [as being identical with another [i e an upamāna], when an object under description is stated to be other than ordinary, and when there is supposition, the sense of the conditional particle if' being stated, and when there is an inversion of the sequence of effect and cause

विप्रेयातिशयोक्तिः सा उपमानेनान्तर्‌निर्गीर्णस्तोमेयस्य यदच्यवसान सैका । यथा — कमलमनभासि कमले च कुतलये तानि कनकलतिकायाम्‌ । मा च सुकुमारसुभगेऽतिपरम्परा केयम्‌ ॥ ५८ ॥

A lotus, but not in water, and on that lotus two blue lotuses, and all those lotuses on a creeper of gold, and that creeper of gold, delicate and lovely,-thus what a series of calamities is this!

Here face and others are ascertained as being of the form of, i e as being identical with, lotus and the others

अत्र मुखादि कमलादिरूपतयाऽव्यवसितम् । यच्च तदेवान्यलेनाऽव्यवसीयते, सा अपरा ।

And when an object itself is determined to be another, that is another kind of Hyperbole

As in the following-

Page 117

अण्ण णडहत्तणअ अण्ण विअ कह वि वत्तणच्छाया । सामा सामणणपआइणो रेह चिअ ण होई ॥ ५९ ॥ [ अन्यत् सौकुमार्यमन्यैव च कापि वर्तनच्छाया । श्यामा सामान्यप्रजापते रेखैव च न भवति ॥ ]

Other than ordinary is her delicacy, and other certainly the indescribable (kāpi) splendour of her body, and the lovely lady is not at all the creation of the ordinary creator

यदर्थस्य यदिराद्बेन चेच्छब्देन वा उक्तौ यत् कल्पनम्, अर्थात असभाविनोऽर्थस्य, सा तृतीया । यथा—राकायामकलङ्कं चेदमृताशोभिवेत वपु । तस्या मुख तदा साम्यपराभवमवाप्नुयात् ॥ ६० ॥

When there is a supposition, of course of an impossible thing, accompanied by the expression of the sense of ‘if’ by the word ‘if’ or by the word ‘provided’, that is the third variety of Hyperbole As in the following—

कारणस्य शीघ्रकारिता वक्त कार्यस्य पूर्वमुक्तौ चतुर्थी । यथा—हृदयमचित्रमादौ मालल्या कुशुमचापबाणेन । चरम रमणीवरहृदभ लोचनविषयं ल्वया भजता ॥ ६१ ॥ ( १३ ) प्रतिवस्तूपमा

When in order to express the speedy capacity of the cause to produce the effect, the effect is declared as having come into existence before the cause, that is the fourth variety of Hyperbole As in the following—

प्रतिवस्तूपमा तु सा ॥ १५ ॥

That is Parallel, where one common property stands twice in two sentences

Other than ordinary is her delicacy, and other certainly the indescribable (kāpi) splendour of her body , and the lovely lady is not at all the creation of the ordinary creator

If the body of the moon were to be spotless on the full-moon night (rākā), then her face would suffer the defeat of resemblance 60

The heart of Mālatī was first occupied by Cupid and afterwards, O favourite of lovely women, by you, who came within the range of her eyes

That is Parallel, where one common property stands twice in two sentences 15d 16ab

Page 118

सामान्यस्य द्विरेकस्य यत्र वाक्यद्रये स्थिति: । साधारणो धर्म उपमेयवाक्ये उपमानवाक्ये च, कचित्पदत्वस्य दुष्टतयाभिहितत्वात्, शब्दमेतेन यत् उपादीयते, सा कस्तुनो वाक्यार्थस्योपमानत्वात् प्रतिवस्तूपमा । यथा—

When the common property is mentioned, in the sentence expressive of the standard of comparison, by means of two different words, because a repeated word is declared to constitute a fault, that is Parallel, because here a thing viz the sense of a sentence assumes the character of a standard of comparison. As in the following—

देवाभाव गामितो परिवारपद कृत्य भजत्विषा । न खलु परिभोग्योऽयं दैवतारुपाकृतिं रत्नम् ॥ ६२ ॥

How should this lady, who had been made to attain the position of a queen, occupy the place of an attendant? A jewel, marked with the image of a deity, is, indeed, not fit for enjoyment or wearing 62

यदि दहन्यनलोऽत्र किसद्धुत यदि च गौरवमद्रिशु किं तत् । लवणमम्भु सदैव महोदधौ प्रकृतिरेव सतामविषादिता ॥ ६३ ॥

If fire burns, what is wonderful here? And if there is heaviness in mountains, what then? The water of the great ocean is always and ever (eva) saline Absence of disconsolateness is the very nature of the good

इत्यादिका मालाप्रतिवस्तूपमा दृश्यते । एवमन्यत्राप्यनुसर्तव्यम् ।

In this and the like, Garland Parallel should be seen Thus, elsewhere also the Garland—form of a figure should be understood as being possible

( १४ ) दृष्टान्त

Exemplification again is the effective representation of all these

दृष्टान्त: पुनरेतेषां सर्वेषां प्रतिविम्बनम् ॥ १६ ॥

Of these means of the common property and others. Where end i e ascertainment of the matter in hand is seen—that is Exemplification As in the following—

एतेषा साधारणधर्मादीनाम् दृष्टान्त निश्चीयो यत्र स दृष्टान्त । यथा—

Page 119

त्वथि दृष्ट एव तस्या निर्वाति मनो मनोभवज्वलितम्‌।

As soon as you are seen, her mind, set ablaze by love, becomes cool

आलोके हि दिमाशोरधिकसति कुसुमं कुसुमद्रुया ॥ ६४ ॥

For, at the appearance of the moon the flower of the lotus plant blooms

एष साधर्म्येण । वैधर्म्येण तु यथा—

This arises owing to similarity But owing to dissimilarity Exemplification occurs as in the following—

तथाहने साहसकर्मगर्मण कर कृपाणान्तिकमानिनिष्पतन् ।

The warriors of enemies began to run away, as you, who find pleasure in adventurous deeds, desired to bring your hand near the sword

भटा परेषा विशारारुनमगुर्द्रहत्यवाते स्परत हि पासव ॥ ६५ ॥

For, particles of dust attain firmness in the absence of wind

( १५ ) दीपकम्‌

सकृद् उक्तिसु धर्मस्य प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनोः ।

When the common property, such as action, of the relevant and irrelevant objects i e of course of the standards of comparison and objects of comparison is mentioned only once, that is Illuminator,

सैव क्रियासु बहिषु कारकस्येति दीपकम्‌ ॥ १७ ॥

because remaining only in one sentence, it illuminates all sentences As in the following—

प्राकरणिकाप्राकरणिकानाम्‌ उपमानोपमेयानाम्‌ धर्म क्रियादि., एकवारमेव यत्‌ उपादीयते, तत्‌ एकस्थस्येव समस्तवाक्यदीपनात्‌ दीपकम्‌ । यथा—

कितवाना धरण्ण णआणं फरणमणि केशराण सीहाणं ।

The wealth of misers, the jewel in the hoods of serpents, the manes of lions,

कुट्टच्तिआण तुणआ कुत्तो दिस्सन्ति अमु आणं ॥ ६६ ॥

the breasts of girls of noble families—how can all these be touched as long as they are not dead ?

Page 120

[ कृपणाना धन नागाना फणमणि. केसराः सिंहानाम् । कुलवालिकाना स्तननः कृत स्फुटन्टोडस्मृतानाम् ॥ ]

[ For misers, the wealth; for snakes, the gem on the hood; for lions, the mane; for women with prominent breasts, the breasts that are bursting to be touched. ]

कारकस्य च बहुषु क्रियासु सकृद् वृत्तिदीपकम् । यथा — सिथ्याति कूणाति वेहत्ती निचलाति निमिषाति विलोकयति तिर्यक् अनन्तनन्दति चुम्बतुमिच्छति नवपरिणिया वधूः शयने ॥ ६७ ॥

And the occurrence once of a case-noun in connection with many actions is another Illuminator For example— A newly-married bride in her bed perspires, shrinks [from embrace], trembles, turns aside, shuts her eyes, looks obliquely, feels delighted at heart and wishes to kiss

( १६ ) मालादीपकम्

( 16 ) Serial Illuminator

मालादीपकमाधं वेद यथोत्तरगुणावहम् । पूर्वेण पूर्वेण वस्तुना उत्तरसुत्तरं चेदुपाक्रियन्ते, तत् मालादीपकम्

If each preceding object creates quality i e charm in each succeeding one, that is Serial Illuminator When by each preceding object each succeeding one is helped to appear more prominent, that is Serial Illuminator For example—

यथा — संभ्रममाज्ञामागतेन भवता चापे सम्भारोपिते देवाकर्णय येन येन सहसा यत् यत् समासादितम् । कोदण्डेन शरा शरैरिशिरस्तेनापि भमण्डल तेन त्वं भवता च कीर्तिरतुला कीर्त्या च लोकत्रयम् ॥ ६८ ॥

When by you, who had arrived on the battle-field, the bow was strung, listen, O lord, what various things were immediately attained by what others arrows were attained by the bow, the head of the enemy by the arrows, the circle of the earth by that head also, you by that circle of the earth, and unparalleled fame by you and the three worlds by fame

Page 121

( १७ ) तुल्ययोगिता

(17) Equal Pairing

नियतानां सकृद् धर्मः सा पुनस्तुल्ययोगिता ॥ १८ ॥

Of definite objects, when a common property is mentioned once, that is Equal Pairing.

नियतानां प्रकारणिकानामेव अप्रकारणिकानामेव वा । तमेणोदाहरणम्—

Of definite objects means of objects which are only relevant or of those that are only irrelevant

पाण्डु क्षामं वदनं हृदयं सरस् त्वालस्य च वपुः ।

Pale emaciated face, heart possessed of the sentiment of love and your languid body—

आवेदयति नितान्त क्षेत्रिय रोगैः सङ्क्रि हृदन्तः ॥ ६९ ॥

all this definitely proclaims, O friend, an incurable disease in the heart

कुमुदकमलनीलनोरजाल्लिलितविलासजुषोर्देशो पुरः का ।

What is a row of white lotuses, red lotuses and blue lotuses before your eyes, indulging in graceful sports?

अमृतममृतसरिमरम्भुजन्म प्रतिहतमेकेपदे त्वाननस्य ॥ ७० ॥

The nectar, the moon and the lotus are all struck back at one step in front of your face

( १८ ) व्यतिरेक

(18) Excellence

उपमानाद् यदन्यस्य व्यतिरेकः स एव सः ।

When there is the excellence of the other [i.e the object of comparison] over the standard of comparison, that itself is the figure Excellence

अन्यस्योपमेयस्य, व्यतिरेक आधिक्यम् ।

Of the other means of the object of comparison, excellence means pre-eminence.

क्षीण· क्षीणोऽपि शशी मूयो भूयोऽभिवर्धते नियमम् ।

The moon, though waning again and again always waxes again and again.

तिरयति प्रसाद सुन्दरी यौवननिर्याति यातने तु ॥ ७१ ॥

Desist from pride, be pleased, O beautiful lady, for (tu) youth, when gone, returns not again

Page 122

दशाम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter:

इत्यादौ उपमानस्योपमेयादाधिक्यमिति यत् केनचिदुक्तम् । तदयुक्तम् । अत्र यौवनगतस्यैवाधिक्यं हि विवक्षितम् ।

In the beginning, someone said that the standard of comparison is superior to the object of comparison. That is not appropriate. Here, the superiority of youth is intended.

हेतोरुक्तावनुक्तीनां त्रये साम्ये निवेदिते ॥ ९९ ॥

शब्दार्थोभ्यामथाक्षेपे श्रेष्ठे तद्धित त्रिरिष्ट तत् ।

In the case of word and meaning, or in the case of implication, the best is considered threefold.

व्यतिरेकस्य हेतु उपमेयगतमूलकार्थनिमित्तम्, उपमानगतमपकर्षकारणम् । तयोर्द्वयो रुक्ति एकतरस्य द्वयोरची अनुक्तिरित्यनुक्तित्रयम् । एतद्वेदचतुष्टयमुपमानोपमेयभावे शब्देन प्रतिपादिते । अर्थेन च क्रमेणोक्ताश्रयतार एव भेदा । आक्षिप्ते चतुष्पये तावन्त एव । एवं द्वादश भवन्तीति चतुर्विशतिमेदा ।

The cause of Vyatireka is the reason for the original meaning being rooted in the object of comparison, and the cause of the inferiority being rooted in the standard of comparison. The mention of both, or the non-mention of one or both, gives rise to three varieties. When the relation between the standard and the object is conveyed by a word, there are four varieties. When it is conveyed by implication, there are also four varieties. Thus, there are twelve varieties, and when the four are combined, there are twenty-four varieties.

क्रमेणोदाहरणम्—

Illustration in order—

Somebody has said that in a stanza like this, there is the superiority of the standard of comparison over the object of comparison That is improper For, here the superiority of the instability of youth is intended to be conveyed

Somebody has said that in a stanza like this, there is the superiority of the standard of comparison over the object of comparison. That is improper. For, here the superiority of the instability of youth is intended to be conveyed.

When the two causes [of the superiority of the upameya over the upamāna] are mentioned, in the three cases of the non-mention [of these two causes], when the resemblance is conveyed directly by word and indirectly by sense, then when it is implied, like that in paronomasia, therefore three times eight are the varieties of Excellence

19, 20 ab

The ground of the excellence [of the upameya over the upamana is] the point of excellence found in the object of comparison, or the point of inferiority found in the standard of comparison The mention of either of them or of both—thus [occur] the three non-mentions [giving rise to three more varieties] These four varieties occur when the relation of the standard of comparison with the object of comparison is directly conveyed by means of a word like iva And when it is conveyed in an implied manner only four varieties, mentioned above occur And when the resemblance is suggested, exactly so many varieties occur Thus there are twelve varieties These occur in paronomasia also—thus are twenty-four varieties.

The ground of the excellence [of the upameya over the upamana is] the point of excellence found in the object of comparison, or the point of inferiority found in the standard of comparison. The mention of either of them or of both—thus [occur] the three non-mentions [giving rise to three more varieties]. These four varieties occur when the relation of the standard of comparison with the object of comparison is directly conveyed by means of a word like 'iva'. And when it is conveyed in an implied manner, only four varieties, mentioned above, occur. And when the resemblance is suggested, exactly so many varieties occur. Thus, there are twelve varieties. These occur in paronomasia also—thus are twenty-four varieties.

The following are illustrations in order—

Page 123

आसिमात्रसहायस्य प्रभूतारिफिराभवे । अन्यतुच्छजनस्येव न स्मयोऽस्य महाधृते ॥ ७२ ॥

This [king] of great courage, who possesses only the sword as a companion, entertains no pride, like other mean people, when he defeats many enemies

अत्रैव तुच्‍छेति महाधृतोरित्यनयोः । पर्यायेण युगपद्वादुपादाने उभयत् भेदत्रयम् । एवम् अन्येऽपि द‍ृश्यम् । अत्र इवकारदस्य सक्रवाच्छब्दसौपस्यम् । आसिमात्रसहायोऽपि प्रभूतारिफिराभवे । नैवान्यतुच्छजनवत् सर्गव्‍डयेऽस्य महाधृति ॥ ७३ ॥

अत्र तुल्यार्थे वतिरित्यार्थमौपम्यम् । इयप् सुनयनासा दासीकृततामरसश्रिया । आननेनाकलङ्केन जयतीन्दु कलङ्किनम् ॥ ७४ ॥

Here the affix vat is used in the sense of similar—hence the similarity is indirectly conveyed by sense This [lady] of lovely eyes conquers the spotted moon with her spotless face, which has enslaved the splendour of a lotus

अत्रेवादि-तुल्यादि-पदविरह आक्षिसैवोपमा । जितेन्द्रियतया सम्प्यविधायुक्तद्रुति नेबिन । अतीवागुणस्यास्य नोञ्जवद् भङ्गुरा गुणाः ॥ ७५ ॥

The virtues of this [king], who serves well those that are eminent in learning owing to his having conquered his senses and whose virtues are extremely deep-rooted, are not fragile like the fibres of a lotus.

Page 124

अत्रैवार्थे वति:, गुणशब्द: लिष्ट:, शब्दमौपम्यम् । अखण्डमण्डल. श्रीमान् पत्सैष पृथिवीपतिः । न निशाकरवजातु कलङ्कवैकल्यमागत ॥ ७६ ॥

Here the suffix 'vat' is used in the sense of 'iva', the word 'guna' is used in the sense of 'similarity', and the similarity is expressed through words. The glorious king, whose unbroken circle of kings is like the moon, has never attained deficiency in arts. 76

Here the suffix vat is in the sense of iva, the word guna, [meaning virtue and fibre, is] paronomastic and the similarity is directly expressed by word

अत्र तुल्यार्थे वति:, कलाशब्द: लिष्ट:, अर्थमौपम्यम् । मालाप्रतिमालम्बमानमालं मालावतारकोऽपि संभवति । तस्यापि मतेरेकनिष्ठा: । दिङ्मात्रं चोदाहियते । यथा — हरवल विषमदृश्वैलिन् विमो विधूतविततद्रुचः । रविचलन चातिदु सहस्रकरापतिभू. कदाचिदसति ॥ ७७ ॥

Here the suffix 'vat' is used in the sense of 'tulya', the word 'kala' is used in the sense of 'art', and the similarity is conveyed through the meaning. Like Garland Parallel, Garland Excellence is also possible. The varieties of that [Mala Vyatureka] also should be similarly guessed [as being twenty-four] Only a direction is illustrated. O lord, like Hara you are not possessed of partial sight [also, odd number of eyes], like Hari you have not set aside your all-extending (vitata) duty [also, destroyed the huge bull-demon and] Like the sun you have never oppressed the earth by exceedingly unbearable taxes [also, tormented the earth by extremely unbearable rays] 77

Here the suffix vat is in the sense of tulya, the word kala, [meaning art and digit, is] paronomastic and the similarity is indirectly conveyed by sense.

अत्र तुल्यार्थे वति , विषमादयक्ष शब्दा. लिष्टा । आर्थमौपम्यम् । निल्योदितप्रतापेन त्रियमामीलितप्रभ* । भास्वतानेन भूपेन भास्वानेष विनिर्जितः ॥ ७८ ॥

Here the suffix 'vat' is used in the sense of 'tulya', words like 'visama' are used in the sense of 'paronomasia', and the similarity is conveyed through the meaning. This sun, whose light is rolled up at night, is conquered by this lustrous king, whose valour is always prominent. 78

Here the suffix vat is in the sense of tulya, words like visama are paronomastic and the similarity is conveyed indirectly by sense.

Page 125

अत्र ह्यादितैवोपमा । भास्वत इति श्लिष्ट । यथा वा —

Here, indeed, the simile is only suggested, the word bhāsvatā is paronomastic

Here, indeed (hi), the similitude is only suggested, the word bhāsvatā is paronomastic

स्वच्छालमतागुणसमुल्लसितेनदुविम्बप्रभाप्रभारमकृतिममहद्धयगन्धम् ।

यूनामतीव पिबता रजनिषु यत्र

तृष्णा जहाँ मधु नाननमधूनानाम् ॥ ७९ ॥

Or as in the following Where, while young men were during nights excessively drinking [wine and the mouth of ladies], the wine, but not the mouth of ladies, removed [their] thirst—[the wine and the mouth] where the orb of [viz wine] had the lustre of the Bimba fruit [also, which viz the mouth possessed a lower lip having the lustre of the Bimba-fruit], and which [viz both wine and mouth] possessed natural and attractive fragrance

Or as in the following

अत्रैवादीनां तुल्यादीनां च पदनामभावेऽपि श्लिष्टविशेषणैरेवाधिक्यसोपमा प्रतियते ।

Here, though words like iva and words like tulya are absent, similitude, which is suggested by paronomastic adjectives themselves is apprehended Other varieties also of this kind are possible, as when a word, which is fit for a paronomastic expression, is separately mentioned Those also should be understood in this manner

Here, though words like iva and words like tulya are absent, similitude, which is suggested by paronomastic adjectives themselves is apprehended

एवंजातीयका' श्लिष्टोक्तियोग्यस्य पदस्य पृथगुपादाने डन्येऽपि मेवासंभवन्ति ।

तेऽपि अनयैव दिशा द्रष्टव्या' ।

( १९ ) आक्षेप:

That is Parālpsis, which consists in the denial of a thing intended to be said, with a desire to express some special meaning It is considered to be two-fold according as it refers to what is going to be said and what has already been said.

That is Parālpsis, which consists in the denial of a thing intended to be said, with a desire to express some special meaning

निषेधो वक्तुमिष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया ।

वश्यमाणोक्तविषय: स आक्षेपो द्विधा मतः ॥ २० ॥

Page 126

विवक्षितस्य प्रकारणकलादनुपसर्जनीकार्यस्य अशक्यवक्तव्यतमतिप्रसिद्धत्व वा विशेष वस्तु निषेधो, निषेध इव, य स वाक्यमाणविपय उत्तविषयंश्रिति द्विधा आक्षेप ।

क्रमेणोदाहरणम्—

ए एहि किंपि कीएवि करण णिक्किव भणामि अलमह व ।

अविचारितकार्यारंभकारिणी त्रियता न भणिष्यामि ॥ ८० ॥

[ ए अहि किमपि कस्या अपि कृते निष्क्रुप भणामि अलमह वा ।

अविचारितकार्यारंभकारिणी क्रियता न भणिष्यामि ॥ ]

ज्योत्स्ना मौक्तिकदाम चन्दनरस शीतांशुकान्तर्द्रव

कर्पूर कदली मृणालवलयानि म्भोजिनीपल्वल ।

अन्तर्मनसमास्वाद्या प्रभवता तस्या स्फुटज्ज्वोत्कर-

व्यापाराय भवन्ति हन्त किमनेनोक्तेन न ब्रूमहे ॥ ८१ ॥

( २० ) विभावना

क्रियाया: प्रतिषेधेडपि फलनयक्तिरविभावना ॥ २१ ॥

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—

O, come ! I shall say something for the sake of some lady, O cruel one Or enough Let her, who thoughtlessly made the commencement of an undertaking, die ! I shall not say anything

The moon-light, the necklace of pearls, the juice of sandal, the fluid of moon-stones, camphor, the plantain tree, coils of lotus-fibres and leaves of lotus-plants—all these, ah, owing to you, who are waxing strong in her mind, lead to the operation of a number of sparks for her Alas, what is the use of this being said ? We shall not say this 81

Peculiar Causation is the manifestation of the fruit even in the denial of the action i e the cause

Page 127

हेतुरुपक्रियाया निषेधेऽपि तत्फलप्रकाशनं विभावना । यथा —

Even when the action, which is of the form of a cause, is denied, the manifestation of the fruit thereof constitutes Peculiar Causation

कुसुमितलतामिरहृतायप्यधत्त रुजमथिकुलैरदघापि ।

Though not struck by flowering creepers, she felt pain Though not stung by swarms of bees,

परिवृत्ते रुम नालिनीलहरीमिरलोलिताप्यपूर्णत सा ॥ ८२ ॥

she turned aside. Though not swayed by the waves of a lotus-pond, she rolled about.

( २२ ) विशेषोक्ति:

Peculiar Allegation is the non-statement e of the non-production of the fruit, when the causes are unbroken ie are working properly

विशेषोक्तिरवर्णनेषु कारणेषु फलावचः ।

Peculiar Allegation is the non-statement of the effect, even when the causes are joined together to produce it It is of three kinds viz

मिलितेष्वपि कारणेषु कार्यस्याकथनं विशेषोक्तिः । अनुक्तनिमित्ता,

where the cause is not mentioned, where the cause is mentioned and where the cause is incomprehensible Illustrations in order—

उक्तनिमित्ता, अचिन्त्यानिमित्ता च । ऋषभेणोदाहरणम् —

When sleep was over, when the jewel of the sky [i e the sun] had risen, when friends had approached the region of the door and

निद्रानिवृत्तावुदिते घृतेर्लक्ष्मीजनैर्द्वारपदं परामृते ।

when the lover had slackened the pleasure of embrace, that lady did not move from the embrace

शृङ्गारकृतारेभरसे मृगाङ्गे चचाल नालिकनलोदक्ना सा ॥ ८३ ॥

काम्रीर इव दग्धोऽपि शक्तिमान् यो जने जने ।

A salutation to that crocodile-bannered [Cupid] of irresistible power, who, though burnt down like camphor, is powerful in every

नमो रत्नाव्यवविरयाय तस्मै मकरकेतवे ॥ ८४ ॥

person.

Page 128

स एकबीणि जयति जगन्ति कुसुमायुधः । हरतापि तं यस्मुनाथ हन्ति बलम् ॥ ८५ ॥

That flower-waponed [Cupid] alone conquers the three worlds, whose strength Sambhu did not take away, though he took away his body

( २२ ) यथासङ्ख्यम्

Respective Order is the connection in the same order of objects which are stated in some order

यथासङ्ख्यं क्रमेणैव क्रमिकाणां समन्वयः ॥ २२ ॥

यथा — एकस्सिधा वसति चेतसि चित्रमत्र देव द्विषा च विदुषा च मृगीदृशा च । तापं च समदरसं च रतिं च पुष्णन् शौर्यौष्मणा च विनयेन च लीलया च ॥ ८६ ॥

Here is a wonder, O lord, that being one, you dwell in three ways in the heart of enemies and of the learned and of the deer-eyed ladies, creating pain, the feeling of joy and love by the heat of valour and by modesty and by grace

( २३ ) अर्थान्तरन्यास

That is Corroboration, where a general proposition or a particular proposition is corroborated by a proposition other than that, either through similarity or through its opposite

सामान्यं वा विशेषो वा तदन्येन समर्थ्यते । यत्न सोऽर्थान्तरन्यासः साधर्म्येणैतरेण वा ॥ २३ ॥

साधर्म्येण वैधर्म्येण वा सामान्य विशेषेण यत् समर्थ्यते, विशेषो वा सामान्येन, सोऽर्थान्तरन्यासः । क्रमेणोदाहरणम्—

When through similarity or through dissimilarity a general position is corroborated by a particular or a particular proposition by a general, that is Corroboration Illustrations in order—

Page 129

निजदोषावृतमनसामतिसुन्दरमेव भाति विपरीतम् ।

To those whose mind is overpowered by their own defect, an exceedingly beautiful object itself appears ugly

पश्यति पित्तोपहतः शशिशुभ्रं शङ्खमपि पीतम् ॥ ८७ ॥

A man, stricken with bile, sees even the moon-white conch as yellow

सुसितवसनालङ्काराया कदाचन कौमुदी –

When [a lady] of beautiful eyes, whose dress and ornaments were very white, was once moving wantonly in the festival of the moonlight,

महति सुदृशि स्वैर यान्त्या गतोऽस्तमभूद विधु ।

तदन्तु भवत् । कीर्ति किलान्यगायित, येन सा

the moonset After that your fame was sung by some one, whereby she,

प्रियगृहमगान्मुक्ताराज्ञा, क नासी शुभप्रद ॥ ८८ ॥

who then gave up fear, went to the abode of her lover Where do you not confer blessings on your subjects ?

गुणानामेव दारात्म्याद धुरि धुर्यो नियुज्यते ।

Owing to the wickedness of virtues themselves a leader is joined to the yoke.

असजातकिणस्कन्ध सुखं स्वपिति गौर्गिलि ॥ ८९ ॥

A strong mischievous bull on whose shoulder i.e. neck a scar is not produced, sleeps happily

अहो हि मे बहुपराधमायुषा यदप्रियम् वाच्यमिदम् मयेदृशम् ।

Oh, my life has, indeed (hi), sinned grievously, since I have to utter this disagreeable thing of such import

त एव धन्या सुदृशः परामवं जगत्यद्यैव हि ये क्षय गता ॥ ९० ॥

For, those only are blessed, who met their end without so much as (eva) witnessing the defeat of their friend

( २४ ) विरोध

(24) Contradiction

विरोधः सोज्विरोघेऽपि विरुद्धत्वेन यद् वचः ।

That is Contradiction, which consists in the statement [of two things] as being contradictory even in the absence of such contradiction.

वस्तुतोऽनाविरोधेऽपि विरुद्धार्थे यदभिधानम् स विरोधः ।

जातिश्वतुर्भिज्ञत्याद्वैरीविरुद्धः स्वाद गुणश्रिमिः ॥ २४ ॥

क्रिया द्वाभ्यामथ द्रव्यं द्रव्येणैवेति ते दश ।

Page 130

क्रमेणोदाहरणम्—

अभिनवनालीनिकिसलयमृणालवलयादि दवदहनराशि ।

Fresh leaves of lotus-plants, coils of lotus-fibres and the like become a heap of forest fire to this deer-eyed lady O fortunate one,

सुभग कुड्मलदशो डस्या विधिवशतस्त्वद्रियोगपविपाते ॥ ९१ ॥

at the fall of the thunderbolt (pavih) in the form of your separation through the power of fate

गिरयो डप्यतुल्लतियुजो मरुदव्यचलो डबध्यो डयगम्भीरा ।

Even mountains are void of eminence, even the wind not swift,

विश्वभरा डप्यतिलघुनर्नाथ तवान्तिके नियतम् ॥ ९२ ॥

even the oceans not deep even the all-supporting [earth] exceedingly small, O lord of men, near you indeed

येपा कण्ठपरिग्रहप्रणयिता सप्राप्त्य धाराधर

It is a wonder that the act of decoration is carried out by you, O king, with masses of dust for those kings, whose minds are fixed upon an encounter with you in battle and having obtained the pleasure

स्त्रीक्ष्ण सो डप्यनुरज्यते च कमपि स्नेह परामोति च ।

of grasping the necks of whom even that sharp sword of yours becomes affectionate [also, reddened] and develops some indescribable love [also, greasiness]

तेपा सगरसाक्तसक्तमनसा राजा त्वया भूपते

पासूना पटलैः प्रसाधनविधौर्निर्वर्त्यते कौतुकम् ॥ 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

24 cd 25 ab

Illustrations in order—

Page 131

सृजति च जगदिमवति च सहृरति च हेलयैव यो नियतम् । अवसरवशात् शफरो जनार्दन सोऽपि चित्रभिदम् ॥ ९४ ॥

Who creates this world, protects it and withdraws it with perfect (eva) ease, certainly,—even that Janārdana became a fish owing to the demand of the occasion This is wonderful

सततं मुसलासक्ता बहुतरगृहकर्मघटनया तुपते । द्विजपत्नीनां कठिना सति भवति करा सरोजकुलुम्मारा ॥ ९५ ॥

The hands of the wives Brāhmanas, which clung to the pestle and which had grown rough by the incessant performance of the many house-hold duties, become delicate like lotuses, when you are there as a liberal donor

पेशल्मापि खलवचनं देहोत्कर्ष माने स सत्प्रवन्धाम् । पुरुषमपि सुजनवाक्यं मलयजरसवत् प्रमोदयति ॥ ९६ ॥

The word of the wicked, though tender, extremely burns the mind of the knowers of truth The sentence of good people, though harsh, gladdens it, like the juice of sandal

क्रौञ्चादिरुदामघदूदृढोऽसौ यन्मार्गणानर्गलशातपाते । अभून्नवाम्भोजदलामिजात स भार्गव सत्प्रपूर्वर्षि: ॥ ९७ ॥

That son of Bhrgu viz. Parasurama was truly an extraordinary creation, at the unrestricted and sharp fall of whose arrow that Krauñca mountain, hard owing to huge rocks, became tender like the petal of a new lotus

परिच्छेदातीत सकलवचनालामविषय पुनर्जन्मनयस्मिन्ननुभवपर्य्य यो न गतवान्। विवेकप्रवासादुपचितमहामोहगहनो विकारं कोऽप्यन्तर्जडयति च तापं च कुरते ॥ ९८ ॥

Some indescribable internal emotion gladdens me and at the same time causes me affliction—[the emotion] which transcends definition, which is not the province of all : e any words, which again had not fallen within the range of experience in this life and which is impenetrable owing to the great infatuation that has grown strong on account of the complete destruction of discrimination

१ 'सत्प्र०' इत्यपि पाठः ।

Page 132

अय वारामेको निलय इति रत्नाकर इति श्रितोऽस्माभिस्तृण्णातरलमनोभिरजलनिधि ।

This ocean was resorted to by us, whose minds were rendered unsteady by thirst, thinking 'This is the sole abode of water' and 'This is a mine of jewels'

क एव जानाति निजकल्पटीकोटिरगतं क्षणादेन ताम्यतिममकरमापास्यति मुनि ॥ ९९ ॥

Who would know thus that the sage [Agastya] would completely drink this ocean in a moment so as to put in distress the fish and alligators therein placing it in the hollow of the cavity of his hand ?

समदभितक्नुजमदजलस्रन्दतरङ्गिणीपारपरिखज्ज्वालैः ।

On account of the contact with the river of the flow of the water of the ichor of intoxicated elephants,

स्थितितिलक त्वयि टटजुषि शंकरचूडापगापि कालिन्दी ॥ १०० ॥

even the river on the crest of Śaṅkāra viz the Gaṅgā becomes dark like the Kālinḍī e the Yamunā, O ornament of the earth, when you are resorting to its bank

(२५) स्वभावोक्ति

But Description of Nature is the description of the action and form peculiar to a child etc

स्वभावोक्तिस्तु डिम्बादेः स्वक्रियारूपवर्णनम् ॥ २५ ॥

Of the own means residing in those only

स्वयोस्वदेकाश्रययो । रूप वर्ण सस्थानं च ।

Form means colour and figure

उदाहरणम्—

Here is an illustration—

पश्चादड्ग्र्री प्रसार्य त्रिकनतिविततं द्राघयित्वाऽऽत्ममुच्चै-

Having stretched out his hinder legs, having elongated his body at full length (uccah) so as to bend and expand the spine,

रासङ्याशुभकण्ठो मुहुरमुरसि स्फ्य घूलीष्ठुरां विधूय ।

having leaned his mouth on his chest as he bends (ābhugna) the neck and having tossed his mane smoky with dust, the horse, gently neighing,

Page 133

घासग्रासामिलाषादनवरतचलोऽयातुणडस्तुरखो मन्दं शब्दायमानो विलिखति धरणादुद्वलित* क्षमा खुरेण ॥ १०१ ॥

which has risen from his bed and whose face has the nostrils (proithah) incessantly moving on account of a desire for mouthfuls of fodder, is scratching the earth with his hoof

101

(२६) व्याजस्तुति

26 ab

Artful Praise occurs when there is censure or praise on the face but the ultimate purpose is otherwise

व्याजस्तुतिमुखे निन्दा स्तुतिर्‌वा रूढिरन्थया । व्याजेन व्याजरूपो वा स्तुतिः । ऋषिगणावधारणम्—

[Artful Praise means] praise by means of an artifice i e by the use of an apparent dispraise or praise which is of the form of an artifice

हिला त्वामुपरोधवन्‌व्यमनसा मन्ये न मौलि परो लज्जावर्जनमनुदरण न रमामनयत्र संदृश्यते ।

i e is not genuine praise, but is really censure Illustrations in order—

यस्यां गतुतरेति मुवशतैरितेत्याश्रितया* प्रिय प्राप्य त्यागक्तावमाननमपि लघ्येव यस्या. स्पृति. ॥ १०२ ॥

Excepting you there is no other, I think, who deserves to be at the head of those whose minds are barren of regard [for their devotees], except in Rāmā, [the goddess of wealth,] abandonment of shame is seen nowhere else -you who abundantly give away Śrī [i e wealth] that in a hundred ways comes and resorts to you , she who, though subjected to humiliation caused by her abandonment by you, resides in you alone

102

हे हेलाजितबोधिसत्व वचसा कि विस्तरैरस्त्वोयधे नास्ति ललादरः पर परहिताधाने गृहीत्वात्र ।

O you ocean, that have with ease conquered the Buddha, what is the use of the prolixity of words? There is no other like you, who has taken a vow for doing good to others, since out of compassion you lend help to Maru in shouldering the burden of infamy incurred by aversion to confer obligation on thirsty travelling folk

तृष्यत्पान्यानुपकारघटनवैमुख्यलब्ध्याश्रयो—भारप्रोद्घने करोति कृपया साहाय्य* यन्मरौ* ॥ १०३ ॥

103

१ 'घासग्रासा मिलाषादन' इति प्रायः सर्वेषु मुद्रित पुस्तकेषु पाठः ।

Page 134

सा सहोक्तिः सहार्थस्य ब्लादेकं द्विवाचकम् ॥ २६ ॥

Sahaukti is when a word expresses two meanings with the sense of 'with'.

एकार्थाभिधायकमपि सहार्थबलात् यत् उभयस्यावगमक सा सहोक्तिः ।

It is called Sahaukti when a word, even if it denotes one meaning, conveys two meanings due to the force of the meaning 'with'.

यथा—

For example—

सह दिवसनिसागंहि दीहा सामदया ।

Along with days and nights, longing became long, filled with love.

सह मणिवलयेहिं वप्पघारा गलन्ति ।

Tears flow along with jeweled bracelets.

तुह सुहअ विओए तइअ उव्विगिरिआए ।

In your absence, O dear one, she is distressed.

सह अ तणुलदाए दुह्बला जीवितासा ॥ १०४ ॥

Along with her slender body, her life force becomes weak.

[ सह दिवसनिसाभिरिं दीर्घा श्वासदण्डा

[ Along with days and nights, long sighs

सह मणिवलयैर्बाष्पधारा गलन्ति ।

flow along with jeweled bracelets.

तव सुभग वियोगे तस्या उद्विग्नाप्या

In your absence, O dear one, she is distressed.

सह च तनुल्नया दुर्ब्बला जीवितागा । ]

Along with her slender body, her life force becomes weak.

श्वासदण्डादिगत दीर्घादि शब्दम्, दिवसनिशादिगत तु सहार्थ-

The word 'long' is used for sighs, and 'days and nights' is understood by the power of the meaning 'with'.

सामध्यात् प्रतिपदते ।

It is understood through the context.

( २८ ) विनोक्ति

(28) Vinoakti

विनोक्तिः सा विनान्येन यत्रान्यः सन्न् नेतरः ।

Vinoakti is when one thing is not good or is not otherwise without the other.

That is Speech with With', when through the force of the meaning of 'with', one word becomes expressive of two senses

When a word though expressive of one sense, conveys two senses through the force of the meaning of 'with', that is Speech with 'With'

For example—

Her protracted sighs become long with days and nights Showers of tears drop down with jewelled bracelets In your absence O fortunate one, the hope of life of that distressed lady becomes weak with her creeper-like body

Length etc found in protracted sighs and the like, are directly expressed by word, but as found in days nights and the like they are understood by the power of the meaning of 'with'

That is Speech with 'Without' where a 'thing is not good or is not otherwse [ i e not good or bad] without i e in the absence of another

Somewhere a thing is represented as not-good in the absence of another and somewhere it is represented as good in the absence of another Illustrations in order—

Page 135

काचिदर्शयति, काचिच्छोभते। ऋमेणोदाहरणम्‌—

अरुचिर्निशया विना राशी राशिना वापि विना महत्‌ तम्‌।

उभयेन विना मनोभवसुरित नैव चकास्ति कामिनोः॥ १०५ ॥

Void of lustre (arucı) is the moon without the night , that night also is a huge darkness without the moon Without both these the throb : e the working of love of two loving people does not shine at all

मृगालोचनया विना विचित्रव्यवहारप्रतिभाप्रभाप्रगल्भ‌।

अमृतधृतिसुन्दराशयोऽपि शुद्धस्तेन विना नरेन्द्रसुतः॥ १०६ ॥

Without the deer-eyed lady, this prince is prominent with the lustre of his genius in varied affairs Without that friend he comes to possess a mind beautiful like moon.

( २९) परिवृत्ति।

परिवृत्तिर्यिनिमयो योज्योऽपि स्यात्‌ समासमे॥ २७ ॥

Barter is that which would be the exchange of things for equals and unequals.

परिवृत्तिलङ्कारः। उदाहरणम्‌—

The word Barter in the above definition is the name of the figure

लताग्रनमेतासामुदितकुसुमाना मरुद्रयै

मत लास्यं दत्ता श्रयति मृशमामोदमसमम‌।

लतास्त्वक्वचन्यानामहह दर्शमदाय सहसा

तदत्क्षयादिव्याधिप्रभवितमोहव्यतिकरम्‌॥ १०७ ॥

Having given an agreeable dance to these creepers, on which flowers have arisen, thus wind plentifully receives from them uncommon fragrance. But the creepers, alas, having taken the eye of travellers. give them the mixture (vyatikarah) of pang, disease, delusion, weeping and swoon.

अत्र प्रथमेऽर्धे समेन समस्य, द्वितीये उत्तमेन यूनस्य।

Here m the first half there is an exchange of an equal with an equal and in the second of an inferior with a superior.

Page 136

नानाविधप्रहरणैर्नृप सग्रहारे स्त्रीकृत्य दारणनिनादवत प्रहारान्।

With various weapons, O king, in the tumult of battle, having made the enemy warriors' weapons resound like the roar of a lion,

दसारवोरविसरेरण वसुधरेयं निर्विघ्नप्रलम्भपाररम्भविधिवितीर्णा ॥ १०८ ॥

this earth, whose mode of embracing is without separation, has been made over to you by the collection of the proud warriors of the enemy.

अत्र न्यूननोत्तमस्य ।

Here there is an exchange of a superior with an inferior.

प्रत्यक्षा इव यद् भावाः क्रियन्ते भूतभाविनः ।

When objects past and future, are represented as though before one's eyes [i.e. present], that is Vision.

तद् भाविकम्

भूताश्व भाविनश्चेति द्वन्द्व । भाव कवेरभिप्रायोऽत्रास्तीति भाविकम् ।

Past and future—thus [the word bhūtabhāvinah] is a Dvandva compound. Here there is bhāva i.e. the intention of the poet—for this reason the figure is called Bhāvika.

उदाहरणम्—

Here is an illustration—

आसीदज्ञानमत्रेति पश्यामि तव लोचने ।

I see your eyes with the idea (iti) that here there was collirium.

भाविभूषणसंभारा साक्षाल्कुर्ये तवाकृतिम ॥ १०९ ॥

I visualize your form as having a load of future ornaments.

अत्र आद्ये भूतस्य, द्वितीये भाविनो दर्शयम् ।

Here in the first half there is an imaginary perception of a past object and in the second of a future.

काव्यलिङ्गं हेतौकोपपदार्थता ॥ २८ ॥

Poetical Cause arises when a reason takes the form of the meaning of a sentence and of a word or words.

Page 137

वाक्यार्थता यथा— वपु प्रादुर्भावदनुमितमिदं जन्मनि पुरा पुरारे न प्रायः कचिदपि भवन्तं प्रणतवान् । नम्न्नुक्तः सप्रत्यहमततुरुषेऽप्यनतिभाक् महेश क्षन्तव्यं त्वद्‌दैनमपराधद्वयमपि ॥ ११० ॥

In the following a reason is represented as being the sense of a sentence— On account of the appearance of the body this is inferred by me that I probably did not bow to you, O enemy of cities, i e Śiva, in any former birth Now bowing to you and therefore being released, I, who would thus have no body, would not in the future also resort to a bow to you O great lord, therefore, even these two faults should be forgiven

अनेकपदार्थता यथा— प्रणयिसखीविसलोलपरिहाससाधिगतै- र्ललितशिरीषपुष्पहवननैरपि ताम्यति यत् । वपुषि वधाय तत्र तव शस्त्रमुपधिप्त- पत्तु शिरीषकाण्डयमदण्ड इवैव मुज॑ ॥ १११ ॥

In the following a reason is represented as being the sense of many words— Let this hand, like the sudden-deseending rod of Death fall on the head of you, who are hurling a weapon for striking (vadhah) at that body, which is pained even with the strokes of delicate Śirīṣa flowers, received from loving friends in a spirit of sportive jest

एकपदार्थता यथा— भस्मोद्‌धूलन भद्रमस्तु भवते रुद्राक्षमाले शुभ- हा सोपानपरम्परा गिरिशुताकान्ताल्यालकृतिम् ।

In the following a reason is represented as being the sense of one word— O smearing with ashes, may good be to you , O garland of berries, may bliss attend you , alas for the flight of stars, which adorns the temple of the Lover of the Mountain's daughter We are being placed

Page 138

अद्याराधनतोषितेन विभुना युष्मत्सपर्यासुखा लोकोच्छेदिनी मोक्षनमामनि महामोहे निघीयामहे ॥ ११२ ॥

Today in the great swoon, named release, which uproots the light in the form of the pleasure of service to you, by the Lord, pleased with our propitiation

एषु अपराधद्वये पूर्वोपरजनमनोरमनमम्, भुजपाते शास्त्रोपद्योप महामोहे सुकालोकोच्छेदित् च यथात्रामुक्तरूपो हेतुः ।

(३२) पर्यायोक्तम्

Periphrasis or Circumlocution

पर्यायोक्तं विना वाच्यवाचकत्वेन यद् वचः । वाच्यवाचकभावव्यतिरिक्तेनावगमनव्यापारेण यत् प्रतिपादनम्, तत् पर्यायोक्तं भण्यन्तरण कथनात् पर्यायोक्तम् । उदाहरणम्—

That conveying of a certain fact, which is done by the process of suggestion, different from the relation of the expressed and the expresser, is Periphrasis, on account of the statement having been made by means of a different mode of speech

य प्रेयान् चिररूषितापि निवासप्रीतिरुजिज्ञिता । मदनेरावणमुखे मानेन हृदये हरे ॥ ११३ ॥

On seeing whom the love of residence on the face of Airāvana, and in the heart of Indra, though cultivated, was abandoned by ichor and pride respectively

अत्र ‘ऐरावणशक्रौ मदमानसुत्कटौ जातौ’ इति व्यङ्ग्यमपि शब्देनोच्यते । तेन यदेवोच्यते तदेव व्यङ्ग्यं न तथोच्यते । यथा गत्वा शुके चलति यद्यप्योच्यते ।

In these stanzas non-salutation in the former and future births for the two faults, the hurling of a weapon for the fall of the hand and the characteristic of uprooting the light in the form of pleasure for the great swoon, represent respectively the reason of the said form of pleasure

Here the statement ‘Airāvana and Indra became divested of ichor and pride,’ though forming the suggested sense, is expressed by means of words Therefore, what is exactly as expressed is itself suggested. But as it is suggested, so is that form it is not expressed As when a

Page 139

दष्टे ‘गौ शुरक्षति’ इति विकल्पः । यदेव दष्टं तदेव विकल्प्यते, न तु यथा दष्टं तथ। यतोऽभिनाससृष्टल्लेन दष्टं भेदसर्गाभ्यां विकल्प्यते ।

When we see, we form a notion; what is actually seen is what is conceived, not as it is seen. Because what is seen is conceived in terms of distinction and creation.

( ३३ ) उदात्तम्

( ३३ ) उदात्तम् उदात्ते वस्तुनः संपत्, महता चोपलक्षणम् ॥ २९ ॥ संपत् समृद्धियोग । यथा— मुक्ता केलिविसूत्रहरागलिता समर्जनीभिहिता ग्रात प्राकृतसीम्नि मन्थरचला द्वाराढुत्पिलाक्षरुणा । दूराद डिम्बीजशकृद्विकचविचय कर्षन्ति केलीशुकाः यद विद्रुमवनेषु भोजनपतसस्तत त्यागलीलायितम् ॥ ११४ ॥

The Exalted is the description of the prosperity of a thing and the subordination of the great. Prosperity means connection with plenty. For example—

उपलक्षणमद्धाव, अथादुपलक्षणीयेऽर्थे । उदाहरणम-- तदिदमरण्य यस्मिन दशरथवचनानुपालनव्यसनी । निपततां बाहुसहायपक्षवात् रक्षो रामः ॥ ११५ ॥

Subordination means the position of being subordinate, of course to the object which is to be indicated i.e to be described. An illustration—

moving white bull is seen, [one gets] the determinate cognition ‘A white bull moves’ What exactly is seen, that same is determinately cognized, but not in that form in which it was seen Since one determinate—ly cognizes, as characterized by distinction and connection, what was seen as undistinguished and unconnected

The Exalted is the description of the prosperity of a thing and the subordination of the great 29 cd

Prosperity means connection with plenty For example—

away pearls, suspecting them in their minds to be the seeds of pomegranates from a distance—the pearls which dropped down from necklaces that lost their strings in sports, which were swept away with brooms and which were reddened by the lac-dye of the feet of young girls moving slowly on the border of the courtyard in the morning—that is the play of the liberality of King Bhoja 114

Subordination means the position of being subordinate, of course to the object which is to be indicated i e to be described An illustration—

This is that forest, living where Rāma, devoted to abiding by the words of Daśaratha, effected the destruction of demons, with only his arms as helpers. 115

Page 140

न चात्र वीरो रसः, तस्येहाङ्गत्वात् ।

And here the heroic sentiment is not [the principal topic], because that heroic sentiment is here subordinate

(३४) समुच्चय

30 abc

तत्सिद्धिहेतावेकस्मिन् यत्रान्यत् तत्करं भवेत् ।

That is Conjunction, where one cause competent to accomplish that [result] being present another producing that same result would also be present

समुच्चयोसौ

viz the relevant result is present, other causes also arise, that is Conjunction To illustrate —

तस्य प्रसक्तस्य कार्यस्य एकस्मिन् साधके स्थिते साधकान्तराणि यत्र सभवन्ति, स समुच्चय । उदाहरणम्—

Where, when one cause competent to accomplish (sādhaka) that

दुर्वीरा स्मरमार्गणा प्रियतमो दूरे मनोऽद्युत्सुकं

The arrows of love irresistible , the lover is at a distance, the mind is exceedingly love-sick or eager ,

गाढं प्रेम नवं वयोऽतिकठिना प्राणा कुलं निर्मलम् ।

the love is deep , the age is new

क्षीणं धैर्यविरोधि मनःसुहृद्कालः ऋतुस्तोऽक्षमो

i e young, the vital airs are hard , the family is spotless , woman's nature is opposed to patience , the season is the friend of love ,

नो सद्यःश्वतुरा कथं नु विरहः सोढव्य इत्यर्थः ॥ १९६ ॥

Death is unable to take life away , friends are not clear , how possibly is wicked separation to be thus endured ?

अत्र विरहासहिष्णुता स्मरमार्गणा एव कुवीरन्ति, तदुपरि प्रियतमदूरेत्यादि

Here the arrows of Love themselves produce the unbearableness of separation Over and above them the presence of the lover at a distance and others are stated

उपात्तम् ।

Page 141

एष एव समुच्चय: सद्योगेडसयोगे सदसद्योगे च पर्यवस्यतीति न पृथक् लक्ष्यते। तथाहि-

This very Conjunction results in i e involves the combination of good things, the combination of bad things and the combination of good and bad things Therfore it is not defined separately as having three varieties

कुलममालिन् भद्रा मूर्तिमान्ति श्रुतशालिनी भुजबलमल स्फीता लक्ष्मी प्रभुत्वमखण्डितम्। प्रकृतिसुभगा होते भावाः अमीभिरिय जनों व्रजति सुतरा दर्पं राजस्त्व एव तवाऽद्भुतः॥ ११७॥

A spotless family, a handsome form, a mind shining with learning, sufficient strength of arms, abundant wealth, unbroken sovereignty—these things are indeed, charming by nature Owing to these, this person i e an ordinary man, attains pride excessively O king, those things themselves are goads to you

Here there is a combination of good things

अत्र सतां योग।

उक्तोदाहरणे त्वसता योग।

But in the illustration quoted before there is a combination of bad things

राशी दिवंसधूसरो गलितयौवन कामिनी सरो विगतवारिज मुखमनक्षर स्वाकृतेः। प्रभुर्धनपरायण सततदुर्गित सजनो नृपाक्कणगत खलो मनसि सत शल्यानी मे॥११८॥

The moon that has become pale by day, a passionate woman who has lost hre youth, a lake from which lotuses have disappeared, the mouth of a beautiful form with no letters in it, a king intent on amassing wealth, a good man always involved in difficulties, a wicked man gone to a king's courtyard—these are seven darts in my mind

अत्र शाशिनि धूसरे शल्ये शाल्यान्तरार्णीतित शोभनाशोभनयोग।

Here the dost of the pale moon being there, other dosts present, themselves thus giving rise to a combination the good and bad

But that is another [Conjunction], represented by qualities and actions which are simultaneous.

स त्वन्यो युगपद् या गुणाक्रियाः॥३०॥

Page 142

गुणौ च क्रिये च गुणक्रिये च गुणक्रिया । क्रमेंणोदाहरणम्--

Qualities and actions mean two qualities, two actions and a quality and an action

विदलितसकलारिकुल तव तन बलमिदमभवदाशु विमल च ।

This army of yours, which destroyed the collection of all enemies,

प्रकटमुखानि नराधिप मालिनानि च तानि जातानि ॥ ११९ ॥

became at once brilliant and simultaneously those faces of the extremely wicked enemies became gloomy

अयमेकपदे तयोः प्रयोगः प्रियया चोपनत शुद्धु सहो मे ।

This separation from that beloved, which has occurred suddenly,

नववारिधरोदयादोहितमिवातपस्य च निरातपत्वम् ॥ १२० ॥

is exceedingly unbearable to me And simultaneously the days have become delightful owing to the absence of heat on account of the rise of new clouds

कलुष च तवाहितेष्वक्ष्मात् सितपक्षैरुहरसोदरश्री चक्षुः ।

Your eye, whose lustre is similar to that of a white lotus, became

पतित च महीपतीन्द्र तेषा वपुषि प्रसक्तमापदा कटाक्षैः ॥ १२१ ॥

all of a sudden turbid i e angry towards the enemies And simultaneously the glances of adversities distinctly fell on their body, O lord of kings

'धुनोति चासि तनुते च कीर्तिम्'-इत्यादे, 'कृपाणपाणिश्च भवान् रणक्षितौ ससाधुवादक्ष सुरालये'-इत्यादेश दर्शीनात्, 'व्यधिकरणे' इति 'एकस्मिन् देशे' इति च न वाच्यम् ।

It should not be said that the figure Conjunction occurs in a different abode [i e when the abodes of the qualities and actions depicted as simultaneous are different] and in one abode, for the figure is seen in cases like 'He flourishes the sword and spreads fame simultaneously,' and in cases like 'You take the sword in hand on the field of battle at the same time the gods utter the word 'Good'

( ३५ ) पर्यायः

31 ab

एक क्रमेणानेकस्मिन् पर्यायः

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

Page 143

एकं वस्तु क्रमेणाने कस्मिन्न् भवति क्रियते वा, स पर्यायः ।

One thing is or is made to be in many places in succession — that is Succession.

क्रमेणोदाहरणम्— नन्वाश्रयस्यितिरियं तव कालकूट- केतोरोत्पत्तिविपरीतोष्णोदपिष्ठ । प्रागर्णवस्य हृदये वृषलक्षणोडय- कण्ठेकडहुना वसति वाचि पुनः खलजनाम् ॥ १२२ ॥

नन्वाश्रयस्यितिरियं तव कालकूटकेतोरोत्पत्तिविपरीतोष्णोदपिष्ठ । प्रागर्णवस्य हृदये वृषलक्षणोडयकण्ठेकडहुना वसति वाचि पुनः खलजनाम् ॥ १२२ ॥

Well, O deadly poison, who advised you this mode of taking resort, wherein each succeeding abode excels each preceding ? Formerly you dwelt in the heart of the ocean, then in the throat of Siva, now again you live in the speech of rogues

यथा वा— बिम्बोष्ठ एव रागस्ते ताव्‍न् पूर्वमद्‌भुत । अधुना हृदयेड्‌येष मृगशावाक्षि लक्ष्यते ॥ १२३ ॥

Or as follows — On your bimba-like lower lip only, O slender girl, redness was seen before. Now this [ redness, also punningly, love ] is seen, O lady of eyes resembling those of a young one of a deer, in the heart also.

बिम्बोष्ठ एव रागस्ते ताव्‍न् पूर्वमद्‌भुत । अधुना हृदयेड्‌येष मृगशावाक्षि लक्ष्यते ॥ १२३ ॥

On your bimba-like lower lip only, O slender girl, redness was seen before. Now this [ redness, also punningly, love ] is seen, O lady of eyes resembling those of a young one of a deer, in the heart also.

रागस्य वस्तुतो मेदेड्‌येकतयोर्यवस्थितावोक्तलक्षणविरुद्धम् । तं ताण सिरिसहोअररअणाहरणम्मि हिअअमेकरसम्म । बिस्वाहरे पिआण णिवेसिअ कुसुमाणेरण ॥ १२४ ॥

Though rāga [ meaning redness and love ] is in reality different, its character as one as required by this figure is not contradicted owing to the two different rāgas having been definitely ascertained as identical

तं ताण सिरिसहोअररअणाहरणम्मि हिअअमेकरसम्म । बिस्वाहरे पिआण णिवेसिअ कुसुमाणेरण ॥ १२४ ॥

That heart of theirs, which was solely devoted to [ Visnu ] who is decked with the jewel born with ( sahodara ) Srī, has been placed by the flowerarrowed [ Cupid ] on the bimba — like lower lip of their beloveds.

Page 144

[ तद् तेषा श्रीसहोदररलाभरणे हृदयमेकरसम् । बिम्बाधरे प्रियाणां निवेशितं कुशुमवाणेन ॥ ]

[Their heart became one with the ornament of the splendor of its companion. The arrow of Cupid was placed on the lip, which is a reflection (of beauty).]

अन्यस्ततोऽन्यथा ।

अनेकमेकस्मिन् क्रमेण भवति क्रियते वा, सोऽन्यः । ऋमेणोदाहरणम् — मधुरमिरुचिर वचः खलानाममृतमहो प्रथमं पृथु व्यनक्ति । अथ कथयति मोहहेतुमन्तर्गतं विष तदेव ॥ १२५ ॥

Many things are or are made to be in many places—that is another Succession. Illustrations in order—The word of the wicked, charming owing to sweetness, manifests, oh, ample nectar first. Afterwards the same [word] proclaims the cause of infatuation, lying inside it, like the deadly poison.

तद् गेहं नतमित्ति मन्दिरमिति लघ्यावकारो दिव सा घेनुर्जरती नदन्ति करिणामेता घनाभा घटा । स शुद्रो मुरलच्छनि कलमिति संगीतक योषिताम् आश्रये दिवसैर्दिजोऽडयमियर्त्तीं भूमिं समारोपित ॥ १२६ ॥

[Formerly there was] that house of bent walls, [now there is] this mansion, which has obtained room from sky, [formerly there was] that old cow, [now] these multitudes of elephants, resembling clouds, are making noise, [Formerly there was] that wretched sound of the pestle, [now there is] this sweet singing of women. It is wonder that this Brāhmana has been raised to such position by the lapse of a few days.

अत्र एकस्यैव हानोपादानयोरविवक्षितत्वात् न परिकृति ।

Here as the abandonment and receipt by one and the same is not intended, there is no Barter.

(३६) अनुमानम्

अनुमानं तदुक्तं यत् साध्यसाधनयोर्वचः ॥ ३१ ॥

Inference is said to be that which is the statement of the conclusion and the reason.

Page 145

पक्षधर्मान्वयव्यतिरेकिल्वेन त्रिरुपो हेतु साधनम्‌ । धर्मिणि अयोग-

A reason, which has three characteristics in its capacity of being

व्यवच्छेदो व्यापकस्य साध्यम्‌ । यथा—

the attribute of the thing in connection with which something is being proved (pakṣadharmah), of being present in a place ascertained to possess the thing to be proved (anvayaḥ) and of absent from a place ascertained not to possess the thing to be proved (vyatirekaḥ);

यत्रैता लहरीचलाचलदृशो व्याप्रियन्ति भुवं यत्र तत्रैव पतन्ति सततं मम मर्मसृशो मार्गणाः ।

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.

तच्चत्रीकृतचापमथितशरैः प्रेढ़ीकृत्करौघनो धावत्यग्रे शासनधरः स तं सदास स्मरः ॥ १२७ ॥

साध्यसाधनयोः पौर्वापर्यविकल्पे न किञ्चिद् वैचित्र्यमिति न तथा दर्शितम्‌ ।

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.

(३७) परिकर

विशेषणैर्यत् साकूतैरेक्तिः परिकरस्तु सः ।

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

अर्थाद् विशेष्यस्य । उदाहरणम्‌—

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

A reason, which has three characteristics in its capacity of being the attribute of the thing in connection with which something is being proved (pakṣadharmah), of being present in a place ascertained to possess the thing to be proved (anvayaḥ) and of absent from a place ascertained not to possess the thing to be proved (vyatirekaḥ); 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—

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—

Page 146

महौजसो मानधना धनार्चिता

Of great lustre, having pride as their wealth

धनुर्भृत सत्यपतिल लब्धकीर्तयः ।

Honoured with wealth, who have won fame in battle

न सहतास्तस्य न भेदृश्यतय

Who are not united [for selfish purposes], whose tendency is not towards dissension long to achieve his desired object with their lives

प्रियाणि वाज्छित्यसुभि समीहितुम् ॥ १२८ ॥

यथायथपदार्थस्य दोषताभिधानात् तन्निवारणेन पुष्टार्थस्वीकरणं कर्त्त, तथायेकनिष्ठत्वेन बहुत्वा विरेषणनामेवमुपनयासे वैचित्र्यमिल्यलकारामध्ये गणित ।

(३८) व्याजोक्ति

व्याजोक्तिश्च्छन्नवोधिरवस्तुतुल्यपानिग्रुहेनम् ॥ ३२ ॥

निगूढमपि वस्तुनो रूपं कथमपि प्रभिन्न केनापि व्यपदेशेन यदपहूयते, सा व्याजोक्तिः । न चैषापलुतिः, प्रकृतप्रकृतोभयान्निःसृतस्य साम्यस्येहासंभवात् ।

When the real nature of a thing hidden, but somehow divulged is by means of some pretext concealed, that is speech of pretext And this not Concealment, because there is no possibility of similarity belonging to both the relevant and the irrelevant

उदाहरणम्—

Here is an illustration—

शैलेंद्रप्रतिपाद्यमानगिरिजाहस्तोपगूढोहलस्-

द्रोमाक्षादिविसंघुलाक्षिविलविधियासज्जभन्नाकुल ।

May Siva protect you—[Siva,] who was perturbed (visamsthula) by horripilation etc which arose from close contact with the hand of Pārvatī that was being given away by the lord of the mountains and

Bow wielders i e warriors, of great lustre, having pride as their wealth, honoured with wealth, who have won fame in battle, who are not united [for selfish purposes], whose tendency is not towards dissension long to achieve his desired object with their lives

Although an adjective which does not nourish the sense, is declared to involve a poetical defect and consequently by rejecting such an adjective, one which nourishes the sense has been accepted as fit for use, yet when many adjectives are thus i e significantly used as belonging to one [substantive], a special strikingness arises Therefore, the Significant has been counted among figures

Speech of Pretext is the concealment by means of a Pretext, of the real nature of a thing which has somehow been divulged,

Page 147

हा शैल्य तुहिनाच्चदंस्य करयोरित्यूचिवान् सस्मित शैतान्त पुरमातॄमण्डलगणैर्देशे डवताद् व शिव ।। १२९ ।।

hā śailya tuhināccadṃsya karayorityūcivān sasmita śailāntapuramātṛmaṇḍalagaṇairdeśe ḍavatād v śiva .. 129 ..

who was distressed by the break of his attention to all the ceremonies of marriage, who thereupon said 'Oh, the coolness of the hands of the Mountain of snow !' and who was with a smile looked at by the wives of the Mountain, the circle of the Mothers and his own group of followers

अत्र पुलकत्रेपथू सात्विकरुपतया प्रसृतौ शेत्यकारणतया प्रकाशितत्वादप्यपितस्वरूपौ व्याजोक्तिं प्रयोजयत ।

atra pulakatrepathū sāttvikarupatayā prasṛtau śetyakāraṇatayā prakaśitatvādapyapitassvarūpau vyājoktiṃ prayojayat .

Here as horripilation and tremor, winch arose in the form of outward manifestations of internal emotion ( sāttvikah ), are made out as caused by the coolness [of Himalaya's hands ], their nature is concealed and hence give rise to speech of pretext.

( ३९ ) परिसंख्या

( 39 ) parisankhyā

किंचित् पृष्टमपूष्टं वा कथितं यत् प्रकल्प्यते । तत्रगन्यान्यपोहाय परिसंख्या तु सा स्मृता ।। ३३ ।।

kiṃcit pṛṣṭamapṛṣṭaṃ vā kathitaṃ yat prakalpyate . tatraganyānyapoḥāya parisankhyā tu sā smṛtā .. 33 ..

When the statement of something, whether asked or unasked, leads to the exclusion of another thing similar to it is Exclusion

प्रमाणान्तरागतमपि वस्तु शब्देन प्रतिपादित प्रयोजनान्तराभावात् सदृशस्व-

pramāṇāntarāgatampi vastu śabdena pratipādita prayojanāntarābhāvāt sadrśasva-

When a thing, though known from another means of proof, and yet expressed by word, leads to the exclusion of another similar thing on account of the absence of any other purpose for such expression of it , that would be Exclusion.

स्वन्तरयवच्छेदाय यत् पर्यवस्यति, सा भवेत् परिसंख्या । अत्र च कथनं प्रश्नपूर्वक तदन्यथा च परिदृष्टम् । तथा उभयत्र व्यपोहमानस्य प्रतीयमानता वाच्यत्व चेति चत्वारो भेदा ।

svantarayavaççhedāya yat paryavasthiti, sā bhavet parisankhyā . atra ca kathanaṃ praśnapūrvaka tadananyathā ca paridṛṣṭam . tathā ubhayatra vyapoḥamānasy pratīyamānata vācyatva ceti catvāro bhedā .

And here the statement is seen to be preceded by a query and otherwise similarly, in both cases the thing excluded is suggested and expressed - thus there are four varieties. Here are illustrations in order-

ऋमेणोदाहरणम् —

ṛmeṇodāharaṇam —

Page 148

किमासेव्यं पुंसां साविधमनवद्यं धुसरितः किमेकान्ते ध्येयं चरणयुगलं कौस्तुभभृतः । किमाराध्यं पुण्यं किमभिलषणीयं च करुणा यदासक्त्या चेतो निरवधिविमुक्त्यै प्रभवति ॥ १३० ॥

What is fit to be resorted to by men ? The blameless vicinity of the celestial river. What should be contemplated in solitude ? The two feet of the wearer of the Kaustubha jewel ( i. e. Vishnu ) What should be propitiated ? Merit. What should be hankered after ? Compassion. By devotion to which the mind becomes fit for endless freedom

कि भूषणं सुन्दरमत्र यदो न रत्नं कि कार्यमार्यचरितं सुकृतं न दोषः । कि चक्षुःप्रतिहतिं विषणं न नेत्रं जानाति कस्त्वदपरः सदसद्विवेकम् ॥ १३१ ॥

What is an ornament ? lasting glory here, not a jewel. What should be done ? A good deed practised by a worthy man, not a fault. What is an unimpeded eye ? The intellect; not the eye. Who, other than you, knows the distinction between good and bad ?

कौटिल्यं कचानिचये करचरणाधरदलेषु रागस्ते । काठिन्यं कुचयुगले तरलत्वं नयनयोर्वसतति ॥ १३२ ॥

Crookedness resides in your mass of hair, redness in your hands. feet and petal-like lower lip, hardness in the pair of your breasts and fickleness resides in your eyes.

भक्तिभवे न विभवे व्यसनं शास्त्रे न युवतिकामालषे । चिन्ता यशासि न वपुषि प्रायः परिदृश्यते महताम् ॥ १३३ ॥

Devotion to Siva, not to wealth, attachment to science, not to woman who is a missile of Cupid, anxiety for fame, not for body, is usually seen in the case of the great.

Page 149

( ८० ) कारणमाला

(80) Garland of Causes

यथोत्तरं चेत् पूर्वस्य पूर्वस्यार्थस्य हेतुता ।

If each preceding object serves as a cause to each succeeding one,

तदा कारणमाला स्यात्

then would occur the Garland of Causes.

उत्तरमुत्तर प्रति यथोत्तरम् । उदाहरणम्—

The expression 'Yathottaram' means to each succeeding object.

Here is an illustration—

जितेन्द्रियत्वनियस्य कारणं गुणप्रकर्षो विनयादवाप्यते ।

Victory over senses becomes the cause of modesty

गुणप्रकर्षेण जनोऽनुरज्यते जनानुरागप्रभावा हि सपद ॥ १३४ ॥

Excess of virtues is obtained by modesty People become attached to a man who is pre-eminent in virtues.

Prosperities, indeed, arise from the affection of people

'हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानममेदतो हेतु:'

'The statement of the cause as identical with the effect constitutes the figure Cause'

—thus the figure Cause has not been defined here.

इति हेत्वलङ्कारोद्र्ट न लक्षिता । आयुधैरुत्कमिल्यादिरुपो हेष न भूषणता

For this being of the form of 'Ghee [is] life', does not at any time deserve to be a figure, because of the absence of strikingness in it.

कदाचिदर्हाति, वैचित्र्याभावात् ।

अविरलकुसुमविकास सकलललिमदृश कोकिलनानन्द ।

The pleasant time, the full bloom of lotuses, and the intoxication of all bees,

स्यो डयमेति सप्रति लोकोकषणठाकर काल ॥ १३५ ॥

the delight of cuckoos, the mine of the longing of people now arises.

इत्यत्र काव्यरूपता कोमललुनप्रासमधुरैः समासैः स्फुटम्, न तु हेत्वलङ्कारकल्पनया—इति पूर्वोक्तिः काव्यलिङ्गमेव हेतुः ।

—thus here s e. in this stanza, they have laid down the character of poetry only by the power of the alhiteration of soft letters, but not by the assumption of the figure Cause, hence Poetical Cause, which is dealt with before, itself is the figure Cause.

Page 150

दशाम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter:

( ४१ ) अन्योन्यम्

(41) Reciprocal

क्रियातु परस्परम् ॥ ३४ ॥

The action is reciprocal. || 34 ||

वस्तुनोर्जननेऽन्योन्योभ्

When two objects generate each other,

अर्थयोरेकक्रियामुखेन परस्पर कारणत्वे सति अन्योन्य नामालङ्कार ।

it is called 'Anyonyam' (Reciprocal) figure of speech.

उदाहरणम्—

Example:

हसाण सरोहिँ सिरि सारिजइ अह सराण हसहिँ ।

The beauty of swans is heightened by the lakes,

अण्णोण विज्ज एअ अण्णपाण णवर गरुअन्ति ॥ १३६ ॥

and that of the lakes by the swans. || 136 ||

[ हसाना सरोभि श्री सार्थते डय सरसा हसै ।

[ The lakes are beautified by the swans,

अन्योन्यमेव एते आत्मान केवल गरयन्ति ॥

and the swans by the lakes. They only mutually make themselves alone great. ]

अत्रोभयेषामपि परस्पर जनकता, मिथः श्रीसारत्सपादनद्वारेण ।

Here, mutual productiveness of even both these arises through the door of the accomplishment of the enhancement of each other's beauty.

( ४२ ) उत्त्रम्

(42) Uttaram

उत्तरश्रुतिमात्रतःः

प्रशस्योत्तरनं यत्र क्रियते, तत्र वा सति ॥ ३५ ॥

Where from the mere hearing of an answer the inference of the question is made, or when there being that [question] more than once, there is an impossible [i.e., not ordinarily occurring to one] answer [more than once], that would be Reply. || 35 ||

असकृद् यदसंभाव्यमुत्तरं स्यात् तदुत्त्रम् ।

But when two things mutually create each other by an action, that is the Reciprocal

When two objects become mutually the cause of each other through the instrumentality of one action, a figure named the Reciprocal arises Here is an illustration —

The beauty of swans is heightened by the lakes, then that of the lakes by the swans These only mutually make themselves alone great

Here, mutual productiveness of even both these arises through the door of the accomplishment of the enhancement of each other's beauty

Where from the mere hearing of an answer the inference of the question is made, or when there being that [ question ] more than once, there is an impossible [ i e. not ordinarily occurring to one ] answer [ more than once ], that would be Reply

Page 151

प्रतिवचनोपलम्भादेव पूर्ववाक्य यत्र कल्प्यते, तदेक तावदुत्तरम् ।

Where from the mere obtaining of an answer the preceding sentence containing a question is imagined, that is just one kind of Reply

उदाहरणम्— वाणिअअ हत्थिदन्ता कुतो अम्हाण वइघकित्ती अ । जाव लुलिआलअमुही घरम्मि परिसक्कए सोहा ॥ १३७ ॥

O merchant, where can we have tusks of elephants and hides of tigers as long as the daughter-in-law, whose face possesses beautiful locks, moves in the house ?

[ वाणिजक हास्तिदन्ता: कुतो अस्माक व्याघ्रकृत्तय: । यावत् लुलितालकसुन्दरी गृहे परिसर्पति सुष्ठा ॥ ]

हस्तिदन्तत्वाद्याभ्रकृत्तीनामहर्म्यी, ता मूल्येन प्रयच्छेति नैतद्वचनम् अमुना वाक्येन समुल्लीयते ।

'I am desirous of tusks of elephants and hides of tigers, give me those for a price' - this speech of the purchaser is, inferred by means of this sentence

न चैतत् काव्यलिङ्गम् । उत्तरस्य तादृश्यानुपपत्ते । न हि प्रश्नस्य प्रति-वचनं जनको हेतु: । नापीदमनुमानम् । एकधर्मिनिनिष्ठतया साध्यसाधनयोरान्देशाद्-इत्यलङ्कारान्तरमेवोत्तर साधीय ।

And this is not Poetical Cause, because the reply does not properly possess the nature of that viz a poetical cause, For, the reply is not productive cause of a question nor is this an Inference, because both the thing which is to be inferred and the thing which is the means of inference are not here stated. Therefore, Reply is better regarded as a distinct figure only

प्रश्नादनन्तर लोकोक्तिरूपान्तगोचरतया यत् असभाव्यरूप प्रतिवचनं स्यात्, तत् आप्रस्तुतकम् । अनयोक्ष्य सकृदुपात्ते न चाटुप्रतीतिरियमकृतियाकृतम् ।

When after a question there would be an answer of an inconceivable form on account of its falling in a province beyond the ordinary world or people, that would be another variety of Reply And when these question and reply are stated once, there is no comprehension of strikingness - therefore 'more than once' is stated [in the definition of this figure]

उदाहरणम्—

Here is an illustration-

Page 152

दाराम उल्लासः

का विसमा देवगई किं दुलहु ज जणो गुणमाही। किं सोख्ख सुखलत्त किं दुक्ख ज खलो लोओो ॥ १३८ ॥

What is uneven ? The course of destiny What is difficult to obtain ? A man who appreciates merits What is happiness ? A good wife. What is pain ? A wicked man.

[ का विषमा देवगति किं दुल्लेभ यजनो गुणग्राही । कि सौख्य सुखलत्त किं दु ख यत् खलो लोक ॥ ]

प्रभापरिस्खलितसख्यावचनव्यपदेश एव तात्पर्यम्, इह तु वाक्य पर एव विश्रान्तिरित्यनयोर्विवेक ।

( १३ ) सूक्ष्मम्

कुतोऽपि लक्षितः सूक्ष्मोडप्यर्थोऽन्यैर्न्यासमै प्रकाश्यते ॥ ३६ ॥

Where an object though subtle which is somehow observed, is communicated to another by means of some characteristic, that they call the Subtle

36 cd 37 ab

धर्मेण केनचिद् यत्र तत् सूक्ष्मं परिचक्षते ।

कुतोऽपि आकारादिविश्लेषाद् । सूक्ष्मस्तीक्षणमतिसेवेह । उदाहरणम्—

Somehow means from appearance or from gesture Subtle means capable of being understood by people of sharp intellect Here is an illustration—

वक्रोपनिद्रेवलिन्दुप्रबन्धै—

दृष्ट्वा भिन्न कुरुकुम कपि कण्ठे ।

पुस्व तन्या व्यक्षयन्ती वयस्या

लिलिता पाणौ खड्गलेखा लिलेख ॥ १३९ ॥

Some friend, having observed the saffron on [ her companion's ] throat,disturbed by rows of the drops of perspiration flowing from the face, drew with a smile the outline of a sword on her palm, thus suggesting the slender lady's manliness [ : e masculine action in love-sport ]

139

Page 153

अत्र आकृतिमालोक्य कयापि वितर्कित पुरुषायितम् आसिलतालेेखनेन वैदग्यादभिव्यज्यतिस्मुपनीतम्। पुंसामेव कृपाणपाणिता, योग्यत्वात्। यथा वा—

Here playing the man [on the part of a woman in love sport] guessed by some one, after having looked at her companion's form, was through cleverness revealed by drawing a creeper-like sword Only men being fit for it, carry a sword in hand Or as—

सकेतकालमनस्म विटं ज्ञात्वा विदगधया। हमनेत्रार्पिताकतं लीलापद्म निमीलितम् ॥ १४० ॥

Knowing that her paramour, who communicated his intention (ākūtah) with blooming eyes, has his mind fixed on knowing the time of appointment, a clever lady closed the sport-lotus

Here, the time of appointment, which was desired to be known and which was understood by some one by means of a mere gesture [viz. the movement of the paramour's eyes], was with grace communicated to him by ber by the closing of the lotus, which proclaims the time of the night

अत्र जिन्जासित सकेतकाल कयाचिदिदृक्षितमात्रेण विदितो निगाससमय-शंसिना कमलनीमीलनेन लीलया प्रतिपादित।

(४४) सार·

उत्तरौत्तरमुत्कर्षो भवेत् सार: परावधिः ॥ ३७ ॥

Excellence, reaching the culminating point in the last [part of a stanza or prose passage] by successive stages, would be Climax

[The word parāvadhih means that] whose culmination is the last [i.e.] the concluding part, because there only excellence rests after successively rising in the preceding parts of the stanza or the prose passage

पर्यन्तभाग अवर्धीयेस्य, धाराधिरोहितया ततैवोत्कर्षस्य विश्रान्त।

उदाहरणम्——

Here is an illustration—

राज्ये सारं वसुधा वसुधायां पुर पुरे सौधम्। सौधे तलप तलपे श्रयन्ननकसर्वस्वसम् ॥ १४१ ॥

In sovereignty the essence is the earth, on earth the city, in the city the palace, in the palace the bed, on the bed the excellent woman, the all-in-all of Love.

Page 154

दशाम उल्‍लासः

Tenth Chapter

१०२

102

( ४५ ) असंगति

(45) Incongruity

भिन्नदेशतयालम्बनं कार्यकारणभूतयोः ।

When the cause and effect are represented as residing in different places,

युगपद् धर्मयोर्हेतु रुग्यति: सा स्यादसंगति: ॥ ३८ ॥

it is called Incongruity.

इह यदेश कारणम्, तदेशमेव कार्यमुपपद्यमानं दृष्टम्, यथा धूमादि यत्र तु हेतुफलरूपोपि धर्मियो हेतुत्वातिशयेन नानादेशतया युगपद्वभासनम्, सा तयो: स्वभावोक्तिपरस्परसंगतियागात् असंगति । उदाहरणम्—

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

जस्सेअ वणो तस्सेअ वेअणा भणइ त जणो अलिअम् ।

People say, 'He, who alone has a wound, himself feels the pain'

दन्तक्खण कवोले वइहउ वेअणा सव्त्तीणाम् ॥ १४२ ॥

—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

[ यस्सैव व्रणस्तस्यैव वेदना भणति तजनोडलौकिकम् ।

दन्तक्षतं कपोले वच्चा वेदना सपल्नीनााम् ॥ ]

एषा व विरोधाभिधानी न विरोध ।

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

भिन्नाधारतयैव द्वयोरिह विरोधिताया:

प्रतिभासात् । विरोधे तु विरोधित्वम् एकाश्रयनिर्ह्रियमुक्तमपि पर्यवसितम् ।

अपवादविषयपरिहारेणोत्तरंगस्‍य व्यवस्यिते ।

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

तथा चैवं निदर्शितम् ।

This particular characteristic of contradiction viz. belonging to one support, which is necessary for the figure Virodha, though not stated ultimately follows

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 wherein 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

142

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 support, 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.

Page 155

( ४६ ) समाधि

(46) Samadhi

समाधि: सुकरं कार्य कारणान्तरयोगत: ।

Samādhi: sukaraṁ kāryaṁ kāraṇāntarayogat:

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

साधनान्तरोपकृतेन कर्त्रा यद् अक्लेशेन कार्यमारभ्यमाधीयते, स समाधिनाम । उदाहरणम्—

Sādhānāntaropakṛtena karttā yad akleśena kāryamārabhyamādhīyate, sa samādhināma. Udaāharaṇam—

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—

मानमस्या निराकर्तुं पादयोर्मे पतिष्यन् ।

Mānasyā nirākarttuṁ pādayorme patiṣyan.

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

उपकाराय दृष्टे यस्मूदृशं घनगर्जितम् ॥ १४३ ॥

Upakārāya ḍṛṣṭe yasmoodṛśaṁ ghanagarjitam. 143.

( ४७ ) समं

(47) Samaṁ

समं योग्यतया योगो यदि संभावित: कचित् ॥ ३९ ॥

Samaṁ yogyatayā yogo yadi saṃbhāvitaḥ kaccit. 39.

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

इदमनयो श्रव्यमिति योग्यतया सबन्धस्य नियतविपयमध्यवसान चेत्,

Idamanayo śravyamiti yogyatayā sabandhasya niyataviṣayamadhyavasāna cet,

If there is an ascertainment of a connection as being appropriate with reference to objects under description (niyatauisaya) in the form ‘This union of these two is commendable’, then there is the figure Equal.

तदा समम् । तल्ल् सबयोगेsसयोगे च । उदाहरणम्—

Tadā samam. Tall sabayoge'sayoge ca. Udaāharaṇam—

That occurs when there is a union of good things and a union of bad things. The following are illustrations—

यतु शिल्पातिशायनिकषस्थानेमे श्रीगाक्षी रूपे देवोऽप्ययम्‌नुपमो दत्तपत्र’ स्मरस् ।

Yatu śilpātiśāyanikaṣasthāname me śrīgākṣī rūpe devo'pyayam'nupamo dattapattra' smaras.

This deep-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.

Page 156

जात दैवात् सदृशमनयोः सगत यत् तदेतत् शृङ्गारस्योपनतमधुना राज्यमेकातपत्रम् ॥ १४४ ॥

Due to fate, a similar fate has befallen them, and now this kingdom of love has become a single umbrella.

यथा वा —

Or as follows —

चित्र चित्र वत बत महाचित्रमेतद् विचित्र जातो दैवगुणचित्रन्यासविभाता विधाता । यनिम्बाना परिणतफलश्रीतिरतास्वादनीय यच्चैतस्या कवलनकलाकोविंद काकलोक ॥ १४५ ॥

Wonder, wonder, joy great wonder, this special wonder! The Creator has become through good fortune the maker of appropriate arrangement that the abundance of the ripe fruit of the Nimba trees is to be tasted and that the crow-world is clever in the art of eating it.

( ४८ ) विषम

(48) Unequal

कचित् यदतिवैषम्येन भ्रेषो घटनामियात् । कर्तुः क्रियाफलावसिनैवांतरेऽर्थे यदू भवेत् ॥ ४० ॥

When somewhere union [between two things] would not take place owing to extreme dissimilarity when there is certainly (eva) no accomplishment of the fruit of his action by the agent and a calamity occurs [in addition],

गुणक्रियाभ्यां कार्यस्य कारणस्य गुणक्रिये । क्रमेण च विरुद्धे यत् स एष विषमो मतः ॥ ४१ ॥

when the quality and action of a cause are respectively opposed to the quality and action of [its] effect—that here is considered to be the figure Unequal

द्वयोरन्त्तविलक्षणतया यत् अननुपपद्मानत्वैव योगः प्रतीयते, यच्च किंचित्प्रभ्रमणं कर्ता क्रिया गुणाश्रित न केवलमभ्रष्ट यत् तत्फलं न लभेत

When a union of two is apprehended as being extremely improper owing to their utter dissimilarity and when an agent, commencing something, would not only not obtain the fruit which was desired on account of the failure of his action, but also (yāvat) would

good fortune the appropriate union of these two occurred, then this universal (ekātatapatra) sovereignty of love has now been established

Page 157

यावदप्रार्थितमप्यनर्थे विपयमासादयेत, तथा सत्यापि कार्यस्य कारणरूपानुकारे, यत तयोर्गुणौ क्रिये च परस्परविरुद्धौ त्रजत , स समत्रिपर्य्यायमा चतूरूपो विप्रलम्भ । ऋमेणोदाहरणम्--

When an undesired thing is attained though not desired, and when, inspite of the fact that an effect resembles the form of its cause, their qualities and actions attain mutual contradictorness, that is the Unequal or four varieties, representing the opposite of the Equal.

शिरीषादपि मृदुदृश्री केयमायतलोचना । अय क च कुकुलाकुलकेशो मदनानलः ॥ १४६ ॥

Where this lady of wide eyes, whose body is more delicate than even a Śirisa flower? And where this fire of love, painful like the fire of chaff?

146

सिंहिकासुतसुतस्त्रस्त राघ शीतांशुमाश्रित । जगसे साह्रय तत्र तमन्य सिंहिकासुतः ॥ १४७ ॥

Frightened by a son of Simhikā [ i. e the cub of a lioness ], a hare resorted to the moon There another son of Simhikā [ i. e the demon Rāhu ] swallowed him along with his resort

147

सख करसरशिमवाप्य चित्र रणे रणे यस्य कृपाणलेखा । तमालनील शरदिन्दुपाण्डु यशोभिलोक्याभरणं प्रसूते ॥ १४८ ॥

Obtaining contact with his hand in every battle, his long sword, dark like the Tamāla tree, produces, it is a wonder, fame, white like the autumnal moon and an ornament to the three worlds.

148

आनन्दममन्दमिम कुलयदललोचने ददासी तम् । विरहस्त्वयैन जनितस्तापयति तिरोहित शरीर मे ॥ १४९ ॥

O lady with eyes resembling petals of a blue lotus, you give this intense delight. But separation, created by you only, extremely torments my body.

149

अत्रानन्ददान शरीरतापेन विरुध्यते । एवम्--

Here the giving of delight is contradicted by the torment of the body Similarly--

Page 158

विपुलेन सागरशायिस्य कुक्षिणा भुवनानि यस्य पपिरे युगक्षये ।

He, by whose expansive belly, as he slept on the ocean, the worlds were drunk at the end of the duration of the world (yugakṣaye),

मदविभ्रमासकलया पपे पुनः । स पुङ्खलियैकतमयैकया दशा ॥ १५० ॥

was again drunk by one of the city-damsels with one eye, not fully open owing to the effect of intoxication.

इत्यादावपि विषमत्वं यथायोगमवगन्तव्यम्।

Even in cases like this, the incongruity should be understood according to circumstances.

( ४९ ) अधिकम्

महतोरथन महीयांसावाथिताथययःः क्रमात् ।

The supported means that which deserves to be placed somewhere. The support means the prop.

आश्रयाश्रितौ स्यातां तजुत्वेऽप्यधिकं तु तत् ॥ ४२ ॥

In the matter of those viz the supported and the support, though great, when the support and the supported, though small in comparison with them, become greater respectively,

आश्रितम् आचेयम् । आश्रयस्यस्तदाधारः । तयोर्महतोऽपि विषये तदपेक्षया तनू अप्याश्रयाश्रितौ प्रस्तुतवस्तुप्रकर्यविवक्षया यथाक्रमं यत् अधिकतरतां ब्रजत्, तदिदं द्विविधम् अधिक नाम ।

with a desire to convey the excellence of the matter in hand, then we have the two-fold Exceeding Illustrations in order—

अहो विशालो भूपाल भुवनत्रितयोदरम् ।

Oh how expansive is the belly of the three worlds, O, king, since

माति मातुमशक्योऽपि यशोराशिरियते ते ॥ १५१ ॥

the heap of your fame, though impossible to be contained, is contained here

Page 159

युगान्तकालप्रलयमहानाम्नो जगन्ति यस्या सविकारशामासत ।

At the time of the end of the world, the universe was destroyed by her great destructive power.

तनौ ममुस्नत्र न कैटभद्विपस्तपोधनाभ्यागमसम्भवा मुद ।। १५२ ।।

In that body, there was no joy born from the arrival of the sage, as if the worlds remained conveniently (savikāśam) when he withdrew within him self his soul.

( ५० ) प्रत्यनीकं

(50) Rivalry

प्रतिपक्षशक्तेन प्रतिकर्तं तिरस्क्रिया ।

Rivalry is the act of harming or belittling someone dependent on the enemy, done by someone belonging to the rival, with the intention of injuring the enemy.

या तदीयस्य तत्त्वतस्तै प्रत्यनीकं तदुच्यते ।। ४३ ।।

That is called Rivalry, because the dependent [who is thus] harmed is similar to a representative of an army.

न्यक्कृतिपरमपि विपक्ष साक्षान्निरसितुमशक्तेन केनापि यत् तमेव प्रतिपक्ष-मूलकर्षितु तदाश्रितस्य तिरस्करणमू, तत् अनीकप्रतिनिधि तुल्यत्वात् प्रत्यनीक-मिधीयते ।

As when an army is to be attacked, some one through foolishness attacks another, who has become its representative, so here when a rival is to be conquered, some one belonging to him is conquered.

यथानीके अभियोज्ये तत्प्रतिनिधीभूतमपर मूढतया केनचिदभियुज्यते,

This is the meaning of the name of the figure.

तथेह प्रतियोगिनि विजेये तदीयोडन्यो विजीयते इत्यर्थ ।

Here is an illustration-

उदाहरणमू—

तव विनिर्जितमनोभवरूप सा च सुन्दर भवत्यनुरक्ता ।

You have completely (Vinit) conquered the beauty of Cupid.

पञ्चभिरियुगपदेव शरैस्ता तापयत्यनुरागादेव काम ।। १५३ ।।

And she, O handsome man, is attached to you Love torments her, as though in hatred, With five arrows all at one time.

The joy, ansing from the arrival of the sage, was not contained in that body of the enemy of Kaitabha : e Krṣṇa in which the worlds remained convenıently ( savikāśam ), when he withdrew within him self his soul ! e the entire universe at the time of the end of the worlds ' duration

That is called [the figure] Rivalry which consists in the harm done to some one belonging to him : e the enemy by somebody, who is unable to retaliate against the enemy, leading to his praise

When some one, unable directly to throw aside an enemy, though intent on injury, does harm ( tiraskaranam ) to some one dependent on him in order to bring out the excellence of that very enemy, then it is called Rivalry, because the dependent [who is thus] harmed is simular to arepresentatıve of an army As when an army is to be attacked, some one through foolishness attacks another, who has become its representative, so here when a rival is to be conquered, some one belonging to him is conquered. This is the meaning of the name of the figure

You have completely ( Vinit ) conquered the beauty of Cupid. And she, O handsome man, is attached to you Love torments her, as though in hatred, With five arrows all at one time

Page 160

यथा वा— यस्य किंचिदपरकृतमक्षं कायनिप्रग्रहृहीतविग्रह । कान्तवक्त्रसदृशाकृति कृतो राहुरिन्दुमघुनापि बाधते ॥ १५४ ॥ इन्दौत्र तदीयता सादृश्यमुखसबन्धात् ।

Or, The clever Rāhu, who entertained hostility towards Kṛṣṇa on account of the latter's restraining his body, but who is unable to do any harm to him even now harasses the moon, whose form is similar to his (i.e., Kṛṣṇa's) lovely face. Here the relationship of the moon to him arises from the moon's connection with something viz., the face connected with him.

( ५१ ) मीलितम् समेन लक्षणा वस्तु वस्तुना यत्सङ्गृह्यते । निजेनागन्तुना वापि तन्मीलितमिति स्मृतम् ॥ ४४ ॥ सहजम् आगन्तुकं वा किंचिद् सामान्यं यत् लक्षणम्, तद्‌द्वारेण यत् किंचित् केनचिद् वस्तुस्थित्यैव बलोयस्तया तिरोधीयते, तत् मीलितमिति द्विधा स्मरन्ति । क्रमेणोदाहरणम्—

Mixed is that in which a thing is in reality (vastunā) concealed [by another] by means of a common characteristic, which is either natural or adventitious, that is known as the Mixed. When a certain thing is by the very nature of things (i.e., really concealed by another, owing to its greater power, through some common characteristic, which may be natural or adventitious, that they consider the figure Mixed which is of two kinds. Illustrations in order—

अपाङ्गतरले दशौ मधुरवक्‍कवर्णा गिरो विलासभङ्गिरा गतिरितीव कान्तं मुखम्‌ । इति सुप्रतीतकके मृगदृशा स्वतो लीलया तद्‌दत्ते न मदोदयः कृतपदावष्टपि सुल्लक्ष्यते ॥ १५५ ॥

Eyes tremulous at the corners, words of sweet and crooked letters, gait which is slow owing to abundance of coquetry, face exceedingly lovely—[all] this is manifested in the delicate body of the deer-eyed lady by natural grace. Therefore, here the rise of intoxication, though it is firmly rooted, is not observed.

Page 161

अत्र द्वक्तरलतादिकमझस्य लिङ्गं स्वाभाविकं, साधारणं च मदोदयेन, तत्रायेतस्य दर्शीनात्।

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

ये कन्दरासु निवसन्ति सदा हिमाद्रे- स्वाप्तातङ्कादृतधियो विवशा द्विषस्ते आरात्सम्भावितमुखप्रहृतता सकम्पं तेषामहो बत भिया न बुधोऽध्यभिज्ञः ॥ १५६ ॥

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

अत्र तु सामर्थ्योदवसितस्य शैल्यस्य आगन्तुकत्वात् तत्प्रभवयो- कम्पपुलकयोरपि तादृश् सममानता च, भयेष्वपि तयोरुपलक्षितत्वात् ।

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

(५२) एकावली

स्थाप्यतेप्योहिते वापि यथापूर्वं परं परम् । विशेषणतया यत्र वस्तु सैकावली द्विधा ॥ ४५ ॥

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

पूर्वं पूर्वं प्रति यत्रोतरोत्तरस्य वस्तुनो वाऽप्यन्वयेन विशेषणभावेन स्थापन- निषेधो वा भवति, सा द्विधा बुद्धयैरे कावली भण्यते । ऋमेणोदाहरणम्—

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—

Page 162

पुराणि यस्या सव्राज्ञनानि वराङ्गना रूपपुष्कताङ्गय । रूप समुन्मीलितसौदिलासम्भ्र विलासा कुसुमायुधस्य ॥ १५७ ॥

Of whom the ancient sovereign ladies, with bodies adorned with beauty, have beauty shining therein with sportive movements, and the missile of Cupid.

पूर्वत्र पुराणा वराङ्गना , तासामपि विशेषणमुच्यते रूपम्, तस्य विलासा , तेषामप्यभम्-इत्यमुना क्रमेण विशेषण विधीयते । उत्तरत्र प्रतिषेधव्यतिरेकैव योज्यम्।

न तज्जल यन्न सुचारुपद्मज न पद्मं तद् यदलीनषट्पदम् । न षट्पदोऽसौ कल्मषगुङ्गितो न यो गुड्गीत तन्न जहार यन्मनः ॥ १५८ ॥

That is no water which does not possess good charming lotuses, that is no lotus which does not possess bees settled on it, that is no bee which does not possess a sweet hum, that is no hum which did not attract the mind.

( ५२ ) स्मरणम्

( 52 ) Reminiscence

यथानुभवमर्थस्य द्दष्टे तत्सदृशे स्मृतिः । अनुभूते स्मरणम्

When an object, which is at some time experienced as defined ( nzyata ) by a certain form, is at another time recollected in exactly the same form, when another object similar to it, producing the awaking of remembrance, is seen, that would be Reminiscence.

य पदार्थ केनचिदाकारेण नियत यदाकदाचित् अनुभूतोद्भूत स कालान्तरे स्मृतिप्रतिबोधाधायिनि तत्सदृशाने वस्तुनि द्दष्टे सति, यत् तथैव स्मर्यते, तत् भवत् स्मरणम् । उदाहरणम्—

The recollection of an object as it was experienced, when similar object is seen, [is the figure] Reminiscence.

An illustration—

Page 163

निम्ननाभिकुहरेषु यदम्भः प्रावित चलद्वशा लहरीभिः ।

When water was flooded in the hollows of the deep navels of

तद्ववै कुहरुतै सुरनार्यः स्मारिता सुरतकण्ठरुतानाम् ॥ १५९ ॥

[damsels of] tremulous eyes by the billows, the celestial ladies were reminded of the sounds in [their] throats at the time of love sport on account of Kuha sounds arising therefrom

यथा वा —

Or as follows —

करयुगाहिअजसोआत्मणि मुहुविणेसिआहरपुडस्स ।

Bow to the horrification of Kṛṣṇa, who placed the cavity of his

सम्भारिआहरजणास्स पमह कागहस्स रोमष्षम् ॥ १६० ॥

lips on the nipple of Yaśodā’s breast held with both hands and who cosequently recollected Pāncajanya

[ करयुगग्रहीतयशोदास्तनमुखवचिनिवेशिताधरपुटस्य ।

सस्मृतपाञ्चजन्यस्य नमत कृष्णस्य रोमाञ्चम् ।]

( ५४ ) भ्रान्तिमान्

भ्रान्तिमानन्यसंवित्तं ततुल्यदर्शने ॥ ४६ ॥

Error [is] the comprehension of another [as being identical with an object] at the sight of similar object

तदिति अन्यत् अप्राकरणिक निर्देश्यते । तेन समानम् अर्थादिह प्रकारणिकम् आश्रीयते । तस्य तथाविधस्य दृष्टौ सत्यां, यत् अप्राकरणिकतया सवेदनम्, स भ्रान्तिमान् ।

By the word it, another i e a matter not in hand is referred to An object similar to it, i e of course here the matter in hand, is resorted to i e is understood When, on that similar object, which is of that kind [i e the matter in hand] being seen, it is comprehended as being identical with the matter not in hand, that is Error

न चैष रूपक प्रथमतयोक्तिः । तत्र वस्ततो भ्रमस्याभावात् । इह च अर्थानुगमनेन मंज्ञा प्रधृत्ते तस्य स्पष्टमेव प्रतिपत्तावलम् ।

And this is not Metaphor or the first Hyperbole, because there delusion in reality is absent. And because here it viz delusion is quite distinctly understood, as seen from the use of the name in accordance w he sense. An illustration—

Page 164

दशम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter

उदाहरणम् —

Example —

कपाले मज्जार पय इति करोल्लेढि शशिन-

In the skull, the cat's milk, thus, with great delight, the moon

स्तरुच्छिद्रप्रोतं विसमिति करी सकलयति ।

Through the hole in the tree, with a smile, the elephant adorns.

रतान्ते तल्पस्थान् हरति वनितायाः शुचकमीति

At the end of love, the bed, it takes away, the woman's sorrow, with great joy

प्रभामत्तशश्रुत्रो जयादिदमहो विप्रलम्भयति ॥ १६१ ॥

The moon, intoxicated with its rays, oh, causes separation. || 161 ||

( ५५ ) प्रतीपम्

(55) Prateepa (Reversed Comparison)

आक्षेप उपमानस्य प्रतीपंस्युपमेयता ।

The object of comparison becomes the standard of comparison,

तस्यैव यद्‌ वै कल्प्या तिरस्कारनिबन्धना ॥ ४७ ॥

That very thing is imagined, due to the desire of censuring. || 47 ||

अस्य घुर घुत्रामुपमेयेव वोढु प्रौढमिति कैमध्येन यत् उपमानमाक्षिप्यते,

This cat licks the rays of the moon in a potsherd taking them for milk.

यदि तस्यैवोपमानतया प्रतिषेधस्तस्य उपमानान्तरविषयत्वेनादरार्थमुपमेयभाव कल्प्यते,

An elephant grasps them as they enter the interstices of trees, thinking them to be a lotus-fibre

तत् उपमेयस्योपमानप्रतिबिम्बवर्तित्वात् उभयलिङ्ग प्रतीपम् । ऋमेणोदाहरणम्—

At the end of love sport a woman also draws them as they rest on the bed thinking them to be her silken garment.

A cat licks the rays of the moon in a potsherd taking them for milk. An elephant grasps them as they enter the interstices of trees, thinking them to be a lotus-fibre At the end of love sport a woman also draws them as they rest on the bed thinking them to be her silken garment. Oh, the moon, intoxicated with lustre, deludes the world.

[If there is ] condemnation of a standard of comparison, or if it itself is fancied to be an object of comparison, which becomes the cause of its censure, that is the Converse.

When a standard of comparison is condemned by the declaration of its uselessness ( kaimārthyam ) in the form ‘The object of comparison itself is able very efficiently ( sutarām ) to bear the yoke of this standard of comparison, when also that itself, which is well known in its character as a standard of comparison, is imagined to be an object of comparison with the desire of declaring another standard of comparison for it for the purpose of conveying its censure, that is the Converse of two forms, [ so called ] because the object of comparison is opposed to the standard of comparison. Illustrations in order—

Page 165

लावण्यौकसि सम्पतापगारिमण्यप्रसरे त्यागिनां देव त्वद्योगवन्तीमभक्षस्मभुजे निष्पादिते वेधसा । इन्दु कि घटन किमेष विहितः पूषा किसुत्पादित- चिन्तारन्नमहो मुधैव किममी सृष्टा कुलक्ष्मामृत ॥ १६२ ॥

When you, who are the abode of loveliness, possessed of the greatness of valour [also, heat ], the foremost of the liberal and able with your hand to support the weight of the earth, were, O lord, created by the Creator, why was the moon fashioned, why was the sun made, why was the desire yielding stone produced and why were these Kula mountains created, all for nothing

ए पहि दात सुन्दरी करण दाऊण सुणसु वाणिजम् । तुझ मुहेण किसोअरि चदो उअमिजाइ जणेण ॥ १६३ ॥ [ अधि एहि तावत् सुन्दरि कर्ण दत्वा श्रुणुष्ठ वचनीयम् । नव मुखेन कशोदरि चन्द्र उपमीयते जननै ॥ ]

O beautiful damsel, come, hear this scandal attentively O lady of the slender waist, the moon, is compared with your face

अत्र मुखेनोपमीयमानस्य गगिनः स्वल्पतरगुणत्वाद् उपमित्यनिष्पत्या ‘वाणिजम्’ —इनि वचनीयपदाभियुज्य्यास्तिर्सकार । कचिद् तु निष्पन्नैवोपमितिक्रिया अनादरनिबन्धनम् । यथा — नलिनीसवाह्मिमं लोचनयुगलं कि वहति मुग्धे ! सन्तानि हि सन्ति दिशि दिशि सरसु नतु नीलनलिनानि ॥ १६४ ॥

Here owing to the non-establishment of the simile, because the moon, who is being compared with the face, possesses less qualities, there is censure of the moon which is suggested by the word scandal in ‘Hear this scandal ’ But somewhere the act of comparison, actually ( eva ) completed or established, becomes the cause of censure As — O simple girl, why do you bear this unbearable pride on account of your pair of eyes ‘Indeed, there are such blue lotuses in lakes in every direction.

Page 166

दशम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter

इहोपमेयीकरणमेवोत्प्रेक्षणामनन्तरम् । अनयैव रीत्यै यत् असामान्यगुणयोगात् नोपमानभावमपि अनभूतपूर्वं, तस्य तर्कल्पनायामपि भवति प्रतीपमिति प्रत्येतव्यम् । यथा — अहमेव गुरु सुन्दारणामिति हालाहल मा स्म तात हृप्य । नतु सन्ति भवादशानि भूयो भुवनेऽस्मिन् वचनानि दुर्जनानाम् ॥ १६५ ॥

Here, the very process of making something the object of comparison is followed by the figure of speech called Utpreksha. In the same manner, when something is not considered comparable due to its extraordinary qualities and is not known before, even then, the figure of speech called Pratīpa occurs. For example - '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.

अत्र हालाहलस्योपमानत्वमसहाव्यमेवोपनिबद्धम् ।

( ५६ ) सामान्यम्

(56) Common

प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्येन गुणसाम्यविवक्षया । ऐकात्म्यं बध्यते योगात् तत् सामान्यमिति स्मृतम् ॥ ४८ ॥

When identity of an object under description with another owing to [their] association is stated with a view to declaring the similarity of their qualities that is known as the Common

अतादृशामपि तादृशतया विवक्षितु यत् अप्रस्तुतार्थेन सापृक्तमपरित्यक्तनिजगुणमेव तदेकात्मकया निबध्यते, तत् समानगुणानिबन्धनात् सामान्यम् ।

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.

Here, the fact that the deadly poison should be a standard of comparison, which is impossible in itself (eva), is stated

When identity of an object under description with another owing to [their] association is stated with a view to declaring the similarity of their qualities that is known as the Common

When a thing, connected with a matter not in hand, is represented as being identical with that [matter] without at all abandoning its own quality, with a desire to describe it as being like that, though it is not like that, that is the figure Common, so called because it is caused by common quality

कf. ६

Page 167

मलयजरसविलिसितनवो नवहारलताविभूषिता

Adorned with new creeper-like necklaces smeared with the juice of sandalwood from the Malaya mountains

सिततरदन्तपत्रकृतवक्त्ररुचो रुचिरामलशुकाः ।

With faces shining with extremely white ear ornaments of ivory, with silken garments charming and spotless

शशाङ्कमृते विततधाम्नि धवलयति धरामविभाव्यतागता*

While the moon, whose light is spread all round, is whitening the earth

प्रियवसतिं प्रयान्ति सुखमेव निरस्तभियोऽपिसारिकाः* ॥ १६६ ॥

Have become undistinguishable, and who consequently have cast away fear, proceeded to the abode of their lovers very happily

अत्र प्रस्तुततदन्ययोरन्यूतानतिरिक्तया निबद्ध धवलत्वमेकालमताहेतु । अत एव पृथगभावेन न तयोरुपलक्षणम् ।

Here the whiteness of the relevant and the irrelevant, which is represented as neither less nor more is the cause of their identity Hence only they i e the relevant and the irrelevant are not observed as being distinct from each other

यथा वा —

Or as—

केतकवचा तुल्यरुचा वधूना कर्णाम्रितो गण्डतलगतानि ।

Who would have known i e distinguished the new Campaka flowers, which had protruded to the surface of the cheeks

भ्रमराः सहेलं यदि नापतिष्यन् को डवेदयिष्यकचम्पकानि ।

From the tips of the ears of women, whose complexion was similar to the bark of bamboos, if bees had not fallen on them

अत्र निमित्तान्तरजनितापि नानालप्रतीति प्रथमप्रतीतिफलकमेव न व्युदस्यते, प्रतीतलवातस्य । प्रतीतेश बाधायोगात् ।

Here the apprehension of difference, though produced by another cause, is not capable of throwing away the identity first apprehended, because it has actually been apprehended, and because it is not possible to sublate an apprehension (once produced)

Women moving to keep appointments of love with bodies smeared red with sandal juice, adorned with new creeper-like, necklaces with faces shining with extremely white ear-ornaments of ivory, with silken garments charming and spotless who [for all these reasons] have become undistinguishable, while the moon, whose light is spread all round, is whitening the earth, and who consequently have cast away fear, proceeded to the abode of their lovers very (eva) happily

Here the whiteness of the relevant and the irrelevant (tādṛśya), which is represented as neither less nor more is the cause of their identity Hence only they i e the relevant and the irrelevant are not observed as being distinct from each other

Who would have known i e distinguished the new Campaka flowers, which had protruded to the surface of the cheeks from the tips of the ears of women, whose complexion was similar to the bark of bamboos, if bees had not fallen on them

Page 168

दशाम उल्लास:

Tenth Chapter:

( ५७ ) विशेष

(57) Special

विना प्रसिद्धौधारमाधारेयस्य व्यवस्थितिः । एकात्मा युगपद् वृत्तिरेकस्यानेकगोचरा ॥ ४९ ॥ अन्यत् प्रकारवतः कार्यमशक्यस्यानन्ववस्तुनः । तथैव करणं चेतित विशेषविविधः स्मृतः ॥ ५० ॥

The existence of the supported without the well-known support, the simultaneous presence of one in many places in the same form, and the accomplishment of another impossible thing just in the same way by some one doing another work, thus the figure Special is known to be threefold.

प्रसिद्धाधारपरिहाणं यत् आधेयस्य विशिष्टा स्थितिरमिधीयते, स प्रथमो विशेष । उदाहरणम्—

When the peculiar existence of the supported by avoiding the well-known support is stated, that is the first Special.

दिवमध्युपयानामाकल्पमनल्पगुणगणा येषाम् । रमयन्ति जगन्ति गिरः कथयिव कवयो न ते वन्बाः ॥ १६८ ॥

Those poets are not worthy of salutation, whose words possessed of a multitude of many excellences, gladden the worlds till the end of the universe.

एकमपि वस्तु यत् एकेनैव स्वभावेन युगपदनेकत्र वर्तते, स द्वितीय । उदाहरणम्—

When a thing, though one, simultaneously exists in many places in one and the same form, that is the second variety.

सा वसइ तुझ्झ हिआए सा चिअ अच्छीसु सा अ वण्णेसु । अभ्अारिसाण सुन्दर ओअालो कथं पावाणम् ॥ १६९ ॥

She lives in your heart, she alone in your eyes and she in your words. How can there be room for wretched women like us oh beautiful one?

[ सा वसति त्वयि हृदये सा चैव अक्षिषु सा अपि वणेषु । अत्यारिसाण सुन्दर अवकाशं कुतः पापानाम् ॥ ]

The existence of the supported without the well known support, the simultaneous presence of one in many places in the same form, and the accomplishment of another impossible thing just in the same way by some one doing another work, thus the figure Special is known to be three fold

When the peculiar existence of the supported by avoiding the well known support is stated, that is the first Special An illustration—

How possibly (iva) are those poets not worthy of salutation, whose words possessed of a multitude of many excellences, gladden the worlds till the end of the universe, though they have gone to heaven 168

When a thing, though one, simultaneously exists in many places in one and the same form, that is the second variety

She lives in your heart, she alone in your eyes and she in your words How can there be room for wretched women like us oh beautiful one? 169

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—

Page 169

यदपि किञ्चिद्रभसेन आरभमाणस्तेनैव यत्नेनाश्वमपि कार्यान्तरमारभते, सोऽपरो विशेषः । उदाहरणम् —

Even if with some haste he begins (a work), with that very effort he undertakes another task as well, that is another special (quality). Example —

सुरद्रुहदुत्तरूपसुप्रतापज्वलन त्वा सुजनताज्ञावविधिम् । विधिना सरुजे न वो मनोभूःसुविच्छ सत्यं सविता बृहस्पतिश्व ॥१७०॥

O you whose form is difficult to behold by the enemy of the gods and whose fire-like valour is prominent, the creator has really created in this world a new Cupid, Sun and Brhaspati.

While creating you, whose extraordinary beauty is shining, whose fire-like valour is prominent and whose learning is blameless, the creator has really created in this world a new Cupid, Sun and Brhaspati.

यथा वा — गृहिणी सचिव. सखी मिथः प्रियशिष्या लिलिषते कलानिधौ । करणाविमुखेन मृत्युना हरता त्वा बद किं न मे हतम् ॥१७१॥

Or as— You were my wife, counsellor, friend in private and a dear pupil in the delicate practice of arts Say what has not been taken away from me by the remorseless Death, who took you away.

सर्वत्र एवंविधविषयेsतिशयोकिरेव प्राणल्वेनावतिष्ठते, ता विना प्रायेणालङ्कारत्वायोगात् । अत एवोक्तम् —

Everywhere in a province of this kind the figure Atiśayokti itself exists as the life of the figure concerned, because without it generally no figure is possible.

Hence, indeed, it is said —

सैषा सर्वेषां [ v.l. सर्वत्र ] वक्रोक्तिनयायों विभाव्यते । यत्नोडस्या कविमि कार्यः कोडलङ्कारोऽनया विना ॥ इति ।

This (Atiśayokti) is perceived in all (figures of speech) which follow the principle of Vakraokti. What figure is possible without this ?

By this, sense is made more charming Effort should be made by a poet towards this.

( ५९ ) तद्गुणः । स्वमुत्कृष्टय गुणं योगादत्युज्ज्वलतुगुणस्य यत् । वस्तु तद्गुणतामेति भण्यते स तु तद्गुणः ॥ ५९ ॥

Tadguṇaḥ. When a thing, having given up its own quality, owing to association with another of very brilliant quality, assumes the quality of the other one, that is the Borrower.

Page 170

वस्तु तिरस्कृतनिजरूप केनापि समीपगतेन प्रगुणतया स्वगुणसदृशोपरक्ततत्प्रतिभासमेव यत् समासादयति, स तद्गुणः, तस्याप्रकृतस्य गुणोऽत्रास्तीति ।

When a thing, whose own form is obscured, is tinged by some other thing that is near, with the dominating excellence and assumes just the appearance of that other thing, that [is the figure] Borrower,

उदाहरणम् —

Here is an illustration—

विमलवर्णी गरुडाभ्रजेन सूर्यस्य रथ्या परित सुगुन्त्या । रत्नैः पुनर्यत्र रुचा रुच स्वामानिनीयरे वशकरीललैः ॥ १७२ ॥

Where the horses of the sun, whose [original green] colour was changed by [Aruna,] the elder brother of Garuda, were restored to their proper (sva) lustre by jewels "green like sprouts of bamboos, with their lustre, that was flashing all round

अत्र रवितुरगापेक्षया गरुडाभ्रजस्य, तदपेक्षया च हरिन्मणीनां प्रगुणवर्णता ।

Here in comparison with the horses of the sun the elder brother of Garuda, and in comparison with him the green jewels, possess dominating colour

( ५९ ) अतद्गुण

Non-Borrower

तद्गुणानुहारवैदेश्यदस्य तत् स्वादतद्गुणः ।

If this [thing] does not assume the form of that [another], then that would be the figure Non-Borrower

यदि तु तदीय वर्णी सवभनल्यानपि योग्यतायाम् इदं नूनगुण न गृह्णीयात्, तदा भवेदतद्गुणो नाम । उदाहरणम् —

But if this thing of inferior quality would not take the colour of the other even when the capacity is present, then would occur a figure named the Non-Borrower Here is an illustration—

धवलोसि जाह वि सुन्दर तह वि तुए मज्झ रक्खिअ हिअअम् । राअभरिए वि हिअअ सुहअ णिहित्तो ण रत्तोसि ॥ १७३ ॥

Even though you are fair, O handsome yet you have reddened [also, filled with love] my heart. Though placed. O fortunate one, in my heart, filled with redness [also, love] you are not reddened [also not inspired with love]

Page 171

११८

118

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ धवलोडसि यद्यपि सुन्दर तथापि त्वया मम रक्षितं हृदयम्।

[Though you are fair and white, yet my heart is protected by you.

रागभारतीडपि हृदये सुभग निहितो न रक्तोडसि ॥ ]

Even the embodiment of love is placed in the heart, you are not red.]

अत्रातिरिक्तेनापि ममसा संयुक्तो न रक्ततामुपगत इत्यद्रुणः ।

Here, even with excessive redness, it is not connected with my mind, it does not attain redness, thus arises the Non-Borrower.

किं च तदिति अपकृतम् अस्येति च प्रकृतमत्र निर्दिश्यते । तेन यत् अपकृतस्य रूपं प्रकृतेन कुतोडपि निमित्तात् नानुविधीयते, सौडतद्रुण इत्यपि प्रतिपत्तव्यम् ।

And what is that, it is said to be the natural and the unnatural. Therefore, when the form of the unnatural is not followed by the natural for some reason, it is known as Non-Borrower.

यथा

गाङ्गम्भु सितमम्बु यासुं कज्जलाभमुभयत्र मज्जत ।

The water of the Ganga is white and the water of the Yamuna is of the lustre of collyrium.

राजहंस तव सैव शुक्तता चीयते न च न चापचीयते ॥ १७४ ॥

That same whiteness of yours, O royal swan, as you plunge in both, is not heightened and is not lessened. 174

( ६० ) व्याघात

(60) Vyaghata

यदू यथा साधितं केनाप्यपरेण तदन्यथा ॥ ५२ ॥

When that which is accomplished by some one in a certain manner (yathā), would be made otherwise by another in exactly the same manner, that is known as Frustration. 52 cd 53 ab

तथैव यद् विधीयेत स व्याघात इति स्मृतः ।

When that thing, which is accomplished by one with some means, is rendered otherwise by another with just the same means with a desire to conquering, that is Frustration, so called because it is the cause of the destruction of an accomplished object.

येनोपायेन यत् एकेनोपकलिप्तम्, तस्यान्येन जिगीषुतया तदुपायकमेव यत् अन्यथाकरणम्, स साधितवस्तुस्याहातिहेतुत्वात् व्याघातः ।

An Illustration:--

Here though connected with the exceedingly red [also affectionate ] mind, he did not attain redness [also love ]-thus arises the Non-Borrower

Moreover by ‘that’ [ in the definition ] the irrelevant and by ‘of this’ the relevant is referred to here. Therefore, when the form of the irrelevant is not assumed by the relevant through some cause, that is the Non-Borrower-this also should be understood As—

The water of the Gangā is white and the water of the Yamunā is of the lustre of collyrium That same whiteness of yours, O royal swan, as you plunge in both, is not heightened and is not lessened

When that [thing], which is accomplished by some one in a certain manner (yathā), would be made otherwise by another in exactly the same manner, that is known as Frustration.

Page 172

इशा द्रघं मनसिजं जीव्यन्ति दशशैव या: । विरूपाक्षस्य जयनीस्ता: स्तुवे वामलোচना: ॥ १७५ ॥

I praise those [ladies] of winsome eyes, the conquerors of Siva, who revive with their very eye Cupid, who was burnt down [by Siva] with his eye

सेष्टा संसृष्टिरेतेषां मैदेन यदिह स्थिति: ॥ ५३ ॥

When there is the existence of these [figures] here independently of one another that is admitted to be the figure Aggregation

पतेषां समनन्तरमेवोक्तस्वरूपाणामलङ्काराणा यथासंभवमन्योन्यनिरपेक्षतया यत् एकत्र, शब्दभागे एव, अर्थविषये एव, उभयत्रापि वा, अवस्थानम्, सा एकार्थसमवायस्वभावा संसृष्टि ।

तत्र शब्दालङ्कारसंसृष्टिरयथा — वदनसौरभलोभपरित्रमद्मरसस्र्रमससृृतशोभया । चल्लितया विदधे कल्पमेखलाकलकलोलकलोलदशान्यया ॥ १७६ ॥

The Aggregation of the figures of word is illustrated in— Kalakala-sound of the jingling girdle was made by another woman, whose beauty was enhanced by the confusion caused by the bees hovering round her in greed for the fragrance of her face, who [ consequently ] moved and whose eyes were tremulous owing to dishevelled tresses

अर्थालङ्कारसंसृष्टिस्तु — लिम्पतीव तमोद्नानि वर्षतीवाञ्जन नभ । असत्पुरुषसेवेव दृष्टिर्विफलता गता ॥ १७७ ॥

Darkness as though besmears the limbs. The sky as it were showers collyrium. Like service rendered to a bad man, our sight has attained fruitlessness.

Page 173

पूर्वत्र परस्परनिरपेक्षौ यमकानुप्रासौ संसृष्टिं प्रयोजयत । उत्तत्र तु तथाविधे उपमोत्रेक्षे ।

Earlier, Yamaka and Anuprasa, which are independent of each other, produce aggregation. Later, however, in the case of such a figure like Upama and Utreksha.

शब्दार्थालङ्कारयस्तु संसृष्टिः — स्तो पात्थि एत्थ गामे जो एअ महमहन्तलअण्णम् । तरुणाण हिअअद्दडि परिसप्पन्ती णिवारइ ॥ १७८ ॥ [ स नास्यत्र ग्रामे ये ऽत्र महामहायमानलावण्याम् । तरुणाना हृदयलुण्ठार्की परिसर्पन्ती निवारयति ॥ ] atra अनुप्रासो रूपकं चान्योन्यापेक्षे । ससर्गक्ष तदोरेक्त्र वाक्ये छन्दसि

या समवेतत्वात्— ( ६२ ) सकर. avिश्वान्तिर्जुषु आत्मनः श्लाघाकृतिं तु संकरः । एते एव यदात्मनि अनासादितस्वतन्त्रभावा परस्परमनुप्राप्तानुप्राहकता दधति, स एषा संकर्रीयमाणस्वरूपत्वात् संकरः ।

Or due to being combined — (62) Sankara. When these very figures, that have not obtained independent existence in themselves, mutually develop the relation of principal and subordinate, that is Commixture, so called because the nature of these is intermixed here.

उदाहरणम् — In the former stanza Rhyme and Alliteration, which are independent of each other, cause Aggregation But in the latter stanza Simile and Poetical Fancy of that kind give rise to Aggregation. But the Aggregation of figures of word and sense is illustrated in the following— He exists not here in the village who would ward off this wandering woman, whose beauty causes great joy and who is the thief of the hearts of youths. Here Alliteration and Metaphor are independent of each other And the two are combined, because they are connected in one place viz. in a sentence or in a stanza. Where these very figures, that have not obtained independent existence in themselves, mutually develop the relation of principal and subordinate, that is Commixture, so called because the nature of these is intermixed here. The following is an illustration—

Page 174

आत्ते सीमन्तरने मरकतिनि हते हेमटाढ़कपत्ने

When the crest jewel, an emerald was grasped,

When the crest jewel, an emerald was grasped, yhen the gold ear ring was snatched, when the girdle was suddenly wrested away, when the pair of jewelled anklets was taken —the foresters do not at all snatch away the necklaces, rendered red with the lustre of bimba like lips of the deer-eyed wives of your enemies, that are wandering in the forest, thinking them [i e pearl necklaces] to be garlands of gunja fruit

छटसाय मेखलया झटिति मणितुलाकोटियुग्मे गृहोते ।

yhen the gold ear ring was snatched, when the girdle was suddenly wrested away,

शोण बिम्बोष्ठकान्ल्या त्वदरिमृगदृशामिल्वरीणामरण्ये

that are wandering in the forest, thinking them [i e pearl necklaces] to be garlands of gunja fruit

राजन् गुजाफलाना स्रज इति शबरा नैव हार हरन्ति ॥ १७९ ॥

the foresters do not at all snatch away the necklaces, rendered red with the lustre of bimba like lips of the deer-eyed wives of your enemies

अत्र तद्रूषणमपेक्ष्य श्लाघ्यतमा प्रादुर्भूतम् । तदाश्रयेण च तद्गुण सचेतसा

Here the figure Error has arisen with the help of, the Borrower, and the Borrower as the support of that becomes the cause of abundant charm to men of appreciation

प्रभूतचमत्कृतिनिमित्तमित्यनयोरद्धाद्धिभाव । यथा वा —

thus these two have the relation of subordinate and principal between them

जटाभाभिरिभोमिभे करघृतकलड्काक्षवलयो

The moon, pale like [also, with] ashes, moves in the sky, which is like a cemetery,—[the sky] the surface of which is marked with the skulls in the form of the clusters (parkarah) of moving stars,—[the moon] who is characterized by splendours resembling matted hair, who holds the rosary in the form of the spot in the hand in the form of the ray and who is pale [also, pure] owing to absence of redness [also, passionlessness] which is asssumed as though through [grief for] the destruction of separated lovers [also, the destruction of evanescent worldly objects]

वियोगिज्जियापतेरिव कलितवैराग्यविशाद ।

परिप्रेढढ़ुतारापरिकरकरपालीकृततले

शशि भस्मापग्ङु पितृवन इव व्योम्नि चरति ॥ १८० ॥

उपमा रूपकम् उद्रेक्षा श्लेषश्रयेभि चल्वारोड्ड पूर्ववत् अज्ञाझितया प्रतीयन्ते ।

Simile, Metaphor, Poetical Fancy and Paronomasia—these four figures here are apprehended in the relation of subordinate and principal

Page 175

कलङ्क एवाक्षवळयार्मिते रूपकपरिग्रहे करधृतल्म एव साधकप्रमाणता प्रतिपद्यते।

In the context of a metaphor (rūpaka) where the blemish (kalan்ka) is accompanied by the circle of the moon (akṣavala), the fact of being held in the hand (karadhṛtatva) becomes a decisive factor (sādhakapramāṇatā).

The rosary in the form of the spot - thus in understanding a metaphor here the quality of being held in the hand becomes a deciding reason For, when this [compound kalankāksavalayam] is a metaphor, the rosary itself, which conceals the form of the spot, is principally understood, and that [rosary] alone is everywhere known as being fit for being held in the hand

अस्य हि रूपकत्वे तिरोहितकलङ्करूपम् अक्षवलयमेव मूल्यतया वगम्यते।

For in the case of this metaphor, the circle of the moon (akṣavalaya) itself, which conceals the form of the blemish (kalan்ka), is understood as the primary (mūlyatayā).

तस्यैव च करग्रहण्ययोग्यतया सार्वत्रिकी प्रसिद्धिः।

And it is well known everywhere that it is fit to be held in the hand.

शेपाच्छायया तु कलङ्कस्य करधारणम् असदेव प्रत्यासत्या उपचार्य योज्यते।

But the holding of the blemish (kalan்ka) in the hand by means of the shadow (śeṣācchāyayā) is not real (asat), it is applied (upacārya) by expectation (pratyāsattiyā).

But the holding of the spot by the ray owing to the influence (chāyā) of paronomasia, which is not true at all, is represented as true in a metaphorical way (upacārya) owing to proximity [of the ray and the orb], because the spot is held by the moon himself with his form only

शाश्वदेव केवल कलङ्कस्य मूत्यैव उदाहरनात्।

Because the blemish (kalan்ka) is always (śaśvat) exemplified only (kevala) by its meaning (mūtyā).

कलङ्कस्य उक्षवलयार्मिते तु उपमया कलङ्कस्य उत्कटतया प्रतिपत्ति।

But when the blemish (kalan்ka) is accompanied by the circle of the moon (akṣavalaya), it is understood prominently (utkaṭatayā) as a simile (upamayā).

And it is not held by the hand in reality, therefore, even in the case of the principal [which in this simile is the spot] there would be resort to a metaphorical use of the word (upacārah) [and it is better to resort to such metaphorical use in the case of the subordinate only]

न चास्य करधृतत्व तत्त्वतो डस्तीति मूल्ये उपपचार एव शरणं स्यात्।

And it is not the case that it is held in the hand in reality, so in the case of the primary (mūlye), there would be resort to a metaphorical expression (upacāra).

एवरूपश्र सकर शब्दालङ्कारयोरपि परिदृश्यते।

This is also observed in the case of verbal ornamentation (śabdalankāra) along with the sense (evam arthasahita).

And such commixture of two figures of word also is in many-places (pari) seen As—

यथा —

As—

रज्जति तटीयमभिहित-दान-रासातिपाति-साराव-नदा।

The river shines on the slope, which is disturbed by the sport of demons and which possesses a river flowing swiftly and noisy.

Here shines the mountain slope (tati), which has disturbed the sport (rāsah) of demons and which possesses a river flowing swiftly and noisy (sārāva)

गजता च युद्धमविरत-दान-वरा सातिपाति सारा वनदा॥१८१॥

And the elephants efficiently protect their herd, which are excellent owing to ceaseless rut, which are strong and which fell forests.

And the elephants efficiently (ati) protect their herd- [the elephants, ] which are excellent (vara) owing to ceaseless rut, which are strong and which fell forests

अत्र यमकमनुलोमप्रतिलोमश्र चित्रमेद पादद्वयगते परस्परापेक्षे।

Here, the Yamaka and Anuloma-pratiloma, a variety of Citra, are found in two quarters viz the second and the fourth, are dependent on each other.

Here rhyme and [the figure called ] Anuloma-pratiloma, a variety of Citra, which are found in two quarters viz the second and the fourth, are dependent on each other

Page 176

एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावादनिश्चयः ॥ ५४ ॥

In the case of a single figure, there is no certainty due to the absence of the fault of reasoning. 54

द्वयोर्वा‌धूनना वा अलकाराणामेकत्र समावेशेऽपि विरोधात् न यत्र युगपदवस्थाऽ‌नम, न चैकतरस्य परिग्रहे साधकं, तदितरस्य वा परिहारे बाधकमस्ति, येनैकतर एव परिगृह्योत, स निश्चयाभावरूपो द्वितीय सकरः । समुच्चयेन सकरस्यैवाक्षेपात् ।

Or, when two or more figures are combined in one place, even then, due to mutual opposition, there is no simultaneous presence, nor is there any evidence for accepting one of them, nor is there any obstacle to rejecting the other. Therefore, the second Commixture, which is of the form of uncertainty, arises. For, by the combination, the very existence of the Commixure is suggested.

उदाहरणं—

An illustration—

जह गहिरो जह रअणिजण्भरो जह अह णिम्मलच्छाओ ।

Where it is deep, where it is full of jewels, where it is pure and has a beautiful appearance.

तह कि विहिणा एसो सरसवाणीओ जलणिही ण किओ ॥ १८२ ॥

Why has this ocean not been made by the creator to be of sweet water? 182

[ यथा गभीरो यथा रत्ननिर्भर्रो यथा च निर्मलच्छाय ।

[As it is deep, as it is full of jewels, as it is pure and has a beautiful appearance.

तथा किं विधिना एष सरसपानीयो जलनिधिर्न कृत ॥ ]

Why has this ocean not been made by the creator to be of sweet water?]

अत्र समुद्रे प्रस्तुते विशेषगणसाम्यादप्रस्तुतार्थप्रतीते किमसौ समासोक्तिः , किं वा‌अगृहेप्रस्तुतस्य मुखेन कस्यापि तत्सदृशगुणतया प्रस्तुतस्य प्रतीते इयमप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा इति सदेह । यथा वा —

Here, in the description of the ocean, due to the similarity of the qualities, there is a doubt whether it is a case of Samāsokti or Aprastutapraśaṃsā. Is it a Samāsokti, where the ocean is the presented subject and the qualities are common to both the presented and the unpresented subjects? Or is it an Aprastutapraśaṃsā, where the unpresented subject is suggested through the presented subject, viz. the ocean, due to the similarity of the qualities? There is a doubt.

And the uncertainty on account of the absence of a favourable reason and an unfavourable reason for understanding any one figure represents the second Commixture, called Doubtful Commixure 54 cd

Where, two or more figures, though they are found, in one place, connot remain [there] simultaneously owing to mutual opposition, and where there is no favourable reason for understanding one of the figures or [where there is no] unfavourable reason for excluding a figure other than that, so that one of the figures alone would be comprehended, that is the second Commixure of the form of the absence of certainty For, by the word ca occurring in the Kārkā the figure commixture itself is suggested This is an illustration—

As it is deep, as full of jewels and as of pure colour so why has this ocean not been made by the creator to be of sweet water? 182

Here, is this, the figure Speech of Brevity, because of the apprehension of an irrelevant matter viz a certain man on account of the commonness of adjectives, when the sea is relevant? Or is this Irrelevant Description, because of the apprehension of some relevant matter viz a certain man through (mukhena) the irrelevant sea, owing to its possessing qualities common with that sea? — thus there is a doubt. Or as —

Page 177

नयनानन्ददायीनोन्दुबिम्बमेतत् प्रसादति ।

This orb of the moon which gives delight to the eyes, beams.

अधुनापि निरुद्राश्रमविशीर्णमिदं तमु ॥ १८३ ॥

Even now darkness [ also, gloom due to separation ], which has bloc ked the quarters [also, which has blocked hopes ] has not been dispelled

अत्र किं कामस्योदीपक काले वर्तते इति भ्राजनतरेणाभिधानात् पर्यायो-त्मु, उत्त वदनस्येन्दुविम्बतया अध्यवसानात् अतिशयोक्ति, किं वा एतादृती वक्त्र निर्देश्य तद्रूपारोपवशात् रूपकम, अथवा तयोः समुच्चयविवक्षया दीपकं, अथवा तुल्ययोगिता, किमु प्रदोषसमये विशेषणसाम्यादाननस्यावगतौ समासोक्ति, आहोस्वित् सुखनेर्मेल्यप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा इति बहूनि संदेहादयमेव सकर्‌ ।

Here, is the figure Periphrasis, because through different mode it is stated, ' The time is such as excites love ' ? or the Speech of Excellence because the face is ascertained to be identical with the orb of the moon ? or is the figure Metaphor, because of the superim position of the form of that [ moon ] after having referred to the face by the word ' this '? or then, the Illuminator, when there is the desire to state the conjunction of those two ? or then, the Equal Paring ? or is the figure the Speech of Brevity, when in the time of the evening the face is apprehended on account of the commonness of the adjective ? or the Irrelevant Description on account of the spotlessness of the face being the matter in hand ( prastāvah ) ?—thus on account of the doubt about many figures this very Commix ture is the figure in this stanza.

यत्र तु न्यायोपयोरन्यतरस्यान्वयावातर, तत्र एकतरस्य निश्चयात् न संशय । न्यायक्ष साधकत्वं अनुकूलता वा, दोषोदपि बाधकत्वं प्रतिकूलता वा । तत् सौभाग्यं वितनोति वक्त्रशशिनो ज्योत्स्नेव हासधृति ॥ १८४ ॥

But where there is the presence of a favourable reason and an unfavourable reason there owing to the determination of one figure from among many no doubt exists And a favourable reason means the property of being conducive to or favourableness An unfavourable reason also means the quality of being adverse to or unfavourableness There—The splendour of laugh, like the moon-light, enhances the loveli ness of the face resembling the moon.

Page 178

इत्यत्र हुसिततया अवगम्यमाना हास्यध्वनिवैचित्रे एवानुकूल्य भजते इत्युपमाया साधकं, शशिनि तु न तथा प्रतीकूलेति रूपक प्रति तस्यैव बाधकता । वक्त्रेन्दौ तव सत्यं यदपरं शीताशुरभ्रूयुतम् ॥ १८५ ॥

Thus here the splendour of laugh, which is prominently apprehended, attains favourableness only in the face, therefore, it is conducive to Simile, but to the moon it is not quite so unfavourable, therefore, it is not opposed to Metaphor

इत्यत्रापरत्वमिन्दुरुण न तु वक्त्रस्य प्रतिकूलमिति रूपकस्य साधकता प्रतिपादते. न तुपमाया बाधकताम् । राजनारायणं लक्ष्मीस्त्वामालिङ्गिति निर्भ्रमं ॥ १८६ ॥

When the moon in the form of your face is there, since this other moon has arisen—

thus here ‘other ness’ is favourable to the moon but is not unfavourable to the face , therefore, it attains the state of being conducive to Metaphor, but not to the state of being adverse to Simile

इत्यत्र पुनरलिङ्गनमुपमा निरस्यति, सदृशं प्रति परप्रेयसीप्रयुक्तस्यालिङ्गन- स्यासंभवात् ।

Laksmi closely embraces you, who are Nārāyana in the form of the king

पादाम्बुज भवतु नो विजयाय मञ्जु- मञ्जीररिश्वितमनोहरमञ्जिकाया ॥ १८७ ॥

May Ambikā's foot, resembling a lotus, which is attractive owing to the sweet jingling of anklets, conduce to our victory

इत्यत्र मञ्जीरादिकितं अम्बुजे प्रतिकूलं असंभवादिति रूपकस्य बाधकं, न तु पादेत्यादिकूलमित्युपमाया साधकतमभिधीयते । विष्णुप्रियांदिनो बाधकस्य तदपे- क्ष्योल्कटलेन प्रतिपत्ते । एवमन्यत्रापि सुधीभिः परीक्षणम् ।

—Thus here the jingling of anklets is unfavourable to the lotus on account of the impossibility of its having anything to do with it, therefore, it is opposed to Metaphor; but because it is favourable to the foot, it is not said to be conducive to Simile For, a reason, which is adverse [to a certain figure and] which—[therefore, definitely]

Page 179

सूत्रमेकत्र विषये शब्दार्थोल्कृतिद्रयम्।

When the subject is one, but the word and sense are embellished in two ways,

व्यवस्थितं च

and are arranged (in a particular way),

अभिध्रे एव पदे स्कुटतया यत् उभयापि शब्दार्थालङ्कारौ व्यवस्थां समासदयत सोऽ्यपर सक्र ।

When in a single word or phrase, both word and sense figures are clearly arranged and shine together,

उदाहरणम् —

An example is—

सप्तह्लिसौकर्णिकसरसूत्रयोम्ब-विस्तीर्णकर्णिकमथो दिवसारविन्दम् ।

The day-lotus, whose broad pericarp is the orb of the sun,

निलष्टाष्टदिग्दलकलापमुखावतार-बद्धान्यकामघुपावलि सचुकोच ॥ १८८ ॥

and whose collection of petals are the eight quarters which are mingled together, closes at the advent of the evening bees in the form of the darkness.

अत्र एकपदानुप्रविष्टे रुपकानुप्रासौ ।

Here Metaphor and Alliteration are embodied in one word.

तेनासौ त्रिरूपः परिकीर्तितः ॥ ५५ ॥

Therefore this Commixure is stated to be three fold.

तदयमनुप्राहकतया सदेहेन एकपदप्रतिपाद्यतया च व्यवस्थितत्वात् त्रिप्रकार एव सकरो व्याख्यात् ।

Therefore, this Commixure has been explained as threefold only on account of its existence being due to the relation of principal and subordinate, to a doubt and to its being conveyed by the same words.

तत्प्रभेदानाम् ।

But it is not possible to explain it in a different manner on account of the endlessness of its varieties.

negatives (upamardī) the presence (vidhih) of that figure is apprehended more prominently [in its character of being adverse to that figure] in comparison with that [viz its character of being favourable to another figure]

And when two figures, one of word and one of sense, are present in one place, that is another Commixure

55 abc

When in a not at all-different i e one and the same word even both figures of word and sense attain existence distinctly, that also is another Commixure The following is an illustration—

whose broad pericarp (karnikā is the orb of the sun and whose filaments are the distinctly shining rays and which possesses a row of bees in the form of the darkness formed at the advent of the evening (mukham) and whose collection (kalāpaḥ) of petals are the eight quarters which are mingled together

188

Here Metaphor and Alliteration are embodied in one word.

Therefore this Commixure is stated to be three fold

55cd

But it is not possible to explain it in a different manner on account of the endlessness of its varieties

Page 180

इति प्रतिपादिता शब्दार्थोभयगतत्वेन त्रिविधयुजोऽलङ्कारा ।

Thus have been explained figures that enjoy threefold character

अलङ्काराणा त्रिविधविभागस्य अन्यव्यतिरेकहेतुत्वम्

according as they belong to word and sense and both

कुतः पुनरेष नियमो यदेतेषा तुल्येऽपि काव्यशोभातिशयहेतुत्वे कश्चिदलङ्कारशब्दस्य, कश्चिदर्थस्य, कश्चिदोभयस्येति चेत् ।

If some one asks Though these figures are equally the cause of bringing out the excellence of the beauty of poetry, whence again comes this rule that some figure belongs to word, some to sense and some to both ?

उक्तमत्र यथा काव्ये दोषगुणालङ्काराणा शब्दार्थोभयगतत्वेन व्यवस्थायामन्यव्यतिरेकावेव प्रभवत् , निमित्तान्तरस्याभावात् ।

To this the reply is that it has already been said here that (yathā) presence and absence alone are able to decide the arrangement of defects, excellences and figures in poetry as belonging to word, sense and both, because of the absence of any other cause

तन्नश्र यदलङ्कारो यदीयान्यव्यतिरेकावतुनिबन्धते, स तदलङ्कारव्यवस्थाप्यते इति ।

And, therefore, that figure, which follows the presence and absence of something viz word, sense or both, is determined to be a figure of that viz word, sense or both

एव च यथा पुनरुक्तवदाभास परम्परितरूपक चोभयोभयावभावानुवेधायितया उभयालङ्कारौ ।

And thus, as Semblance of Repeated Words and Consequential Metaphor are figures of both, word and sense on account of their following the presence and absence of both, so Corroboration based on, word and others also should be understood as being similar i e as figures of both word and sense

तथा शब्दहेतुकार्थान्तरन्यासप्रभृतयोऽपि दृश्य्या ।

But there the strikingness of sense shines prominently, hence they have been defined among figures of sense without at all having any regard to the true state of things

अर्थस्य तु तत्र वैचित्र्यम् उक्ततया प्रतिभासते इति वाच्यालङ्कारमध्य एव वस्तुस्यादिनिमनपेक्षयैव लक्षिता ।

Even if one were to make the supposition 'That figure is the figure of that by which it is supported or on which it is dependent,'

यो यलङ्कारो यादृशे स तदलङ्कार इत्यपि कल्पनायाम् अन्यव्यतिरेकावेव समाश्रयितव्यौ, तदाश्रयणमन्यत्रेरण विगीढस्थस्याश्रयस्याश्रयविभावस्याभावात् ।

इत्यङ्काराणयथोक्तनिमित्त एव परस्पर्यातिरेको ज्यायान् ।

Page 181

अलङ्कारदोषाणामुक्तदोषेषु अन्तर्भावः।

Inclusion of the defects of Alankara among the stated defects.

एषां दोषः यथायोगं संभवन्नोऽपि केचन ।

Some of these defects, though possible, are not separately treated.

उक्तेष्वन्तर्भवन्तीति न पृथक् प्रतिपादिताः ॥ ५६ ॥

Because they are included among the defects already stated.

अनुप्रासदोषा

Defects of Alliteration

तथा हि । अनुप्रासस्य प्रसिद्ध्यभावो वैफल्य वृत्तिविरोध इति ये त्रयो दोषाः;

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

ते प्रसिद्धिविरुद्धताम् अपुष्टार्थतां प्रतिकूलवर्णता च यथाक्रमं न व्यतिक्रामन्ति,

These are illustrations in order—

तत्त्वभावात् ।

क्रमेणोदाहरणम्—

चक्री चक्रारपङ्क्तिः हरिरपि च हरिन्, धूर्जटेः तिष्ठूर्वीजाप्रान्

May that chariot of the hot rayed [sun] protect you—the chariot

अक्षानक्षत्रनाथोरणुमपि वरुण कूवराभ्यां कुबेर ।

whose row of the wheel spokes the Possessor of the discus viz Visnu praises, whose horses Indra also [praises],

रथ सघ सुराणा जगदुपकृतये नित्ययुक्तस्य यस्य

whose yoke and banner tops S'iva praises, whose axle the lord of the stars viz the moon praises,

स्तोत्रे प्रीतिप्रसन्नोऽवहमहिमरुचे सोडवतां स्पन्दनो व ॥ १८९ ॥

whose charioteer Aruna also Varuna praises, whose yoke-end Kubera praises, whose speed, as it is ever yoked for the benefit of the world a multitude of gods, pleased with joy, every day praises. 189

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 bee 1 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 Aruna also Varuna praises, whose yoke-end Kubera praises, whose speed, as it is ever yoked for the benefit of the world a multitude of gods, pleased with joy, every day praises. 189

Page 182

दशाम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter

अत्र कर्तृकर्मप्रतिनियमेन स्तुति अनुप्रासानुरोधेनैव क्ता, न पुराणोक्तिहासादिषु तथा प्रतीते प्रतिपाद्यविरोध ।

Here the praise is made only in accordance with alliteration, with a specific restriction on the agent and object, not as it is known in legendary and historical works, hence the defect here, which by others is considered to be 'absence of usage', is nothing but Opposition to Usage.

भण तरणि रमणमनिरमणनद्यनिदसुन्दरेन्दुमुखि ।

Say, O young girl, who possess a beautiful moon-like face

यदि सलीललेलापिनि गच्छसि, तत् किं त्वदीय मे ॥ १९० ॥

flowing with delight and O you who speak aloud with good grace, if you go to the house of your lover, then, why your—

अनुरागणमगणनखभ्रमरताहिजननम्रुमञ्जारम् ।

O woman of sweet voice, place me, who am filled to the neck with unchecked longing, in the neck of that girl of conch-like neck

परिसरणमरुणचरणे रणरणकककारण कुरुते ॥ १९१ ॥

and remove the pain of my neck

अत्र वाच्यस्य विनिर्न्यमान न किंचिदपि चारुल्ल प्रतिपते इत्य पुष्टार्थैव अनुप्रासस्य वैफल्यम् ।

Here no charm whatever is apprehended as belonging to the expressed sense, as we ponder over it, hence what is called fruitless ness of alliteration is Non-nourishment of Sense only

अकुणठोलकणठ्या पूर्णमाकण्ठ कल्ककण्ठ माम् ।

Going or movement, O lady of red feet, wherein the jewelled girdle is loudly jingling and wherein the lovely anklets are ceaselessly tinkling, creates causeless uneasiness to me.

कम्बुकणठया क्षण कणठे कुल कणठातिसमुद्र ॥ १९२ ॥

अत्र शृङ्गारे पुरुषवर्णीडम्वर पूर्वोक्तरीत्या विरुद्धते इति पुरुषानुप्रासोऽत्र प्रतिकूलवर्णतैव वृत्तिविरोध ।

Here the pompous use (ādambarah) of harsh words in [the delineation of the sentiment of ] love is contradicted in the manner stated before, therefore, here, alliteration with harsh words, which constitutes what is known as opposition to style, is Unfavourableness of Letters only

का ९

Page 183

यमकदोषः

Yamakadoṣaḥ

यमकस्य पादत्रयगतात्वेन यमन्नप्रयुक्तत्व दोषः । यथा—

The defect of Yamaka not being employed in three quarters of a verse. For example—

शुजगमस्येव मणि सदृशा ग्राहावकीर्णेन नदी सदृशा' ।

Like a river with good water, crowded with sharks, and like a jewel possessed of brilliancy,

दुरन्वत्ता निर्णयतोऽपि जन्तो कर्षन्ति चेत प्रसभं सदृशा ॥ १९३ ॥

Deceitful people attract the heart of a person, though he definitely understands their wickedness. || 193 ||

उपमादोषा

Upamādoṣā

उपमयाम् उपमानस्य जातिप्रमाणगतन्यूनत्वम् अधिकता वा तादृशी अनुचितार्थत्वं दोषः । धर्मेश्रये तु न्यूनाधिकत्वे यथाक्रमं हीनपदत्वमधिकपदत्व च न न्यभिचरत् । क्रमेणोदाहरणम्—

In a simile, inferiority of the standard of comparison as regards class and size or proportion, or superiority of that kind, is the defect called Inappropriateness of Meaning. But inferiority and superiority, based on common property, are not different from Deficiency of Word and Redundancy of Word respectively. Here are illustrations in order—

चण्डालैरिव युष्माभि साहस परमं कृतम् ।

A great adventure has been performed by you as by Candālas

॥ १९४ ॥

|| 194 ||

वह्निस्फुलिङ्ग इव भानुरय चकास्ति ।

This sun shines like a spark of fire

॥ १९५ ॥

|| 195 ||

अयं पद्मासनासीनशक्रवाको विराजते ।

This Cakravāka bird, sitting on the seat of a lotus, shines like

युगादौ भगवान् वेधा विनिर्मित्सुरिव प्रजा ॥ १९६ ॥

the divine Creator, desirous of creating creatures at the commencement of a yuga. || 196 ||

The composition of Rhyme as being present in three quarters is the defect called Unemployedness For example—

Deceitful people attract the heart of a person, though he definitely understands their wickedness, like the jewel, possessed of brilliancy, of a serpent and like a river of good water, crowded with sharks 193

In a simile inferiority of the standard of comparison as regards class and size or proportion, or superiority of that kind, is the defect called Inappropriateness of Meaning But inferiority and superiority, based on common property, are not different from Deficiency of Word and Redundancy of Word respectively Here are illustrations in order—

A great adventure has been performed by you as by Candālas

194

This sun shines like a spark of fire

195

This Cakravāka bird, sitting on the seat of a lotus, shines like the divine Creator, desirous of creating creatures at the commencement of a yuga.

196

Page 184

दशम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter

पातालमिव नाभिस्ते स्तनौ द्वितिधरोपमौ ।

Your navel is like the nether world, breasts like mountains, and

वेणीदण्ड पुनर्यं कालिन्दीपातसनिभ ॥ ९७ ॥

this staff-like braid of hair is like the stream of the Kālinđī

अत्र चण्डालादिमिरुपमानैः प्रस्तुतोऽर्थोऽत्यर्थमेव कदर्थित इत्यनुचितार्थता ।

Here the matter in hand is extremely exposed to ridicule by the standards of comparison, the Candālas and others hence the defect here is Inappropriateness of Meaning

स मुनिलिङ्गच्छतो मौञ्ज्या कृष्णाजिनपट्ट वहन् ।

That sage, marked by the munjā-girdle and wearing a garment

न्यराजनीलजिमूतभागालङ्किष्ट इवाश्वमान् ॥ ९८ ॥

of the hide of a black antelope, shone like the sun enveloped in a portion of a dark cloud.

अत्रोपमानस्य मौञ्जीस्थानीयस्य धर्मः केनापि पदेन न प्रतिपादित इति हीनपदत्वम् ।

Here, a property of the standard of comparison, consisting, of lightening, corresponding to the Munjā-girdle, has not been conveyed by any word whatever, hence the defect here is Deficiency of Word.

स पीतवासाः प्रगृहीतशार्ङ्गो मनोज्ञभीमवपुराप कृष्णः ।

That Kṛṣṇa, whose garment was yellow and who had taken

शतश्रदेन्द्रायुधवान् निशाया ससृज्यमानः शशिनेव मेघः ॥ ९९ ॥

his bow, assumed a form attractive and [yet] awful, like a cloud, possessed of lightning and rainbow, connected with the moon at night

अत्रोपमेयस्य शार्ङ्गादेरनिर्देशे शाशिनो ग्रहणमातिरिच्यते इत्यधिकपदत्वम् ।

Here, the object of comparison viz the conch and the like not being pointed out, the mention of the moon is superfluous, hence the defect here is Redundancy of Word

Page 185

लिङ्गवचनभेदोऽपि उपमानोपमेययोः साधारण वेत् धर्ममन्यरूपं कुर्यात्, तदा एकतरस्यैव तद्रूपसमन्वयावगते सर्विशेषणस्यैव तस्योपमानत्वमुपमेयत्व वा प्रतीयमानेन धर्मेण प्रतीते इति प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य स्फुटमन्वีहादस्य भग्नप्रक्रमरूपत्वम् । यथा —

If there is a difference in gender and number between the standard of comparison and the object of comparison, and it makes the common property different, then only one of the two, either the standard or the object, is understood to be connected with that property. Hence, it is considered to be either the standard or the object owing to some other property which is understood.

If also the difference in gender and number between the standard of comparison and the object of comparison would make the common property uncommon, then as only one of the two viz the upamāna and the upameya would be apprehended as being connected with that property, that one only, as possessed of that property, would be understood as being the standard of comparison or the object of comparison owing to some other property which would have to be understood, hence as the matter in hand is clearly not carried out, this defect is nothing but Break of Uniformity or Symmetry.

चित्रारलामिव च्युतोडसि करतो धिक्‌स्नन्दभाम्यस्य मे ।२००।सक्तवो भक्षितो देव शुद्धा कुलवधूरिव ॥ २०१ ॥

Fie, you have slipped down, like the desire yielding jewel from the hand of me who am of dull fortune. Barley grains, pure like a girl of good family, are eaten by me, O lord.

यत्र तु नानालिङ्गडपि लिङ्गवचनयोः सामान्यानभिधानि पद स्वरूपभेद नापद्यते, न तत्रैतदूषणावतार । उभयथापि अस्य अनुगमक्षमसमभावलात् । यथा—गुणैरनर्घ्यैः प्रथितो रत्नैरिव महार्णवः ॥ २०२ ॥

But where, even when the gender and number differ, the word expressing the common property does not undergo change of form, there this defect does not occur, because its nature is such as is capable of going even with both.

As—He is renowned for his invaluable qualities like the ocean for its invaluable jewels.

तद्वेषोडसदृशोऽन्याभि श्रीमिर्‌मधुरतास्पृत ।दधते स्म परा शोभा तदीया विभ्रमाइ इव ॥ २०३ ॥

Her dress, not common with other women and filled with sweetness, attained the highest splendour, like her gestures.

Page 186

कालपुरुषविध्यादिमेदेडपि न तथा प्रतीतिरस्खलितरुपतया विश्रान्तिमासादयतीत्यसावपि भङ्गप्रकसन्तयैव व्यासः । यथा —

Even when there is a difference in the form etc. of the subject and the object of comparison, the apprehension is not so clear and steady as to attain completion. Hence this also is covered by Break of Uniformity. For example—

अतिथि नाम काकुत्स्थात् पुत्रमाप कुसुद्वती ।

Kumudvati obtained a son, named Atithi, from the descendant of Kakutstha,

पश्चिमाद् यामिनीयामात् प्रसादमिव चेतना ॥ २०४ ॥

like intellect obtaining lucidity from the last watch of the night

अत्र चेतना प्रसादामोति न पुनराप्नोति कालभेदः ।

Here 'Intellect obtains lucidity,' but not 'obtained', hence comes the difference of tense

प्रत्यग्रप्रसजनविशेषविविक्तामूर्तेः कौसुम्भागारुचिरसुप्तदृशुकान्ता । विभ्राजसे मकरकेतनमचचीयन्ती बालप्रवालविटपप्रभवा ल्तेव ॥ २०५ ॥

प्रत्यग्रप्रसजनविशेषविविक्तामूर्तेः कौसुम्भागारुचिरसुप्तदृशुकान्ता ।

[You,] whose form is charming on account of the recent special bath, the skirt of whose garment ( amśukam ) is shining and lovely owing to saffron dye and who are worshipping the crocodile-bannered Cupid, shine like a creeper, from which arise young leaves and branches,

विभ्राजसे मकरकेतनमचचीयन्ती बालप्रवालविटपप्रभवा ल्तेव ॥ २०५ ॥

whose form is specially charming on account of recent sprinkling, which is beautiful ( kānta ) with shining pollen ( amsuh ) and lovely with the colour of flowers and which is honouring the crocodile-bannered [sea]

अत्र लता विभ्राजते न तु विभ्राजसे इति सबोध्यमाननिष्ठस्य परभागस्य असबोध्यमानविषयतया व्यत्यासात् पुरुषभेदः ।

Here 'a creeper shines, but not shine' - thus because the last part [of vibhrajāse viz se], which belongs to the person addressed, has to be changed owing to its having to be applicable to the thing not addressed viz a creeper, the difference in the person results.

Also when there is a difference of tense, person, mood and the like, the apprehension of the comparison does not attain completion as being of an unchanging form in that manner [in which it would have done, if there had been no such difference], hence this difference also is covered by Break of Uniformity For example—

Page 187

गङ्गेव प्रवहतु ते सदैव कीर्ति: ॥ २०६ ॥

Let thy fame ever and always flow like the Ganga

इत्यादौ च गङ्गा प्रवहति न तु प्रवहतु इति अप्रवृत्तप्रवर्तनात् मनो विधे: । एवजातीयकस्य चान्यस्यार्थस्य उपमानगतस्यासंभवाद् (वाक्यादिमेद । ननु समानम् उच्चारितं प्रतीमान वा धर्मिन्तरमुपादाय पर्यवसितायाम् उपमायाम् उपमेयस्य प्रकृतधर्मोभिसंबंधात् कौचित् कार्यादि-भेदोऽस्ति । यत्रोभयपातेनैक सामान्यधर्मेण उपमा अवगम्यते, यथा 'युधिष्ठिर इवायं सत्य वदतीति '-तत्र सुधिष्ठिर इव सत्यवादाय सत्य वदतीति प्रतिपत्स्यामहे । सत्यवादी सत्य वदतीति च न पौनरुक्त्यम् आाशङ्कनीयम् । रैप्स पुणातीवत्, युधिष्ठिर इव सत्यवदनेन सत्यवादी अयम्-इत्यर्थीविगमात् ।

And in cases like this 'The Gangā flows. not let flow'—thus the injunction [expressed by the imperative mood], whose nature is to impel to activity one who is not active, has to be changed And on account of another thing of this kind being found impossible of connection with the standard of comparison, the difference i e the change of the Imperative mood and the like arises

सत्यमेतत् । किंतु स्थितेषु प्रयोगेषु समर्थनमित, न तु सर्वथा निरवयवम्, प्रस्तुतवस्तुप्रतिपत्तिव्याघातादिति सचेतस एवात्र प्रमाणम् ।

[We reply ] This is true. But this is a justification in the cases of the uses that are already current in the language , but it is not wholly blameless, as it obstructs the apprehension of the matter in hand, viz. the Simile. Thus men of heart are the authority here—

Page 188

असादृश्यासंभवावप्युपमायामू अननुचितार्थतायामेव पर्यवस्यत । यथा —

Even the absence of similarity and impossibility in a simile ends in Inappropriateness of Meaning only.

गृश्नामि काव्यशशिनं विततार्थरश्मिम्‌ ॥ २०७ ॥

I compose a moon-like poem, which has well-displayed senses resembling rays

अत्र काव्यस्य शशिना अर्थानां च रश्मिभि: साधर्म्ये कुतrapि न प्रतीतमिल्यनुचितार्थत्वम् ।

Here the resemblance of a poem with the moon and of senses with rays is not known anywhere, hence the defect here is Inappropriateness of Meaning

निपततु रास्तादिव तस्य दोषा शरौ धनुरमण्डलमध्ये भाज्‌ ।

Burning arrows fell as it were from his mouth which was at the middle of the circle of his bow, like fiercely burning showers of water from the sun, occupying the middle of the day and possessed of a halo

जाज्वल्यमान इव वारिधारा दिनार्धभाज्‌ परिवेषिणो‌उर्कात्‌ ॥ २०८ ॥

अत्रापि ज्वलन्यों‌ड्मुबुधारा सूर्यमण्डलात्‌ निष्पतन्यों न सभवन्ती-

Here also, as burning showers of water, falling from the orb of the sun, are not possible,

स्युपनिबध्यमानो‌डथों‌डनौचित्यमेव पुण्णाति ।

the sense as it is expressed nourishes Impropriety only

उपेक्षादोष

Inexpressiveness

उपेक्ष्यामapi सभावन ध्रुववादय एव शब्दा वक्तु सहन्ते, न यथाशब्दो‌ऽपि ।

In Poetical Fancy also the words, dhruva, iva and others alone, are capable of expressing probability, not the word yathā also, for this word viz yathā used singly is capable of conveying similarity alone,

केवलस्यास्य साधर्म्यमेव प्रतिपादयितुं पर्याप्तत्वात्‌ ।

and because that similarity is not intended to be stated in this Poetical Fancy , hence thus incapacity is the defect Inexpressiveness.

तस्य चास्त्यामविकक्षितत्वादिति तत्राशक्तिरस्यावाचकत्व दोष ।

For example

यथा —

Page 189

उद्यतौ दीर्घिकागर्भान्मुकुल मेचकोपलम् । नारोलोचनचारुण्यशङ्कासकुचित यथा ॥ २०९ ॥

Just as a blue lotus, [in the form of] a bud, rose up from the middle of the well, as though closed in fear (Šankā) of the beauty of the woman's eyes

अर्थान्तरन्यासदोष उक्तविषयमपि तालिकेन रूपेण परिवर्जितत्वात् निरुपाल्यप्रध्वयम् तत्समर्थनाय यत् अर्थान्तरन्यासोपादानम् तत् आलेद्यमिव गगनतले डयन्तमसमीचीमिति निर्विषयत्वमेतस्य अनुचितार्थतैव दोषः । यथा— दिवाकराद् रक्षति यो गुदासु लीना दिवाभीतिमिवान्धकारम् । क्षुद्रेऽपि नूनं शरणं प्रपन्ने ममत्वमुच्चैः शिरसामत्तीव ॥ २१० ॥

दिवाकराद् रक्षति यो गुदासु लीना दिवाभीतिमिवान्धकारम् । क्षुद्रेऽपि नूनं शरणं प्रपन्ने ममत्वमुच्चैः शिरसामत्तीव ॥ २१० ॥

Which [Himalaya mountain] protects darkness which is as though afraid of the sun during the day and is therefore, lurking in the caves. Surely, even towards an insignificant person, who has resorted to them as a protector, the high minded entertain extreme personal regard

अत्राचेतनस्य तमसो दिवाकरात् त्रास एव न सभवतीति कुत एव तत्प्रयोजितमद्रिणा परिलाणम् । सभवितेन तु रूपेण प्रतिभासमानस्यास्य न काचिदनुपतिरतरतीति व्यर्थ एव तत्समर्थनाया यत्न ।

Page 190

दशाम उल्लासः

Tenth Chapter

समासोक्तिदोष

The Fault of Samasokti

साधारणविशेषणवशादेव समासोक्तिरुक्तापि उपमानविशेष प्रकाशयतीति तस्यात्र पुनरुपादाने प्रयोजनाभावात् अनुपादेयता यत्, तत् अपुशर्थत्व पुनरुक्तता वा दोष । यथा—

When a Samasokti is already expressed due to a common adjective, and it again reveals a particular standard of comparison, the repetition of it here is unnecessary due to the absence of any purpose, and this is a fault called Repetition or Unnecessariness. For example—

स्पृशाति तिमिरुचौ ककुभं करैर्दयितयैव विजृम्भिततपया । अतनुमानपरिग्रहया स्थित रुचिरया चिरयापि दिनश्रिया ॥ २११ ॥

When the sun of hot lustre was touching the quarters with his rays [also, hands,] the charming Glory of Day, whose heat [also, affliction] increased, though long, assumed great proportion [also, pride], like a beloved.

अत्र तिमिरुचे ककुभा च यथा सदृशविशेषणवशेन व्यक्तिविशेषपरिग्रहेण च नायकतया नायिकालेन च व्यक्ती, तथा प्रीष्मदिवसाश्रियोऽपि प्रतिनायिकालेन भविष्यतीति कि दयितयैति स्वरब्दोपादानैन ।

Here, as the sun and the quarters are apprehended as the hero and the heroine owing to the force of common adjectives and owing to the use of particular genders (vyakth), so the Glory of the Summer Day also would be apprehended as the rival-heroine, therefore, what is the use of using a regular word viz beloved to express that idea?

श्लेषोपमायास्तु स विषय, यत्रोपमानस्योपादानमन्तरेsपि साधारणेष्वपि विशेषणेषु न तथा प्रतीति । यथा—

But that is the province of Simile based on Paronomasia, where even when adjectives are common, the standard of comparison is not apprehended as such without the mention of that standard in specific words. For example—

Page 191

इय च प्रभातवाताम्रभास्वत्करविराजिनी । प्रभातसज्ज्येवास्वापफललुब्धेहितप्रदा ॥ २१२ ॥

And this [Parvati] is like the morning twilight, adorned with shining hands which are red like sprouts [also when going with the twilight, decked with the rays of the sun and red like sprouts,] and is the giver of the desired object of those who are greedy for a not-very-easily-obtainable fruit [also, the giver of what is beneficial to those who are greedy for the fruit of wakefulness]

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसादोष

The fault of irrelevant description

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामपि उपमेयमन्यव रीत्या प्रतितं न पुनः प्रयोज्यं कदर्थता नेमः । यथा —

In Irrelevant Description also the object of comparison, which is apprehended in this very manner, should not be spoiled by the use of a word to express it again. For example —

आहूतेषु विहगमेषु शकुनो नायान् पुरो वायति मधुवातिरधि वा वस्त्रणमणिर्धत्ते मणीना रुचम् । खद्योतोडपि न कम्पते प्रचलितु मध्या डपि तेजस्विना धिक् सामान्मचेतन प्रथुमिवानामृष्टतत्पान्तरम् ॥ २१३ ॥

When sky goers i e birds are called, a mosquito, coming forward, is not warded off Or a grass jewel, living in the middle of the sea, assumes the lustre of jewels. Also a fire fly does not tremble to move even amongst the luminaries Fie upon inanimate and indisciminate generality, which like a lord, does not consider the distinction between things.

अत्र अचेतनस्य प्रभोः प्रस्तुतविवक्षितसामान्याभिघारणाभिव्यक्तेरयुक्तमेव पुनः कथनम् ।

Here when an indiscriminate master is understood through the door of qualified generality which is irrelevant, his mention again is very improper.

Page 192

तदेते उल्कारदोषा यथासंभविनोड्ये ड्येवजातीयका पूर्वोक्त्यैव दोषजात्या अन्तर्भाविता न पृथक् प्रतिपादनमहंन्ति ।

Therefore, these defects of figures, which become possible according to circumstances, and others also of this kind covered as they are by the class of defects, already mentioned before, do not deserve separate treatment

इति सपूर्णमिदं काव्यलक्षणम् ।

Thus here ends [the treatment of] the definition of poetry

इत्येष मार्गो विदुषा विभिन्नोड्यभिन्नरूप प्रतिभासते यत् । न तद् विचित्र यदस्मत्र सम्यग्विनिर्मिता सघटनैव हेतुः ॥ २१४ ॥

That this path, though broken, thus appears to the learned as being of unbroken form—that is not wonderful, since in this the joint itself, which has been well executed, is the cause

इति काव्यप्रकाशोऽथालङ्कारनिर्णयो नाम दशम उल्लासः ।

Thus ends the Tenth Flash named the Determination of the Figures of Sense, in the Light of Poetry

समाप्तश्राय काव्यप्रकाशः ।

And this Light of Poetry Ends

Page 194

NOTES

Notes

FIRST FLASH

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 उद्भास ( from लस् लसति to shine ) or flash, the name by which the chapters of this work are known, continues the metaphor contained in काव्यप्रकाश

Kāvya-prakāśa (the illumination of poetry) means the light of poetry. This word contains a suppressed metaphor within it, which, when expressed, would be 'poetry is indeed the moon, its illumination is the radiance of the moon of poetry' (from the root 'las' meaning 'to shine') or 'flash', the term by which the chapters of this work are known, continuing the metaphor inherent in 'Kāvya-prakāśa'.

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 पतञ्जलि's महाभाष्य page 147 Also अमिनवगुप्त 's लोचन on ध्वन्याेलोक 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

Following the traditional custom of Sanskrit writers to begin their works with a salutation or benediction, Mammata opens his work with a Mangala-sloka. The Mangala is generally credited with the power of removing obstacles and leading to a successful conclusion of the work undertaken. This is as beneficial to authors as it is to readers. Compare Patanjali's Mahabhashya, page 147, and also Abhinavagupta's Lochana on Dhvanyaloka, page 1. It is a pity that despite the salutation, Mammata had to leave his work unfinished. Perhaps the obstacles were too numerous to be overcome by the Mangala.

the मङ्गल

the Mangala

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 अल्लष्ट It is but appropriate that मम्मट glorifies भारती 1 e the Goddess of speech in his मङ्गल

The term 'granth' refers to the 'Kavya-prakasha' along with the 'karikas' or stanzas that contain various topics, the 'vritti' or explanatory prose commentary, and the 'udaharanani' or examples. The 'karikas' and the 'vritti' up to and including the figure 'parikar' are the work of Mammata. The remaining portion is composed by Allashta. It is fitting that Mammata glorifies Bharati, i.e., the Goddess of Speech, in his Mangala.

ग्रन्यकृत्-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 स्वमते परोपदेशे झुकते, 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 कारिक's It is also worthwhile to note that many writers on अलङ्कारग्रन्थ refer to themselves in the third person though they alone are the authors of both the कारिका 's and the वृत्ति

The term 'granthakrit' - Mammata refers to himself in the third person, following the practice of Sanskrit writers, particularly those who write a commentary on their work. For example, Kulluka Bhatta on Manusmriti 1.4 says, 'Generally, authors of treatises incline towards the views of others in their commentaries.' Medhatithi makes a similar observation. This reference to the third person should not be used, as some do, as an argument to contend that Mammata was not the author of the karikas. It is also worth noting that many writers on Alankara-granth refer to themselves in the third person, even though they alone are the authors of both the karikas and the vritti.

परामृशति means touches in a physical sense Then the word metaphorically denotes touches mentally 1 e thinks of or praises

'Parāmṛśati' 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 Sarasvati or the Goddess of Speech Sarasvatī, who is lauded here, is not directly

Karika 1 - In this Karika, Mammata glorifies Sarasvati or the Goddess of Speech. Sarasvati, who is praised here, is not directly

Page 195

१४२

142

काव्यप्रकाराः

Kāvyaprakāśaḥ

[ Page 1

mentioned कवे भारती or the Speech of the Poet 1 e poetry is directly glorified and as poetry is the result of the inspiration or favour of Sarasvatī, the glorification of poetry means the glorification of Sarasvatī Note that the word भारती is used in an almost paronomastic sense It means speech as well as the Goddess of Speech

mentioned as 'Kave Bhāratī' or the Speech of the Poet, poetry is directly glorified and as poetry is the result of the inspiration or favour of Sarasvatī, the glorification of poetry means the glorification of Sarasvatī. Note that the word 'Bhāratī' is used in an almost paronomastic sense. It means speech as well as the Goddess of Speech.

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

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 Vrtti on this Kārikā Mammata 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-एतस्या ब्रह्मणो निमित्ते विसदृशो ) Thus, in understanding the adjectives of the creation of poetry in the Kārikā we must read them along with the corresponding passages in the Vrtti, which describe the creation of Brahman so that the superiority of the former over the latter would be clearly grasped

It will be noticed that in his Vrtti on this Kārikā, Mammata 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 (etad-vilakṣaṇā-etasyā brahmaṇo nimittē visadr̥śō). Thus, in understanding the adjectives of the creation of poetry in the Kārikā, we must read them along with the corresponding passages in the Vrtti, which describe the creation of Brahman so that the superiority of the former over the latter would be clearly grasped.

नियति-नियत्या कृतो ये नियमास्ते रहिताम् नियति has a double sense here viz ( 1 ) Destiny (2) Settled order of things 1 e nature The creation of ब्रह्मा obviously subject to restrictions imposed by नियति in these two senses While creating the world, the creator is guided by the actions of the individual ( c. f शांकरभाष्य on ब्रह्मसूत्रs II 1-34-36 ) The creation is further more subject to certain definite laws of nature e g a lotus must invariably be found in water and must have a peculiar fragrance But the poet is unhampered in both these respects He need pay no regard to the previous actions of the individual and his lotuses need no water nor have a peculiar fragrance What it amounts to saying is is ' काव्यनिर्माणे निरकुशा कवयः '

'Niyati-niyatā kr̥tō yē niyamāstē rahitām'. 'Niyati' has a double sense here, viz. (1) Destiny, (2) Settled order of things, i.e., nature. The creation of Brahmā is obviously subject to restrictions imposed by 'niyati' in these two senses. While creating the world, the creator is guided by the actions of the individual (cf. Śāṅkarabhāṣya on Brahma-sūtras II.1.34-36). The creation is further more subject to certain definite laws of nature, e.g., a lotus must invariably be found in water and must have a peculiar fragrance. But the poet is unhampered in both these respects. He need pay no regard to the previous actions of the individual and his lotuses need no water nor have a peculiar fragrance. What it amounts to saying is 'kāvya-nirmāṇē nirakuśā kavayaḥ'.

हादेकमयोम्—The affix मय usually has the sense of प्राचुर्ये according to ' तस्मृततवचने मयद्र ' पा ५ ४ २१ e g द्रुममय ससार or जलमये स्थानम् Here it is used स्वार्थे 1 e without this sense of प्राचुर्ये, but in the sense of ' consisting of' only मय in this sense occurs in such expressions as रूपमय पात्रम् and आनन्दमय ब्रह्मा Explain this word then as एक ( हाद ) प्रकृतो यस्सां सा एकमयी एकस्वभाव इत्यर्थे; हादेन एकमयी ताम् 1 e consisting of joy alone The word एक has been used to distinguish poetical creation from Brahman's creation, which consists of सुख, दुःख and मोह (सुख

'Hādekamayom'. The affix 'may' usually has the sense of 'prācuryē' according to 'tasmr̥tatavacanē mayadr̥' (Pāṇini 5.4.21), e.g., 'drumamaya sasāra' or 'jalamayē sthānam'. Here it is used in the sense of 'svārthē', i.e., without this sense of 'prācuryē', but in the sense of 'consisting of' only. 'May' in this sense occurs in such expressions as 'rūpamaya pātram' and 'ānandamaya brahmā'. Explain this word then as 'ekah (hādaḥ) prakr̥tō yassā sā ekamayī ekasvabhāva ityarthē; hādēna ekamayī tāṃ', i.e., consisting of joy alone. The word 'eka' has been used to distinguish poetical creation from Brahman's creation, which consists of 'sukha', 'duḥkha', and 'moha' ('sukha'

Page 196

दु खमोहम्वभावा

But poetical composition creates joy alone

That is why the creation of poetry is superior to the creation of Brahman.

This has reference to सांख्य phlosophy according to which the creation consists of 3 essential qualities, सत्त्व (goodness), रजस् (passion) and तमस् (darkness) respectively producing सुख, दु ख and मोह

One need not raise an objection here that how can रसs like करुण, बीभत्स etc produce joy Because in the first place even a pathetic composition, expertly handled, gives pleasure to appreciative listeners and readers and secondly by its very definition, every रस produces joy ( रस्यते आस्वाद्यते अशौ रस ) Read रसगंगाधर page 26

अनन्यपरतन्त्राम्—Explain this as अनन्यस्य कविविभवतीमित्रस्य कस्यचिद् परतन्त्रा अधीना अन्यपरतन्त्रा, न अन्यपरतन्त्रा अनन्यपरतन्त्रा, ताम्

not dependent on anything other than [the Poet's Speech] i e does not require the help of anything else Brahman on the other hand has necessarily to depend upon certain external causes in order to bring into existence his creation Poetical creation is thus superior to the creation of Brahman

It should be noted that the adjective अनन्यपरतन्त्रा is primarily applicable to भारती, because the poet's speech does not require any external help to unfold its creation It is used to qualify निर्माण or creation only secondarily It should further be noted that परतन्त्र literally means पराधीन or dependent on another Here, however, it has the sense of अधीन or dependent only Note ‘परतन्त्र पराधीन परवश्राधीनवानपि । अधीनो नित् आयत्तोऽस्वच्छन्दो गृहीतकोडयसौ’ अमर

In this sense we have the word in such expressions as मत्परतन्त्र and त्वत्परतन्त्र Mammata has also used परतन्त्र in the sense of अधीन in his Vrtti Hence there is no tautology in the compound अनन्यपरतन्त्राम्, though both अन्य and पर occur therein

In contrast with poetical creation, which is अनन्यपरतन्त्र, Brahman's creation is परमाण्वाद्युपादानकर्मादिसहकारिकारणपरतन्त्र

In order to understand this adjective we must remember that according to Nyāya Vaiśesika system an effect is produced by the operation of three causes viz समवायिकारण or उपादानकारण, असमवायिकारण and निमित्तकारण or सहकारिकारण

A समवायिकारण or an intimate or constituent cause represents the material of which an effect is made Thus, मृत्टिका or clay is the समवायिकारण of a घट and तन्तु the समवायिकारण of a पट

A समवायिकारण is always a द्रव्य or substance An असमवायिकारण or a non intimate cause is either a गुण or a कर्मे Thus, कपालसंयोग or the conjunction of two potsherds is the

Page 197

असमवायिकारण of a घट and तन्तुसंयोग or the conjunction of threads

the असमवायिकारण of a पट

the असमवायिकारण of a घट and तन्तुसंयोग or the conjunction of threads the असमवायिकारण of a पट Similarly, when a bird sits on a tree and पक्षि-

दृक्षसंयोग is effected, पक्षिगत कर्मे or पक्षिगत किया is the असमवायिकारण of this

A निमित्त कारण or सहकारी कारण ( an instrumental or auxiliary cause ) includes all other causes that are necessary for the production

पक्षिदृक्षसंयोग 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 )

Thus, a potter, a wheel,a staff and the like

are the instrumental causes of a jar and a weaver, a shuttle, a loom

and the like ( कुविन्दतुरीवेमादि ) those of a piece of cloth.

and the like 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 ( कर्मे-

products viz God's will, the actions of individual souls

अदृष्टं धर्माधर्मौ वा ) and space, time and the like ( दिक्कालादिकम् ) Out of these

three causes the असमवायिकारण is admitted in the Nyāya-Vaiśesika system

only The followers of this system believe in what is known as असत्कार्य-

वाद or the doctrine that the effect, which was non-existent before, is

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-कार्मोदिसहकारि-करणपरतन्त्रा In

this compound the part करणपरतन्त्रा is to be construed with both परमाण्वाद्यु

पादान and कर्मोदिसहकारि. Thus, the compound means that Brahman's creation

is परमाण्वाद्युपादानकरणपरतन्त्रा and कर्मोदिसहकारिकारणपरतन्त्रा 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 indi-

Secondly, Brahman has to pay due regard to the actions of indi-

vidual 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 ब्रह्मणो निमित्ति 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 Vaiśesikas

and the Naiyāyikas According to them the substances पृथिवी, आप्

Page 198

तेजस् and वायु are ultumately 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 कर्म 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 thus 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 auxilary 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 कर्मोदिसहकारि includes such common instrumental causes as space and time

It will be noticed that in the adjective परमाण्वाद्यु परतन्ना 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

नवरसगणिराम् — Explain thus as नव रसा यस्था सा नवरसा ( बहुव्रीहि ), नवरसा च असौ गणिरामश्च नवरसगणिरामः (विशेषणपूर्वद्वन्द्वः ) नाथ् This compound as well as मम्मट, Sāyukti on it mention two points in which poetical creation excels that of Brahman The former has nine रस as against six found in the latter Secondly poetical creation is always charming which certanly 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, कषाय or astringent and तिक्त or bitter Read ' रसनप्रायो गुणो रस । स च मधुराम्ललवणकटुकषायतिक्तविभेदात् । षड्विधः ' तकस्माद

Section 20

The nine rasas or sentiments in poetry are enumerated in शृङ्गारहास्यकरुणरौद्रवीरभयानकाः । बीभत्साद्भुततसञ्ज्ञौ चेत्यष्टौ नाय्ये रसा स्मृताः ॥ 29 निबन्ध-स्थायिभावोऽस्ति ज्ञान्तोऽपि नवमो रसः । 35' काव्यप्रकाश 111, 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 व्यक्तं सञ्चारिणा तथा । रसतात्प्रति रत्यादि स्थायिभाव सञ्चेतसाम् ॥ ' साहित्यदर्पण 111 1 There are in our hearts certan permanent moods or latent emotions, called स्थायिभावs which, when excited and made manifest by विभावs,

का १०

Page 199

अनुभावs and सञ्चारिभावs, attain to the position of a rasa or sentiment

Anubhavas and Sanchari Bhavas attain the position of a rasa or sentiment

Thus, the emotion of love ( रति ) lies dormant in every human heart

Thus, the emotion of love (Rati) lies dormant in every human heart

It attains the position of a rasa, when it is awakened and manifested

It attains the position of a rasa when it is awakened and manifested

by विभावs and others A स्थायिभाव is thus defined “ विरुदैरविरुदैर्वी भावैर्विंचिच्यते न यः । आलम्बनौ नयत्यन्यान् स स्थायी लवणाकरः ॥’

by Vibhavas and others. A sthayi-bhava is thus defined as that which is not contradicted by contradictory feelings and which pervades other feelings, like salt pervades food.

दशरूपक iv 34, ‘अविरुद्धा [आवा] यस्तिरोधातमक्षमा । आस्वादैककरन्दोसौ भावः स्थायीति समस्तु ॥’ साहित्यदर्पण iii 174

The nine स्थायिभावs corresponding to the nine rasas are enumerated in ‘रतिहास्सख शोकश्र क्रोधोत्साहौ भयं तथा । जुगुप्सा विस्मयश्रैत्थमष्टौ ’

The nine sthayi-bhavas corresponding to the nine rasas are enumerated in 'Ratih, Hassah, Shokashcha, Krodhottsahau, Bhayam Tatha, Jugupsa, Vismayashcha, ete'

प्रोक्ता शमोऽपि च ॥ Ibid iii 175 विभावs or the determinants are those that awaken or excite the latent permanent moods and heighten them

Prokta Shamopyapi cha. Ibid iii 175. Vibhavas or the determinants are those that awaken or excite the latent permanent moods and heighten them

They are thus of two kinds viz आलम्बनविभावs and उद्दीपनविभावs Women are आलम्बनविभावs for श्रृङ्गाररस, because at their sight love is awakened and they are thus the support of that sentiment

They are thus of two kinds, viz. Alambana-vibhavas and Uddipana-vibhavas. Women are alambana-vibhavas for Shringara-rasa because at their sight love is awakened and they are thus the support of that sentiment

Then, the beauty, dress, ornaments and gestures of women, a solitary place, the vernal season, the moonlight-all these constitute उद्दीपनविभावs because they heighten the love which has already been excited Read साहित्यदर्पण iii

Then, the beauty, dress, ornaments, and gestures of women, a solitary place, the vernal season, the moonlight - all these constitute uddipana-vibhavas because they heighten the love which has already been excited. Read Sāhityadarpana iii

अनुभावs or consequent results are the effects of the sentiments, such as the knitting of the eye-brows and the glances Under अनुभावs are included the eight सात्विकभावs or outward manifestations of the internal sentiments, such as stupor, perspiration and horripilation

Anubhavas or consequent results are the effects of the sentiments, such as the knitting of the eye-brows and the glances. Under anubhavas are included the eight satvik-bhavas or outward manifestations of the internal sentiments, such as stupor, perspiration, and horripilation

Read ‘अनुभावो विकारस्तु भावसंमूर्च्छानात्मकः ! 3’ दशरूपक iv, ‘सञ्चारिभावs or transitory results, also called व्यभिचारिभावs, are those that appear now and then as waves in the ocean They are helpful in apprehending the स्थायिभावs and their effects The व्यभिचारिभावs are thirty-three, such as निर्वेद, ग्लानि, शङ्का, श्रम etc Read ‘विशेषादिमिमूल्येन चरन्तो व्यभिचारिणः । स्थायिन्युनमपन्निमित्ता कत्स्न्रैल इव वारिधौ ॥ 7’ दक्षकरूपक iv

It will thus be seen that rasa primarily belongs to the appreciative reader or the spectator in whom it is developed When we speak of a man as being रसिक or सरस, we mean that he possesses those permanent emotions which are capable of developing into the various sentiments under favourable circumstances

It will thus be seen that rasa primarily belongs to the appreciative reader or the spectator in whom it is developed. When we speak of a man as being rasika or sarasa, we mean that he possesses those permanent emotions which are capable of developing into the various sentiments under favourable circumstances

On the other hand a composition is said to be रसवत्, when it contains a description of the स्थायिभावs and others, a perusal of which produces the corresponding sentiment in an appreciative reader The adjective रसवत् or सरस as applied to poetry has only a secondary significance

On the other hand, a composition is said to be rasavat when it contains a description of the sthayi-bhavas and others, a perusal of which produces the corresponding sentiment in an appreciative reader. The adjective rasavat or sarasa as applied to poetry has only a secondary significance

This Kārkā contains the figure, called व्यतिरेक, which is only suggested ( व्यङ्गयो व्यतिरेकालङ्कार ) व्यतिरेक consists in the establishment of the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमान

This Karka contains the figure called vyatireka, which is only suggested (vyangyo vyatirekalankara). Vyatireka consists in the establishment of the superiority of the upameya over the upamana

Page 200

इह = अस्मिन् ग्रन्थे अभिधेयम् means विषय the subject matter viz काव्यम्

Here = in this text, the subject matter means the topic, namely poetry.

That अभिधेयम् stands for काव्यम् is clear from the fact that in the following Kārikā the purposes of काव्य are enumerated प्रयोजनै सहितं सप्रयोजनम् possessed of purposes What Mammata means to say is that काव्य, which is the subject matter of this book viz काव्यप्रकाश, possesses certain purposes The book treats of काव्य and is thus subservient to it. Therefore, the purposes of काव्य, which is the principal, are exactly the purposes of this book, which is subordinate to it

Out of the four requisites of a literary work viz आधारिन्, विषय सन्ध्य and प्रयोजन सम्मत stresses the last only It is as it should be use not even a fool would proceed to do anything unless he knows what he is going to get out of it

Out of the four requisites of a literary work, namely basis, subject, connection, and purpose, it emphasizes the last one only. It is as it should be; no one, not even a fool, would proceed to do anything unless they know what they are going to gain from it.

Mammata 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 Mammata कृत, विद and युज are verbal derivatives ( क्रियन्ता ) from the roots कृ, विद and युज The datives यथासे, अर्थकृते and others are used according to the Vartika ‘अर्थलिप्सुपद्यमानेषु च’ ( भिक्षादिनाय कल्पते सम्पद्यते जायते इत्यादि ) We have to supply कल्पते ( conduces to ) or भवति as the verb in the Kārikā

Mammata tells us that these six purposes accrue to the poet and the appreciative reader ( सहृदय ) according to capability ( यथायोग्यताद्रुपमिलर्थं ). This means the purposes are not common to both the poet and the reader Thus, it will be seen that fame, money and the removal of evil are purposes which accrue to the poet only, while knowledge of the ways of the world, instantaneous joy and advice are purposes which belong to the reader शिवेतरक्षति is possible in the case of the reader also and that उपदेशयुज is applicable to the poet as well

Mammata tells us that these six purposes benefit the poet and the appreciative reader according to their capability. This means the purposes are not common to both the poet and the reader. Thus, it will be seen that fame, money, and the removal of evil are purposes that benefit the poet only, while knowledge of the ways of the world, instantaneous joy, and advice are purposes that belong to the reader. Protection from evil is possible in the case of the reader also, and being conducive to advice is applicable to the poet as well.

Mammata illustrates the second purpose by quoting the example of Bāna, who was patronized by Emperor Harsa of Thanesar Harsa was born in 590 A D and ruled over the whole of Northern India from 606 A D to 647 A D Bāna himself tells us that he obtained vast amounts of money from his patron Read ‘अस्य [ बाणस्य ]. . पृथिवीपति: [ श्रीहर्षे ] प्रसादवान् अभूत् । अविलम्ब [ वाण ] पुनरापि नरपतिभवनम् | स्वल्पैरपि बाहुभि परमप्रोतेन प्रसादजननम्रो मानस्य प्रेम्णो विश्रम्भस्य द्वाविणस्य नम्रेण प्रभावस्य च परा कोटिमानीयत ननन्दृण |’ इहेचारित द्वितीय उच्च्वास

Mammata illustrates the second purpose by quoting the example of Bana, who was patronized by Emperor Harsha of Thanesar. Harsha was born in 590 AD and ruled over the whole of Northern India from 606 AD to 647 AD. Bana himself tells us that he obtained vast amounts of money from his patron. Read 'Of this [Bana's], the lord of the earth [Sri Harsha] was gracious. Again, without delay [Bana] entered the king's palace. With his arms slightly bent, with utmost devotion, with humility born of favor, with reverence for honor, with trust, with modesty born of wealth, and with utmost devotion, he delighted.' Here, the second chapter is cited.

The reading धावकारिनाम् for वाणादीनाम् is evidently a corruption and makes no sense For, no poet of the name of धावक is known to Sanskrit

Page 201

१४८

148

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

literature On the other hand the association of Bāna with Sriharsa 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 श्रीहर्षे's name for money For a different tradition in this connection c f जल्हणकृत आदित्यादित्ये - अनर्थनिवारणम्

As an illustration of how शिवेतरक्ष्षति is achieved by poetry, मम्मट 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 शिवेतरक्ष्षति 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 गङ्गालहरी, गुरुचरित्र, शनिमाहात्म्य etc

स्थायि-परनिर्झृति 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 वेद्यान्तरं स्वातिरिकविषयान्तरं 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 = उपदेशयोग is that sixth purpose Thus expression literally means association of advice It is capable of signifying (1) 'derivation or obtaining of advice ( उपदेशलभ उपदेशग्रहण व )' 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 Mammata's Vṛtti shows that he intends the first interpretation For, his words ' काव्यं उपदेशं करोति ' fit in with सहृदयस्य and not with कवे. On the other hand कान्तासमिततया of the Kārikā indicates that the second interpretation is meant For, a beloved, like poetry

Page 202

Page 2 ] NOTES : First Flash १४९

Page 2 ] NOTES : First Flash 149

conveys advice, but does not receive it. So this is an example of Mammata's careless writing

According to Sanskrit rhetoricians advice or instruction is conveyed in three ways viz like a king or master, like a friend and like a beloved Authoritative or enjoining works (शासन from शासन्-शास्ति to instruct or command) like the Veda issue peremptory commands, which have to be unquestioningly obeyed In them the word is important or principal and consequently their commands have to be literally followed (प्रभो समितानि तुऽल्यानि, शब्द प्रधान येषु तानि च यानि वेदादिशाऽऽज्ञाणि वेदप्रभृति शास्त्रप्रन्याः ) Works like the Purānas or ancient legend ary books and Itihāsas or historical books are like a friend. When a friend wants to instruct us, he does not issue peremptory commands He explains to us the advantages and disadvantages of certain courses of conduct and points out the way which would be the best for us to follow In his advice the words are not of much importance. What matters is the sense or spirit behind those words (अर्थ एव तात्पर्यै प्रधाने वस्तु, तदस्ति एषा त अर्थतात्पर्य्यवृत् ) A पुराण and an इतिहास are thus defined

Therein lies the difference (विलक्षणत्वम्‌) i e the superiority of poetry in the matter of conveying advice to Vedas, Purānas and other works The beloved does exactly the same. By her charming and loving behaviour she first creates in us a feeling of joy and then makes us do whatever she wants Thus, though we are really acting according to her desires, we are hardly aware of that fact.

काव्यम् is paraphrased by Mammata as लोकोत्तरवर्णनानिपुणकविकर्म, which is thus explained लोकोत्तरा लोकातिशायिनी वैचित्र्यमुख्या सकृत्कृतिजानिका वा या वर्णना

kāvyam is paraphrased by Mammata as lokottaravarṇanānipuṇakavikarma, which is thus explained lokottarā lokātiśāyinī vaicitryamukhya sakṛtkṛtijñānikā vā yā varṇanā

Page 203

वर्णने, तस्या निपुण कुशल य कवि तस्य कर्मे

in [giving] extraordinary or striking description

the compostion of a poet skilled

Since the chief purpose of poetry is to produce joy, it is obvious that मम्मट holds the view that काव्य should be आनन्दप्रधान He also mentions उपदेशयुक् as a प्रयोजन which means that according to मम्मट poetry may also preach but not necessarily

Other writers on rhetoric like भामह, दण्डी etc mention almost the purposes of poetry

अस्य = काव्यस्य प्रयोजनम्—This should really be प्रयोजनानि For, the second Kārikā enumerates six purposes As it stands प्रयोजनम् should be understood as a collective singular

Karika 3—This Kārikā gives us the cause of poetry i e the qualities which go to make a poet This cause, according to Mammata, comprises three things viz शक्ती, निपुणता and अभ्यास The Vṛtti explains these terms in detail

शक्ति is the same as प्रतिभा i e the poetic genius This has been defined as ‘ प्रज्ञा नवनवोन्मेषशालिनी प्रतिभा मता ’ This is the first and evidently the most important requisite of poetry The word संस्कार has a reference to the theory of karman, which is one of the axioms of Sanskrit Philosophy It stands for impressions which the souls carry from birth to birth and which determine our character In so far as additional to शक्ति, मम्मट refers to निपुणता and अभ्यास as the requisites, it is obvious that in his opinion ‘ poets are as much born as made ’

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

अभियानकोशै: represents lexicons such as that of अमर-कुला means Arts which include amongst many others गीत, नृत्य, वाद्य and कौशल लिपिज्ञान

चतुर्वर्गे refers to the four objects of human life viz धर्म, अर्थ, काम and मोक्ष In the expression महाकाविनिबन्धानाम् मम्मट does not necessarily restrict himself to the five famous महाकाव्यs 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 The further restrictions of these three are expressed in the following passage ‘ शक्त्या शब्दार्थौ मनसि सन्निधीयते । तौ सारसारमहणनिरसौ व्युत्पत्त्या कियते अभ्यासेन शफेलत्वं आधीयते ।’

In spite of above we believe that मम्मट is inclined to the view that a poet is born, not made This we deduce from his explanation of शक्ति

Page 204

and the addition of समुच्चयेव in the explanation of तथद्रवै, मम्मट is making a distinction between a काव्यहेतु and an उत्तम काव्यहेतु ? The former is शक्ती while the three jointly constitute the latter And this interpretation of मम्मट agrees with the view expressed by रुय्यक् In fact most of the Sanskrit rhetoricians hold the view that a poet is born and not made

and the addition of समुच्चयेव in the explanation of तथद्रवै, Mammata is making a distinction between a काव्यहेतु and an उत्तम काव्यहेतु ? The former is शक्ति while the three jointly constitute the latter And this interpretation of Mammata agrees with the view expressed by रुय्यक् In fact most of the Sanskrit rhetoricians hold the view that a poet is born and not made

काव्यनिरण्यास्न्याम practice or training under the instruction of the knowers of the poetry काव्यज्ञ, as Mammata, tells us, means both a poet and a critic A prospective poet must have the advantage of the instruction of both these And he must further act according to the old adage that practice makes man perfect

Page 4

The adjectives अदोष सगुण and प्रायःस्वलंकृत constitute a general description, not a definition, of poetry For, they do not refer to any essentials of poetry at all The most essential thing in poetry, its soul in fact, is rasa or sentiment Mammata is aware of this, as we saw before his words 'शब्दार्थयोंगुणभावेन रसाद्भुतव्यापारप्रवणतया विलक्षणं यत् काव्यम्' The same is borne out by his definitions of दोष, गुण and अलंकार But he makes no reference to rasa in his definition. On the contrary he includes therein characteristics, which not only are not essential, but also go very ill with शब्दार्थों, to which they are supposed to belong If he had said 'रसौ शब्दार्थी काव्यम्,' his definition would have been faultless But first we shall point out the nature of the defects that are found in Mammata's definition.

The first defect is of course Mammata's failure to refer to rasa, which is regarded as the soul of poetry and which he himself tacitly accepts as such Secondly, अदोषी is at best a negative characteristic and should not have found a place in the definition. No negative characteristic of this kind is ever put in a definition On the general principle that nothing is perfect in this imperfect world, no poem would be found to be completely faultless The presence of a fault here and there does not deprive a poem of its character as poetry. This is shown by the fact that Mammata, in common with other rhetoricians, treats of काव्यदोषः, which means it is possible to have faults in काव्य Thirdly, सगुण is not a proper adjective of word and sense For, Mammata says later on that excellences are the characteristics of the rasa alone When his definition of poetry makes no mention of rasa, how can excellences that depend on rasa be there ? If one were to argue that by using सगुण as an adjective of word and

Page 205

९५२

952

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 4

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 सौलकाऱत्व 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 सौलकाऱत्व as part of the defintion of a woman

In response, Mammata suggests that those words and senses 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 सौलकाऱत्व' 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 सौलकाऱत्व' as part of the definition 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 defini tion does not give the essentials of poetry Therefore, it is unscienti fic 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 सौलकाऱत्व 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.

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 सौलकाऱत्व'. 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

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 नवरसहचिराम् in the very first Kārikā ? Then again he speaks of रसानुभूत्यापार on p 3 and रसत्व प्राभान्यम् 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.

It must be noted that this defense 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 'नवरसहचिराम्' in the very first Kārikā? Then again, he speaks of 'रसानुभूत्यापार' on p. 3 and 'रसत्व प्राभान्यम्' 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 defense of Mammata appears to us to be unsound, and his definition of poetry deserves to be condemned, as it rightly is.

Page 206

Page 4 ]

NOTES First Flash

१५३

The above definition of मम्मट has been very vehemently attacked by विश्ननाथ, the author of साहित्यदर्पण and जगन्नाथ, the author of रसगंगाधर विश्ननाथ objects to मम्मट' s definition on these two grounds mainly

( a ) Mere शब्द and अर्थ do not constitute poetry They must be रसवत्

( b ) If you insist on a काव्य being अदोष then number of compositions which have been accepted as Poetry will forfeit that title because of their faults The first objection of विश्ननाथ is well taken and is valid The second is unfair because मम्मट does not maintain that the presence of a fault un a poem deprives it of that title He only affirms that a काव्य, par excellence, should be free from any blemish

जगन्नाथ's principal objection to मम्मट's definition is that the author of काव्यप्रकाश gives equal prominence to शब्द and अर्थ जगन्नाथ thinks it to be incorrect because in his judgement शब्द is more prominent than अर्थ as is borne out by remarks like काव्य शृणोति अर्थो न ज्ञात विश्ननाथ defines काव्य as वाक्यं रसात्मक काव्यम् while the definition of काव्य as given by जगन्नाथ is रमणीयार्थप्रतिपादक शब्द काव्यम्

While a number of writers on rhetorics give equal prominence both to शब्द and अर्थ, some attach greater importance to शब्द Accor ding to them, since the essence of poetry is strikingness or charm, the same is best conveyed not by ordinary words but special words which would conduce to beauty of expression

It should be noted that Jagannatha's insistence that काव्य primarily denotes word is not quite convincing As against his 'काव्यमुचैः पतयते', we have such expressions as 'काव्य ज्ञातम्' and 'काव्य मनोहारि', where- काव्य signifies the sense काव्य thus primarily means both word and sense and is sometimes used to designate either of these metaphorically under certain circumstances

Then again, even according to Jagannātha, the word, which constitutes काव्य, must be रमणीय अर्थ-प्रतिपादक So word in काव्य cannot be separated from अर्थ It is, therefore, proper that equal prominence be given to both word and sense.

The natural result of this doctrine of regarding the word as more important was the elaboration of different figures (अलंकार ), the formation of different styles (रीति ) and the necessity of using a striking expression (वक्रोक्ति ) generally This led to the views that a figure, a style and striking expression were the most important in poetry Thus arose what are known as the Alamkāra school, the Rīti school and the Vakrokti school

Page 207

१४८

148

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

But the followers of these schools were dealing with the externals of poetry But as Bharata had declared in very early times, the Soul or essence of poetry is रस Since this रस has always to be suggested, suggestion came to be considered as the essence of poetry This led to the foundation of the ध्वनि school

It will thus be seen that these five schools viz Rasa, Dhvani, Alamkāra, Riti and Vakrokti sprang out of the discussions that were carried on regarding the definition or essence of poetry

All these definitions must have made it clear that according to Sanskrit Alamkārikas meter or versification is not essential to poetry Poetry may occur in any form, metrical or prose Thus, writers of prose works like Subandhu and Bāna are styled poets equally with the authors of metrical kāvyas and dramas As a matter of fact composition in prose was regarded as more difficult than that in verse Compare गद्यं कवीनां निकषं वदन्ति वामन on का सू 1 3 21

In this matter we hold a different view We believe that form is of the essence of poetry काव्यम् comes from the root कु क्राति to sing or hum and primarily means a composition that can be sung or hummed In order that a composition should be poetry it must be capable of being sung (गेय) This means that poetry must be metrical

Then again, the current meaning of the word काव्य in the language favours our view For, the conventional sense of काव्य is a metrical compositon.

So if we are allowed to give one more definiton of काव्य, we would state it as 'वाक्यं रसात्मकं गेयं काव्यशब्दाभिषेकितम् दोषगुणालङ्कारवश्यन्ते —Mammata treats of defects in Ullāsa vii, excel lences in viii, figures of word in ix and figures of sense in x

A defect is thus defined 'मुख्यार्थाहतदोषा, रसव्ध्यस्तदात्प्रियो बाचि उभयो- पयोगिनः शब्दार्थास्तेनेष्यापि स ||' काव्यप्रकाश vii 1, Mammata treats of 16 defects such as श्रुतिदुष्ट and न्युतसस्कृति in the seventh Ullāsa

An excellence is thus defined 'ये रसस्याकिनो धर्मो शौर्यादय इवालम् | उत्कर्ष हेतवस्ते सुरचालितयो गुणा | काव्यप्रकाश viii 1, Mammata treats of three expe- llences viz. माधुर्ये (sweetness) ओजस् (vigour) and प्रसाद (clearness or perspicuity ) in the eight Ullāsa ( 'माधुर्योजःप्रसादाख्ययस्ते' )

A figure is defined as - उपकुर्वन्ति ते सन्तं [ रसं ] येऽङ्गाद्वारेण जातुचित् | हारादिवलयंकारास्तेऽङ्गप्रासोपमादयः || काव्यप्रकाश viii 2, Figures are of two kinds- figures of word ( शब्दालङ्कार ) and figures of sense ( अर्थालङ्कार ) Mammata treats of the figures of word in the 9th Ullāsa and the figures of sense in the 10th.

Page 208

कावीत्यनेन हानि —

By 'kāvyatvena hāni —'

Mammata here explains what he exactly means by 'काव्य अलंकृती' in his definition of kāvya Word and sense that form poetry should generally have figures everywhere But if in some cases a distinct figure is absent, that would not make them lose their character of poetry Thus, as far as figures are concerned, काव्य can be of three kinds viz स्कुटालंकारयुक्तम्, अस्कुटालंकारयुतम् and स्कुटेन अस्कुटेन वा अलंकारेण रहितम्. According to Mammata's explanation only the third kind would not be kāvya

य कौमारहर etc —

This stanza is attributed to शीलमट्टारिका in शृङ्गरपद्धति No 3768

It describes how a woman, though married for a long time feels the same longing for love-sport as before This is due to her intense love for her husband

In the शृङ्गरपद्धति this stanza occurs under असतीचरितम् There in the third line we have चौर्यसुखतया परलीलाविच्छौ instead of तत्र शरत् ∘ If this context and this reading are taken into consideration, the expression ' य कौमारहर स एव हि वर ' attains special significance

The stanza has been quoted by Mammata as an example where though no distinct figure is present, काव्यत्व is not lost This means the stanza contains an indistinct figure, which gives to it the character of kāvya That indistinct figure is either विभावना or विशेषोक्ति

विभावना is a figure which occurs when a result arises without the cause ( ' विभावना विना हेतुं कार्योत्पत्तिरुच्यते' सा द x 66 ) Here the result is उत्कण्ठा or the lady's longing for love sport The ordinary cause of this is newness or novelty of the lover and the other circumstances But though such a cause is not present in the case of this lady, yet the result viz उत्कण्ठा has arisen So there is विभावना in the stanza

Since in this verse, the absence of cause is not directly stated with a negative particle, the figure is said to be indistinct. If the lady had said 'परकीय नवोल्लासित प्रियां वा न संति', the figure would have been distinct.

The other indistinct figure is विशेषोक्ति It occurs when, though the cause exists, the result does not follow ( 'सति हेतौ फलाभाव विशेषोक्ति' सा द x. 67 ) Here the cause viz the sameness of the lover etc exists. But the natural result of this viz the absence of longing has not followed

This figure is, however, said to be indistinct, because the absence of the result has not been expressed as such i. e by the use of a negative.

Page 209

९५६

956

काव्यप्रकारा:

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 4

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

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

These two figures in an indistinct form are possible in this stanza
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 अस्फुटविभावनाविशेषोचिमूल सदेहस्कर This

stanza, the proper figure is अस्पष्टभावनविशेषोचिमूल संशयकर This

latter expression will be clear when we come to कx 54cd

रसस्य हि प्राप्तान्यात् नालंकरता— This statement is directed against those

The statement 'रसस्य हि प्राप्तान्यात् नालंकरता' is directed against those

who might urge that in 'य कौमारहर etc ' there is the figure called रस

who might argue that in 'य कौमारहर etc.' there is the figure called रस

or रसवत् This figure occurs when a sentiment occupies a subordinate

or रसवत्. This figure occurs when a sentiment occupies a subordinate

position in a stanza ( 'प्रधानेऽन्यत्र वाक्यार्थ यत्राङ्ग तु रसादयः । काव्ये तस्मिन्नलंकारो

position in a stanza ('प्रधानेऽन्यत्र वाक्यार्थ यत्राङ्ग तु रसादयः । काव्ये तस्मिन्नलंकारो

रसादिरिरिति मे मति: ॥' ध्वन्यालोक 11 5 ) An example of रसालंकार or रसवदलंकार

रसादिरिति मे मति: ॥' Dhvanyaloka 11 5). An example of रसालंकार or रसवदलंकार

is 'अये स रसनोत्कर्षी पीतस्तनविमर्दकः । नाम्भोरुजघनस्पर्शी नीवीविलंसन कर ॥' महाभारत

is 'अये स रसनोत्कर्षी पीतस्तनविमर्दकः । नाम्भोरुजघनस्पर्शी नीवीविलंसन कर ॥' Mahabharata

अद्रिपर्व 24 19 Here the principal sentiment is करुण to which शृङ्गार is

अद्रिपर्व 24 19. Here the principal sentiment is करुण to which शृङ्गार is

subordinate So from the point of view of the शृङ्गार sentiment, which

subordinate. So from the point of view of the शृङ्गार sentiment, which

occupies a subordinate position, the stanza is an instance of रसालंकार

or रसवदलंकार

In 'य कौमारहर ' the sentiment is विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार But as Mammata

In 'य कौमारहर' the sentiment is विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार. But as Mammata

points out this sentiment is principal, not subordinate to any other

sentiment Consequently, this stanza cannot be an instance of रसवदलंकार

sentiment. Consequently, this stanza cannot be an instance of रसवदलंकार

In 'य कौमारहर etc ' the words convey their meaning immediately

In 'य कौमारहर etc.' the words convey their meaning immediately

after they are heard So there is प्रसादगुण in it No defect is also

after they are heard. So there is प्रसादगुण in it. No defect is also

visible in this stanza. Thus, as word and sense in 'य कौमारहर etc '

visible in this stanza. Thus, as word and sense in 'य कौमारहर etc.'

are अदोष, प्रसादगुणयुत and अस्फुटविभावनाविशेषोचितमूल्सदेहसंकरालंकारयुत, the stanza

are अदोष, प्रसादगुणयुत and अस्पष्टीभावनविशेषोचितमूलसंशयसंकरालंकारयुत, the stanza

attains to the position of काव्य This is the view of Mammata as

attains to the position of काव्य. This is the view of Mammata as

regards 'य कौमारहर etc '

regards 'य कौमारहर etc.'

Since in the Verse य कौमारहर etc. no defect is noticed, it contains

प्रसादगुण and has two indistinct figures, it attains the position of काव्य

One may further add that we call this Verse a काव्य not only because

it satisfies the conditions laid down by Mammata but because it

possesses रस viz विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार

The स्फोट theory arose out of the discussion as to how meaning is

conveyed by words For example how does the word कमल give us

conveyed by words. For example how does the word कमल give us

the sense of lotus. It is obvious that the letters क, म, ल cannot give us

the meaning, either separately or jointly It is common sense that

the meaning, either separately or jointly. It is common sense that

individual letters cannot convey the meaning They also cannot do it

individual letters cannot convey the meaning. They also cannot do it

in conjunction because the letters have a momentary existence and

hence cannot combine Nor can one argue that the last letter helped

hence cannot combine. Nor can one argue that the last letter helped

by the impressions left on our mind by the previous letters conveys

the sense. For there is no guarantee that the impressions of the

Page 210

Page 4 ] NOTES : First Flash 949

previous letters will be recollected in exactly the same order The

grammarians, therefore, beheved that a शब्द has two forms viz 1 )

The non-eternal 1 e the letters 2 ) The eternal 1 e the स्फोट This

latter is principal and is revealed by the non-eternal form 1 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 रसवद् Therefore, his remark ' रसस्य हि प्राधान्यान्नालङ्कारता ' must be

understood as having been directed against writers like Bhatti Bhāmaha,

Dandin, Udbhata and Anandavardhana, who among Mammata's

predecessors admit this figure Ruyyaka, Viśvanāth and Appyya

Dīkṣita 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-

व्यङ्गचय Thus ' अय स रसनोत्कर्षी ' is ध्वनि काव्य from the point of view of

काव्यशास्त्र and गुणीभूतव्यङ्गचय काव्य from that of शास्त्र

तत्रेदान = काव्यभेदान् Mammata now givcs us three divisions of काव्य

viz उत्तम, मध्यम and अधम These divisions are based on the relative

position which the suggested sense ( ध्वनि, व्यङ्ग्यार्थ or प्रतीयमानार्थ ) occupies

therein with regard to the expressed sense Thus, if the suggested

sense ( व्यङ्ग्यचय ) is more charming, striking or prominent ( अतिशयिन् )

than the expressed sense ( वाच्यच ), that is उत्तम काव्य If the suggested

sense is not like that ( अतादृश् ) 1 e is not more charming than the ex

pressed sense, 1 e is less charming than the expressed sense, that is

मध्यम काव्य When a काव्या is striking ( चित् ) 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

( सव्यङ्गचय ), गुणीभूतव्यङ्गचय and अव्यङ्गचय ( स्फुटव्यङ्गयरहित 1 e अस्फुटव्यङ्गयसहित

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 Ullāsa 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,

Page 211

इदमुत्तमम्

This is the best

—Construe व्यङ्ग्ये [अर्थ ] वाच्याद [अर्थाद ] अतिशायिनी (अधिकवैचित्र्ययुक्ते सति) इदं [काव्यम्] उत्तमं (भवति)। तदुत्तमं काव्यं युधि [प्राचीनै आनन्दवर्धन भिनवगुप्तादिभि आलङ्कारिकैः] ध्वनिर [इति] कथित [आस्ति ]।

युध वयाकरणे

In the context of grammarians

—This passage tells us that the term ध्वनि, by which rhetoricians designate उत्तमकाव्य, has been borrowed by them from the grammarians whom they generally follow The passage refers to the स्फोटवाद of the grammarians and is hence important

स्फोटः व्यज्यते शब्दैर्वा (2) स्फुट्यति प्रकाशयति अर्थम् या स्फुटतिः प्रादुर्भवति अर्थ अस्मात्

Sphota is revealed by words or it manifests or clarifies the meaning, or it is from which the meaning becomes clear

Some other characteristics of the Sphota should also be remembered The Sphota is revealed by the comprehension of the last syllable of every word (compare ‘अन्त्यस्युदात्तनिर्णयाः’ p 12, 1 2) helped by the impressions left by the preceding syllables As it is eternal, it is without parts ( निरवयव ) For, whatever is सावयव has necessarily to be धानित्य As it is without parts there can be no idea of क्रम or order or division with reference to it It is क्रमातीत or सहत्क्रम (p 12,1 2) or अखण्ड Owing to these characteristics the difficulty that was pointed out by the grammarians before viz that the impressions left by preceding syllables would not arise and be recollected in the same order is not felt here

ध्वनति व्यनक्ति प्रकाशयति स्फोटम्, ध्वन्यते व्यज्यते स्फोट अनन, इति वा ध्वनि

It manifests or reveals the Sphota, or it is from which the Sphota is revealed, hence it is called Dhvani

The word Sphota is thus explained etymologically (1) स्फुट्यते व्यज्यते शब्दैर्वै वा (2) स्फुट्यति प्रकाशयति अर्थम् या स्फुटतिः प्रादुर्भवति अर्थ अस्मात् As the word, which suggests or reveals the Sphota, is designated ध्वनि, ध्वनि is thus explained ध्वनति व्यनक्ति प्रकाशयति स्फोटम्, ध्वन्यते व्यज्यते स्फोट अनन, इति वा ध्वनि

वर्णवाचकत्ववादिन

Those who believe in the expressive power of letters

It should be noted that the Sphota theory of the grammarians is very old Pāṇini refers to a predecessor called स्फोटायन in vi 1 123 Bhartṛhari in his Vākyapadīya 1 44 ff explains the Sphota theory at great length It was evidently developed in opposition to the Naiyāyikas, and Mimāmsakas who believe in the expressive power of letters While these latter are वर्णव्यञ्जकत्ववादिन, the grammarians are वर्णवाचकत्ववादिन

Page 212

कस्तर्हि शब्द । येनोचारितेनं सास्नादिमूलकदशराविषाणिनां सप्रत्ययो भवति स शब्द । अथ वा मतीत

What then is a word? That by the utterance of which there is a definite cognition of objects like the dewlap etc., that is a word. Or

पदार्थको लोके ध्वनि शब्द इत्युच्यते । तथाहि । शब्द कुरू , मा शब्दं कार्षीः , शब्दकारी

In the world, it is called 'sound' or 'word'. For example, 'Make a sound', 'Do not make a sound', 'One who makes a sound'

अर्थ माणवक , इत्थं ध्वनि कुर्वन्नवसुच्यते । तस्माद्ध्वनि शब्द इति महाभाष्ये । यं

is called a boy, thus making a sound, is not clean. Hence, in the Mahabhashya, it is said that 'sound' is the word.

संयोगिवयोगाभ्यां करणैरजंयते । स स्कोट शब्दजा शब्दा ध्वनयोज्येन्वेत्याहुः ।

It is achieved by the instruments of articulation, either by contact or by separation. Some say that the Sphota is the word, and the sound is its manifestation.

वाक्यपदीय 1 103 One must note here that Patanjali regards Sphota

Vakyapadiya 1.103 One must note here that Patanjali regards Sphota

and Dhvani as identical

It should be noted that बुढे़ in the कारिका is intended to stand for

It should be noted that 'बुढे़' in the Karika is intended to stand for

rhetoricians like Anandavardhana and Abhinavagupta, as we saw before

But while commenting on it Mammata applies the term to the gram-

But while commenting on it Mammata applies the term to the grammarians

marlans also Thus, we have बुढे़ जैैकारणै Then in the next lines after

also. Thus, we have 'बुढे़ जैैकारणै'. Then in the next lines after

तन्मतानुसारिभि अन्यै अपि we have to supply बुढे़ भाननवदर्घेनाभिनवगुप्तादिभि

'तन्मतानुसारिभि अन्यै अपि' we have to supply 'बुढे़ भाननवदर्घेनाभिनवगुप्तादिभि'

Thus, in the Vrtti the word बुढे़ is intended to qualify both जैैकारणै and

Thus, in the Vrtti, the word 'बुढे़' is intended to qualify both 'जैैकारणै' and

अन्यै This is shown by the use of अपि

'अन्यै'. This is shown by the use of 'अपि'.

प्रधानभूत - Explain this as प्रधानभूत व्यक्जकशाब्दापेक्षया मुख्यभूत य स्कोट

'प्रधानभूत' - Explain this as 'प्रधानभूत व्यक्जकशाब्दापेक्षया मुख्यभूत य स्कोट'

न तु यदृच्छया । प्रधानभूत यदृच्छ इव इत्यर्थे । तस्य व्यज्जक तस्य

'न तु यदृच्छया । प्रधानभूत यदृच्छ इव इत्यर्थे । तस्य व्यज्जक तस्य'

तन्मतानुसारिभि - This is a reference to the the rhetoricians who fol

'तन्मतानुसारिभि' - This is a reference to the rhetoricians who follow

low the grammarians in certain topics connected with words

the grammarians in certain topics connected with words

Let us now be quite clear about the denotation of the term ध्वनि,

Let us now be quite clear about the denotation of the term 'ध्वनि',

both according to the grammarians and the rhetoricians The gramma

both according to the grammarians and the rhetoricians. The grammarians

rians understand by the term ध्वनि all the words in the language, which

understand by the term 'ध्वनि' all the words in the language, which

suggest the Sphota that really conveys the meaning of those words

The Sphota is called principal with reference to these words that

suggest it The rhetoricians on the other hand apply the term ध्वनि to

suggest it. The rhetoricians, on the other hand, apply the term 'ध्वनि' to

word and sense i e to such word and sense as constitute उत्तम काव्य and

word and sense, i.e., to such word and sense as constitute 'उत्तम काव्य' and

as, therefore, reveal the suggested sense that has subordinated the ex

as, therefore, reveal the suggested sense that has subordinated the expressed

pressed sense According to the rhetoricians the principal in this scheme

sense. According to the rhetoricians, the principal in this scheme

of things is the व्यंग्य, which is so called with reference to the वाच्य

of things is the 'व्यंग्य', which is so called with reference to the 'वाच्य'

which it subordinates

Thus, according to the rhetoricians ध्वनि means उत्तम काव्य, wherein

Thus, according to the rhetoricians, 'ध्वनि' means 'उत्तम काव्य', wherein

the suggested sense appears more prominent than the expressed sense

The word is, therefore, thus explained etymologically 'ध्वनते व्यनक्ति

The word is, therefore, thus explained etymologically: 'ध्वनते व्यनक्ति

प्रकाशायति व्यंग्यम् , ध्वन्यते व्यज्यते वयंग्यम् अननेन , इति वा ध्वनि ।

प्रकाशायति व्यंग्यम्, ध्वन्यते व्यज्यते वयंग्यम् अननेन, इति वा ध्वनि ।'

But in the Alamkāraśāstra ध्वनि has another meaning also viz

But in the Alamkāraśāstra, 'ध्वनि' has another meaning also, viz.,

व्यंग्यार्थ or the suggested sense which is different from the expressed

'व्यंग्यार्थ' or the suggested sense, which is different from the expressed

sense ध्वनि in this sense is regarded as the soul of poetry

sense. 'ध्वनि' in this sense is regarded as the soul of poetry

Page 213

१९०

190

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 5

निःशेषच्युतबन्धनं० — This stanza occurs in the अमरुकशतक as No 105

Nisheshchyutabandhanam — This stanza occurs in the Amarakosha as No 105

अर्जुनवर्मदेव ( 1216 A. D ) apparently did not know it. For, it is not commented upon by him. वेमभूपाल comments upon it, however

Arjunavarmadeva (1216 A.D) apparently did not know it. For, it is not commented upon by him. Vemabhupala comments upon it, however

The situation in the Verse is like this A lady sent a female messenger to fetch her lover The messenger herself dallied with him and returned back saying that the lover would not come Indications of the messenger's dalliance with the lover were clearly visible on her body They were, however, such as could as well have shown that the messenger had a bath The नायिका understood what had happend and the sarcastic Verse under reference is the outcome of it.

The situation in the Verse is like this: A lady sent a female messenger to fetch her lover. The messenger herself dallied with him and returned back saying that the lover would not come. Indications of the messenger's dalliance with the lover were clearly visible on her body. They were, however, such as could as well have shown that the messenger had a bath. The Nāyikā understood what had happened and the sarcastic Verse under reference is the outcome of it.

According to मम्मट the stanza is an illustration of उत्तम काव्य because here the suggested sense is more striking than the expressed sense The व्यङ्गयार्थ is the dalliance of the messenger with the lover while the वाच्यार्थ refers to the bath This is suggested by the use of the word अघम in the stanza. It is obvious that since the girl has used it against the lover, she wants to suggest something else by its use

According to Mammata, the stanza is an illustration of Uttama Kāvya because here the suggested sense is more striking than the expressed sense. The vyaṅgyārtha is the dalliance of the messenger with the lover, while the vācyārtha refers to the bath. This is suggested by the use of the word agham in the stanza. It is obvious that since the girl has used it against the lover, she wants to suggest something else by its use.

It may incidentally be noted that the verse in question contains अविमृष्टविपर्ययो दोष ( of काव्यप्रकाश VII ) and does not contain any figure, distinct or indistinct and thus does not satisfy the requirements of poetry as laid down by मम्मट in his definition of काव्य

It may incidentally be noted that the verse in question contains Avimṛṣṭaviparyayo doṣa (of Kavyaprakasha VII) and does not contain any figure, distinct or indistinct, and thus does not satisfy the requirements of poetry as laid down by Mammata in his definition of Kāvya.

There is some divergence of opinion regarding the exact way in which the required meaning is obtained from the stanza ‘निःशेषच्युत० ’

There is some divergence of opinion regarding the exact way in which the required meaning is obtained from the stanza 'Nisheshchyuta...'

Mammata's view in the matter, as we saw before, is that owing to the presence of the prominent word अघम the suggested sense that the messenger had gone to the lover for dalliance is brought out. The various indications are common and hence applicable to both वापीलालन, which is the वाच्यार्थ, and तद्रक्षण, which is the व्यङ्गयार्थ, of the stanza

Mammata's view in the matter, as we saw before, is that owing to the presence of the prominent word agham, the suggested sense that the messenger had gone to the lover for dalliance is brought out. The various indications are common and hence applicable to both Vāpīlālana, which is the vācyārtha, and Tadrakṣaṇa, which is the vyaṅgyārtha, of the stanza.

विश्वनाथ objects to मम्मट's interpretation because according to him a reference to वापीलालन at this time ( early night ) is most inappropriate

Viśvanātha objects to Mammata's interpretation because, according to him, a reference to Vāpīlālana at this time (early night) is most inappropriate.

He understands the stanza as an illustration of विपरीतलक्षण According to him, the stanza conveys three senses viz वाच्यार्थ, लक्ष्यार्थ, and व्यङ्गयार्थ

He understands the stanza as an illustration of Viparitlakṣaṇa. According to him, the stanza conveys three senses, viz., vācyārtha, lakṣyārtha, and vyaṅgyārtha.

The वाच्यार्थ is वापीगमनं तदन्तिके न गमनं च The लक्ष्यार्थ is वाप्या न गमनं तदन्तिके च गमनं and the व्यङ्गयार्थ is तद्रक्षणम्‌ According to Mammata on the other hand there are only two senses in the stanza viz वाच्यार्थ, respresented by वापीगमनं तदन्तिके च न गमनम्, and व्यङ्गयार्थ, consisting of तदन्तिकमेव रत्नु गमनम्‌

The vācyārtha is 'Vāpīgamanaṃ tadantikē na gamanaṃ ca'. The lakṣyārtha is 'Vāpyā na gamanaṃ tadantikē ca gamanaṃ'. And the vyaṅgyārtha is 'Tadrakṣaṇam'. According to Mammata, on the other hand, there are only two senses in the stanza, viz., vācyārtha, represented by 'Vāpīgamanaṃ tadantikē ca na gamanaṃ', and vyaṅgyārtha, consisting of 'Tadantikameva ratnu gamanaṃ'.

Commentators of मम्मट, प्रदीपकार and ज्योतिष्कर as well as जगन्नाथ do not agree with the above view of विश्वनाथ They feel that there is no

Commentators of Mammata, Pradīpakar, and Jyotiṣkar, as well as Jagannātha, do not agree with the above view of Viśvanātha. They feel that there is no

Page 214

necessity of a लक्षणा here and the indications are applicable to both वापीस्तान and तद्रक्षण

necessity of a लक्षणा here and the indications are applicable to both वapīstan and tadraksana

प्राधान्येन अधमपदेन व्यज्यते — This remark is explained in three ways

prādhānyena adhamapadena vyajyate — This remark is explained in three ways

( 1 ) प्राधान्येन इति उपलक्षणे तृतीया । प्राधान्येन विशिष्टेन अधमपदेन इत्यर्थः This is the best explantion, because it tells us that prominence in this stanza belongs to the epithet अधम । This fact deserves to be specially brought to our notice, because it is this word अधम that conveys the suggested sense

(1) prādhānyena iti upalakṣaṇe tṛtīyā | prādhānyena viśiṣṭena adhamapadena ityarthaḥ This is the best explanation, because it tells us that prominence in this stanza belongs to the epithet adham | This fact deserves to be specially brought to our notice, because it is this word adham that conveys the suggested sense

( 2 ) प्राधान्येन विशिष्ट अर्थ तदनिदकमेव रन्तु गतासील्याकारक व्यञ्ज्यार्थ अधमपदेन व्यज्यते This explantion is not quite so good For, there is no special point in referring here to the fact that the व्यञ्ज्यार्थ is prominent in comparison with the वाच्यार्थ । That has already been stated in the definition of उत्तमकाव्य itself The stanza is in fact quoted to illustrate it

(2) prādhānyena viśiṣṭa artha tadanidakameva rantu gatāsīlyākāraka vyañjyārtha adhamapadena vyajyate This explanation is not quite so good For, there is no special point in referring here to the fact that the vyañjyārtha is prominent in comparison with the vācyārtha | That has already been stated in the definition of uttamakāvya itself The stanza is in fact quoted to illustrate it

( 3 ) अधमपदेन प्राधान्येन व्यज्यते is prominently suggested by the word अधम । This is not good Because prominence does not belong to the suggestion, but to the word अधम । That is why the first explanation is the best

(3) adhamapadena prādhānyena vyajyate is prominently suggested by the word adham | This is not good Because prominence does not belong to the suggestion, but to the word adham | That is why the first explanation is the best

These three explanations respectively reflect the views of Govinda, Nāgeśa and Appaya Dīkṣita

page 6

अतादृशो॰ — Construe व्यङ्ग्ये च तु अतादृशो (वाच्यादनतिचमत्कारिणि) [सति इहृङ्काव्यं] मध्येमें [भवति]। [तद् बुद्धे] गुणविमूतव्यङ्गच्य [कथितम्]।

atādṛśo॰ — Construe vyaṅgye ca tu atādṛśo (vācyādanati-camatkāriṇi) [sati idṛṅkāvyaṃ] madhyamé [bhavati] | [tad buddhe] guṇabhūtavyaṅgya [kathitam] |

अतादृशो means not more charming than the expressed sense i e less charming than it In mediocre poetry though the suggested sense is there, it is less charming than the expressed sense

atādṛśo means not more charming than the expressed sense i e less charming than it In mediocre poetry though the suggested sense is there, it is less charming than the expressed sense

ग्रामतरुणी॰ — A young girl had made an appointment with a village youth to meet him in a bower under an Aśoka tree ( वृज्युल = अशोक ) For some reason she could not keep that appointment The youth went there and, finding that the girl had not arrived, returned disapp ointed He took with him a bunch ( मञ्जरी ) of Aśoka flowers as visible proof of his having gone there As the girl looked at the youth with the bunch of Aśoka flowers in his hand, she became pale by the consciousness of her guilt in having failed to keep the appointment

grāmataruṇī॰ — A young girl had made an appointment with a village youth to meet him in a bower under an Aśoka tree (vṛjyula = aśoka) For some reason she could not keep that appointment The youth went there and, finding that the girl had not arrived, returned disappointed He took with him a bunch (mañjarī) of Aśoka flowers as visible proof of his having gone there As the girl looked at the youth with the bunch of Aśoka flowers in his hand, she became pale by the consciousness of her guilt in having failed to keep the appointment

Here the suggested sense is the girl's failure to go to the bower of creepers under the Aśoka tree The expressed sense is represented by the clever device used by the youth to convey to her the fact that he had gone there and by the paleness of the colour of her face as she was thus made conscious of her failure Out of these two senses the expressed sense is much more picturesque and striking than the suggested sense ( तद्रपेक्षा = व्यङ्गयादपेक्षा ) Hence this stanza is an example of मध्यम काव्य

Here the suggested sense is the girl's failure to go to the bower of creepers under the Aśoka tree The expressed sense is represented by the clever device used by the youth to convey to her the fact that he had gone there and by the paleness of the colour of her face as she was thus made conscious of her failure Out of these two senses the expressed sense is much more picturesque and striking than the suggested sense (tadrapeksā = vyaṅgyādapēkṣā) Hence this stanza is an example of madhyama kāvya

का १९

kā 19

Page 215

शब्दचित्रे। — Construe शब्दचित्रे वाच्यचित्र तु [ काव्यम् ] अवरं स्वतम् ।

In the case of poetry that is both word-painted and sense-painted, consider the word-painted aspect as inferior.

[ तद्‍बुधै ] अध्येयं [ कथितम् ] । चित्रम्, as Mammata explains in the Vrtti, means possesed of excellences and figures शब्दचित्रम् thus means शब्दगुणालङ्कारयुक्तम्, वाच्यचित्रम् means वाच्यार्थचित्रम्1 e अर्थगुणालङ्कारयुक्तम्। That poem is the low est wherein there are excellences and figures of word and excellences and figures of sense अवरकाव्य is thus of two kinds viz शब्दचित्र and वाच्यचित्र

We have already seen that गुणs or excellences properly belong to रस Here excellences of word and sense are spoken of Excellences belong to word and sense secondarily Note ‘ गुणकृत्या पुनस्तेषा [ गुणाना ] वृत्ति शब्दार्थयोर्मेलता ॥’ काव्यप्रकाश VIIII

This third kind of poetry viz अवर or अधम is styled अव्यङ्गच Mammata explains this as स्फुटप्रतीतौमानार्थरहितम् This is in accordance with Mammata's view, that व्यङ्गच्यार्थे or suggested sense, whether distinct or indistinct, is necessary for all the three kinds of poetry

It will be noticed that as against the previous -interpreters, we understand अव्यङ्गच्य as a designation of the अवर काव्य This is in keeping with मम्मट's practice of giving separate designations— ध्वनि and गुणीभूतव्यङ्गच्य to उत्तम and मध्यमकाव्य respectively Therefore there is no need to supply the word चित्रम् in the definition as is done by some It will be seen that all the संज्ञान्तरs of मम्मट are significant indicating the position which the suggested sense occupies in the 3 varieties of काव्य

स्वच्छन्दोऽचलदचछलः — The principal clause is मन्ताकिनी व* मन्तदतां भियात् may the Mandākinī break up i e remove your dullness i e ignorance or sin अज्ञान quickly, at once The stanza contains three adjectiv es qualifying मन्ताकिनी viz ( 1 ) स्वच्छन्दो यथा स्यात् तथा उच्च्छलद् उद्धच्छल ( going up, surging ) अच्छ निर्लं कच्छयोः ततयो कुठारेखु बिलेषु ( crevices ) छाते दुर्गे ( calm ) तसितरत मर्छत ( strong, violent ) यद् अम्बु जल तस्य छाया समूह ( mass ) तथा मुग्धेन् विनस्मन् मोह अज्ञान ( delusion, ignorance ) येषा तै मार्षिभि हर्षेण विहिते कृते स्तानम् आहिके ( daily rites ) च मस्त्या सा The idea in this adyective is The clear water of the Ganges is freely and violently surging in the crevices of the banks

( 2 ) उद्‍धत उदपतन्‍त* ( jumping ) उदारा महान्त दरुदुरा भेक ( frogs ) यस्‍ताम, एवंविचा दरी ( valley ) यस्यां सा This only means that large frogs were jumping in the valley of the Ganges ( 3 ) दीर्घी उद्नता अदरिद्रा शाखादि- बाहुल्यादस्पन्दनत ये डुमा इक्षां तेषां श्रोह पातर्न तेन उद्रेक उच्‍छलप्रसारण ( going or jumping in the valley of the Ganges

Page 216

Page 7 ] NOTES : First Flash १६३

rising up ) येषाम्, एतविधा मदोर्मयः महातरङ्गाः ( great waves ) तैः मेदुर तटविड अतिशयुत्त ( intense ) मदौ 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

In this stanza the only striking feature is छानप्रास or alliteration, consisting of the repetition of certain consonants अनुप्रास is a शब्दालङ्कार The गुण that may be regarded as present here is ओजसू, for the stanza mostly consists of compounds and ओजसू is defined as समासभूयस्त्वम् ( काव्यादर्शे १ ८० ) Thus, as the stanza possesses शब्दगुण and शब्दालङ्कार, it is an example of शब्दचित्र अवर काव्य

Here these are both छेकानुप्रास and वृत्त्यनुप्रास छेकानुप्रास occurs when more than one consonant are repeated once in the same order with different vowels वृत्त्यनुप्रास consists in the repetition of one or more consononts once or more than once In ' स्वच्छन्दैरछछलदृच्छ etc ,' there are both छेकानुप्रास and वृत्त्यनुप्रास छेकानुप्रास is found in the first line where च and छ are repeated more than once and also in महर्षिदर्श, आह्लिकाह्लय and मन्दाकिनी मन्दताम् वृत्त्यनुप्रास is seen in the second half where the consonants द् and म् are repeated more than once

The spirit of devotion which the stanzas breathes is the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ But it is not distinct

In this stanza the poet manifests his love, designated devotion in such cases, towards the river-goddess That love is known as भाव and as भाव is included under रस, the stanza is रसवत् Those that admit भक्ति as a separate sentiment will regard this stanza as an example of भक्तिरस Thus, as the stanza contains रस, it is properly an example of काव्य

Strictly speaking, according to मम्मट's definition, the verse may not be considered as काव्य at all since it contains a defect, called अपुष्टार्थत्वम् An adjective which does not nourish or is not useful to the main purpose is called as अपुष्टार्थ e g in the sentence ' By my golden watch it is ten O'clock ,' the adjective golden is अपुष्टार्थ Here the adjectives उद्धुद्वार-धरी and द्वीर्ण-मदा are of no use and hence are अपुष्टार्थ.

विनिर्गत मानद० — Indra once heard a report that the demon-king Hayagriva had casually gone out of his palace. The chief of the gods stood in such great terror of this demon that he immediately bolted the gates of his capital Amarāvatī lest Hayagrīva might enter it and capture him. The city thus appeared to have as it were closed its eyes in fear

Page 217

१६८

168

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 7

The stanza contains the अर्थगुण प्रसाद and the अर्थालङ्कार उत्क्रेश्षा So it is अर्थगुणार्थोलङ्कारयुक्त and consequently an example of वाच्यचित्र अवर काव्य

The stanza contains the arthaguna prasāda and the arthālankāra utkreshā. So it is arthagunārtholankārayukta and consequently an example of vāchyachitra avara kāvya.

It will be noticed that the stanza contains वीररस, because it describes the heroic prowess of Hayagrīva, and also भाव, because it indicates the poet's regard for him But both these are अस्पष्ट, because the poet does not intend to describe them principally This of course is to be gathered from the fact that Mammata has quoted the stanza as an example of अवर काव्य If वीररस or भाव had been स्पष्ट and प्रधान, or अस्पष्ट and अप्रधान, the stanza would have been an example of उत्तम काव्य मध्यम काव्य respectively

It will be noticed that the stanza contains vīrarasa, because it describes the heroic prowess of Hayagrīva, and also bhāva, because it indicates the poet's regard for him. But both these are अस्पष्ट (asphuṭa), because the poet does not intend to describe them principally. This of course is to be gathered from the fact that Mammata has quoted the stanza as an example of avara kāvya. If vīrarasa or bhāva had been स्पष्ट (sphuṭa) and प्रधान (pradhāna), or अस्पष्ट (asphuṭa) and अप्रधान (apradhāna), the stanza would have been an example of उत्तम काव्य (uttama kāvya) मध्यम काव्य (madhyama kāvya) respectively.

गोविंद the author of प्रदीप does not accept this as an instance अर्थचित्र अवरकाव्य According to him this is an example of मध्यमकाव्य since the greatness of हयग्रीव's valour is clearly the suggested sense

Govinda, the author of Pradīpa, does not accept this as an instance of arthachitra avarakāvya. According to him, this is an example of madhyamkāvya since the greatness of Hayagrīva's valour is clearly the suggested sense.

Some writers call this variety as चित्र Just as a picture has no soul, so too this अवरकाव्य has no soul viz the रस appearing prominently

Some writers call this variety as citra. Just as a picture has no soul, so too this avarakāvya has no soul viz. the rasa appearing prominently.

This three-fold division of poetry, based on the relative importance of the suggested sense therein, is accepted by almost all rhetoricians

This three-fold division of poetry, based on the relative importance of the suggested sense therein, is accepted by almost all rhetoricians.

जगन्नाथ divides काव्य into four varieties viz उत्तमोत्तम, उत्तम, मध्यम and अधम These divisions correspond to मम्मट's ध्वनि, गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य, वाच्यचित्र and शब्दचित्र It will be noticed that जगन्नाथ looks upon the two varieties of अधमकाव्य as distinct because in his opinion शब्दचित्र and वाच्यचित्र are distinct and should be classed separately It may be pointed out that जगन्नाथ's criticism of मम्मट is not quite sound since मम्मट includes both the वाच्यचित्र and शब्दचित्र under the अधम category, as they do not possess any distinct suggested sense मम्मट's three-fold division is based on the position which the suggested sense occupies therein Actually जगन्नाथ's division does not seem to be based on any sound principle

Jagannātha divides kāvya into four varieties viz. uttamottam, uttama, madhyama, and adhama. These divisions correspond to Mammata's dhvani, guṇībhūtavyangya, vāchyachitra, and śabdachitra. It will be noticed that Jagannātha looks upon the two varieties of adhamakāvya as distinct because in his opinion śabdachitra and vāchyachitra are distinct and should be classed separately. It may be pointed out that Jagannātha's criticism of Mammata is not quite sound since Mammata includes both the vāchyachitra and śabdachitra under the adhama category, as they do not possess any distinct suggested sense. Mammata's three-fold division is based on the position which the suggested sense occupies therein. Actually, Jagannātha's division does not seem to be based on any sound principle.

The first उल्लास is called काव्यप्रयोजनकारणतद्विशेषणनिरूपणम् and contains the treatment of काव्यप्रयोजनानि, काव्यकरणम् and काव्यस्वरूप including काव्यलक्षण

The first ullāsa is called kāvyaprayojanakāranatadviśeshanirūpanam and contains the treatment of kāvyaprayojanāni, kāvyakaranam, and kāvyasvarūpa including kāvyalakṣaṇa.

Page 8 ]

SECOND FLASH

मम्मट had defined काव्य as शब्दार्थौ Now the various terms and topics mentioned in the definition are to be expounded The second and third ullasas deal with the nature and kinds of शब्द and अर्थ

Mammata had defined kāvya as śabdārthau. Now the various terms and topics mentioned in the definition are to be expounded. The second and third ullāsas deal with the nature and kinds of śabda and artha.

In poetry a word has three powers viz अभिधा or expression, लक्षणा or indication, and व्यञ्जना or suggestion The senses, which a word conveys by means of these powers, are respectively known as वाच्य or expressed, लक्ष्य or indicated and व्यङ्ग्य or suggested According as a

In poetry, a word has three powers viz. abhidhā or expression, lakṣaṇā or indication, and vyañjanā or suggestion. The senses, which a word conveys by means of these powers, are respectively known as vācya or expressed, lakṣya or indicated, and vyangya or suggested. According as a

Page 218

word conveys these three senses it is respectively known as वाचक or expressive, लक्षणिक 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

तातपर्योऽपि केशवचित्—After केशुचित, supply मतेषु 1 e according to the views of some केशुचित may also be taken as equal to केशुचिदर्शनेषु 1 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 व्यञ्ञना 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 Read 'तात्पर्याख्या वृत्तिमाहु' पदार्थान्वयबोधने । तात्पर्यार्थस्तदर्थश्च वाक्यं तद्वोधकं परे ॥' साहित्यदर्पण 11 20

अभिहितान्वयवादिन् —

The people who admit this fourth वृत्ति 1 e तात्पर्य are called as अभिहितान्वयवादिन् ( अभिहितानां स्वतन्त्रतया पदैः प्रतिपादितानां अर्थोनाम् अन्वय 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 वाक्यार्थ (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 तात्पर्यै 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

अन्विताभिधानवादिन् —

Opposed to this view of the अभिहितान्वयवादिन्S is the view of the अन्विताभिधानवादिन्S ( अन्वतस्य अर्थातरनरबदधस्य अर्थस्य अभिधानं प्रतिपादनं शब्देन क्रियते इति वादिन् ) 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 Prabhākaraṁ, a famous Mīmāṁsaka, who was a pupil of Kumārilabhatta, and are known as Prābhā hākara Mimāṁsakas.

Page 219

According to the view of the अन्विताभिधानवादिनः the meaning of words is apprehended from वृद्धव्यवहार or the dealings of elderly people

According to the view of the anvitābhidhānavādins the meaning of words is apprehended from vrddhavyavahāra 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

A child hears the sentences used for carrying out this vyavahāra 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 'गाम् आनय', Yajñadatta brings a bull Devadatta then says 'गा 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

Thus, when Devadatta orders Yajñadatta 'gām ānaya', Yajñadatta brings a bull Devadatta then says 'gām badhāna' 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 gām 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 gām Then again, on hearing the sentences 'gām ānaya' and 'aśvam ānaya' 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 ānaya is common to the two sentences The child, therefore, concludes that bringing-must be the meaning of ānaya

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 गाम् आनय the child understands from गाम् the sense of the bull connected with 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

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 gām ānaya the child understands from gām the sense of the bull connected with action of bringing as its object and from ānaya the sense of bringing connected with the bull as its object Hence, as the meaning we understand from words is always a connected ( anvita ) meaning, no function such as tātparya is necessary to denote the connection between the meanings of words in sentences Such is the view of the anvitābhidhānavādins

आकांक्षायोग्यतासन्निधिवशात् — The function तात्पर्य belongs to a sentence and a sentence is a collection of words, which are possessed of आकांक्षा, योग्यता and सान्निधि or आासत्ति

ākāṅkṣāyogyatāsannidhivaśāt — The function tātparya belongs to a sentence and a sentence is a collection of words, which are possessed of ākāṅkṣā, yogyatā and sāniddhi or āsatti

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 साकाक्ष when they satisfy one another's आकांक्षा Thus in देवदत्त गच्छति, the substantive has an आकांक्षा for क्रिया satisfied by गच्छति The verb also has an expectancy for देवदत्त

ākāṅkṣā 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 sākākṣa when they satisfy one another's ākāṅkṣā Thus in devadatta gacchati, the substantive has an ākāṅkṣā for kriyā satisfied by gacchati The verb also has an expectancy for devadatta

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

yogyatā is compatibility It is defined as arthabādha or the absence of contradiction between the meanings "Thus in āmraphalaṃ pibati the āmraphala has no yogyatā for pānakriyā and hence the two words do not form a sentence proper

Page 220

सानिधि means vicinty or juxtaposition It is defined as the uttering of words without undue interval between them Thus, in order that the words देवदत्त गाम् गच्छति should form a proper sentence, we must utter them one after another without undue delay between them. If on the other hand we pronounce देवदत्त now, गाम् three hours hence and गच्छति another three hours later, the three words would not form a sentence proper owing to the absence of सानिधि between them.

वाच्यमाणस्वरूपाणा पदार्थानाम्.—The पदार्थ or the senses of words are वाच्य, लक्ष्य and व्यङ्गच Their nature will be explained ( वाक्यमाण ) later. The idea is तात्पर्य operates in all senterices, whatever may be the sense, whether वाच्य, लक्ष्य or व्यङ्गच, that is conveyed by them समन्वये = परस्परसंबन्धे When the senses of the varous words in the sentence are mutually connected तात्पर्यार्थ arises विशेषयुक्ते वपु यस्य स which is different from वाच्यार्थ, लक्ष्यार्थ and व्यङ्ग्यार्थ आपदार्थ not the sense of the [ varous ] words This just explains the idea already conveyed by विशेषवपु

It should be noted that the word वाच्य here is to be understood in the general sense of प्रतिपाद्य i e. as signifying a meaning which is conveyed either by अभिधा or लक्षणा or व्यञ्जना

अन्विताभिधानवादिनः*—This is nominative plural. Those who take this as genitive singular infer that the use of the singular suggests मम्मट's want of respect for this school This is untenable because in the fifth ullasa मम्मट refers to them in plural Actually मम्मट shows no preferenc to any one of the two

Page 9

सर्वेषा व्यञकत्वमपि यते—अपि in this line is construed in two ways (1) With अर्थानाम् This means not only is word व्यञ्जक or suggestive, but also sense in all its three kinds viz वाच्य, लक्ष्य and व्यङ्गच Stanzas 6, 7 and 8 illustrate respectıvely the suggestıveness of the वाच्य, लक्ष्य and व्यङ्गच It will thus be seen that while अभिधा and लक्षणा belong to word, व्यञ्जना belongs to both word and sense (2) With व्यञकत्वम् Thus means that senses, in addition to being वाच्य, लक्ष्य and व्यङ्गच, are further व्यञ्जक i e they do not lose their original character as वाच्य, लक्ष्य and व्यङ्गच when they further suggest something else. Thus, in stanzas 6, 7 and 8 the sense is respectıvely वाच्य, लक्ष्य and व्यङ्गच and at the same time it is further suggestive of something else. Note ‘अपिना व्यञकतादशायापि वाच्य-लक्ष्य प्रभृतं सूचित ’ उयोत

प्रायक्ष—The property of this word is to show that senses are not always further suggestive When the व्यङ्गचार्थ is a रस principally developed

Page 221

१६८

168

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 9

it is not व्यङ्गक Moreover a limitation implied by प्रायेण is necessary Otherwise the series will have no end

it is not vyaṅgaka. Moreover, a limitation implied by prāyeṇa is necessary. Otherwise, the series will have no end.

This stanza is quoted as an example, where वाच्यार्थ 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 शैरिणीत्व 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 वाच्यार्थ would not have been further suggestive

This stanza is quoted as an example, where vācyārtha 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 (vaktṛvaiśiṣṭyam) viz. the śairiṇīatva 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 vācyārtha would not have been further suggestive.

साध्यन्ती ० -साध्यन्ती = गच्छन्ती The causal of साधू-साध्नोति is usually used in the sense of 'to go' (गम्) 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 सुभगो यमक्ष्णा कामयते' मधुनाथ on 'सौभाग्य ते सुभगा विरहावस्था व्यज्यते' मेघदूत 29

Sādhyantī 0 - Sādhyantī = Gacchantī. The causal of sādhū-sādhnōti is usually used in the sense of 'to go' (gam). 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 'sa khalu subhago yamakṣṇā kāmayate' Madhunātha on 'saubhāgya te subhagā virahāvasthā vyajyate' Meghadūta 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 च्युतचन्दनं etc' p 5 As the messenger has grievously wronged the nāyikā by sporting with her lover and has thus behaved like her enemy, the वाच्यार्थ of 'सखि सत्कृते सुभग साध्यन्ती त्वासि । सद्भिः स्वनेहकरणीयसदृशो वा त्वया विरचितम्' is clearly incompatible Therefore, विपरीतलक्षणा has to be resorted to and this विपरीतलक्षणा indicates the sense 'वैरिणि, स्वकृते सुभगे साध्यन्ती दृष्टासि ! असद्भिः स्वनाशोचचरणीयसदृशो वा त्वया विरचितम् । Now, this लक्ष्यार्थ becomes further suggestive and reveals that in this matter the guilt really belongs to the lover, who succumbed to the fascinations of the messenger

This stanza has been quoted as an illustration where the indicated sense is further suggestive. The context is the same as that of 'niḥśeṣa cyutacandanaṁ etc.' p. 5. As the messenger has grievously wronged the nāyikā by sporting with her lover and has thus behaved like her enemy, the vācyārtha of 'sakhi satkṛte subhaga sādhyantī tvāsi | sadbhiḥ svanehakaraṇīyasadrśō vā tvayā viracitam' is clearly incompatible. Therefore, viparit-lakṣaṇā has to be resorted to and this viparit-lakṣaṇā indicates the sense 'vairiṇi, svakṛte subhage sādhyantī dṛṣṭāsi ! asadbhiḥ svanāśoccaraṇīyasadrśō vā tvayā viracitam'. Now, this lakṣyārtha 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 बोधकलयवैशिष्ट्य or the speciality of the person addressed When the messenger returned, the nāyikā observed that there were indications of समोग 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 should be noted that here the vyaṅgyārtha, and for the matter of that the lakṣyārtha also, arises on account of bōdhakalyavaisiṣṭhya or the speciality of the person addressed. When the messenger returned, the nāyikā observed that there were indications of samōga or dalliance on her body. These constituted her vaiśiṣṭhya 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

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

Page 222

पश्य निष्कलानिष्पन्दा।

Behold, without motion and without excitement.

This is हाल's गाथासप्तसती 1 4 उअ in Prakrit is an अव्यय in the sense of पश् or lo A crane, white in colour, was sitting motionless on a green lotus leaf It therefore, appeared like a white conch sell placed in a vessel of green emerald

This stanza is quoted as an example, where the व्यङ्ग्य sense is further व्यञक or suggestive. Mammata explains व्यङ्ग्यस्य व्यञकत्वम् here in two ways according to the two contexts in which the stanza can be understood Thus, first we suppose that a girl was wandering about with her lover in search of a rendezvous When she arrived at this place, she suggested to her lover by means of this stanza that it was a good place for them to meet in (सकेतस्य समयपूर्वंवृत्तमेलनस्य स्थानम्.)

As the crane was throbless, one could easily see that it was perfectly at ease Thus, निष्पन्दत्व is the वाच्य sense, from which we obtain the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ आक्षस्तत्व Now, this व्यङ्ग्यार्थ becomes further suggestive and reveals the second व्यङ्ग्यार्थ viz [अस्य स्थानस्य] जनरहितलम्. i e the fact that this place is unfrequented by people So we have व्यङ्ग्यस्य (बलाकाआक्षस्ता इत्याकारकस्य) व्यञकत्वम् (इदं स्थानं जनरहितमिति द्वितीयस्य व्यङ्ग्यार्थस्य बोधकत्वम्.) Then, we have a further suggestion viz that this is a place of appoint ment, which springs from जनरहितलम् Thus, the second व्यङ्ग्य जनरहितलम् is also व्यञक and reveals the third व्यङ्ग्यार्थ viz एतत् संकेतस्थानम्

Here note that the word उच्यते is incorrect Mammata should have used उच्यते, or व्यज्यते, as he has done in the following sentence This is once again an example of Mammata's careless writing

According to the second context we suppose that the lovers had already made an appointment to meet at the place The man accused the girl that she had failed to keep the appointment, while he pretended that he had gone there as settled To this the girl replied by means of the stanza under discussion. Thus, निष्पन्दत्व is the वाच्य sense, which yields the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ आक्षस्तत्व This व्यङ्ग्यार्थ becomes further व्यञक and reveals the second व्यङ्ग्यार्थ जनरहितत्व This means the man had not gone there. For, if he had done so, the crane would have been disturbed and it would not have remained throbless The man was thus telling a lie, when he said he had gone there ‘मिथ्यावदसि, न त्वमत्र आगतो भूः’ is thus the third व्यङ्ग्य arising from the second व्यङ्ग्य जनरहितत्व

साक्षात्सकेतितयोः्यर्थमभिधत्ते स वाचकः।

That which directly conveys the intended meaning is called वाचक.

This gives us the definition of a वाचक word That is an expressive word, which conveys a sense that is directly conventional सकेत is a convention or an agreement known from the लोकव्यवहार whereby a particular word conveys a particular sense. c-

Page 223

इदं पदमस्मर्थे बोधयतु इति अस्मात् पदाद् यमर्थो बोद्धव्य इति तत्त्वचिन्तामणि:

A word which conveys the sense with the help of संकेत is a वाचक शब्द and the sense which is thus conveyed is called वाच्यार्थ।

The वृत्ति by which this directly conventional or primary or expressed sense is conveyed is called as अभिधा।

साक्षात् संकेतितम्—

We have seen above that an expressive word conveys a meaning about which साक्षात् संकेत or a direct convention has been made.

The word साक्षात् has been put in the definition in order to exclude व्यवहित संकेत or an indirect convention.

अभिधत्ते—

This word अभिधत्ते is to be understood as अभिधया प्रतिपादयति in order to exclude अभिधामूलव्यञ्जक words from the province of वाचक words.

In a अभिधामूलव्यञ्जना though a word possesses साधुत्व, संकेत for a particular sense, it conveys some other sense owing to circumstances like सयोग, विप्रयोग etc.

इद्यत्यर्थसंकेतत्व ०—इदं = अस्मिन् जगति अस्मिन् लोकेsप्यहारे वा। अर्थप्रतीते:

It is clear from the above discussion.

अभावात् = अर्थज्ञानस्य अभावात्

संकेतितस्वरूपेधो०—A वाचक word is defined as that which conveys the sense that is directly conventional.

Now the question is : Which is the conventional sense of words ? Or, where is it that the convention of words is understood ?

Different theorists hold different views in this matter.

जात्यादिवादिन:-

These are the grammarians, whom Mammata and the Ālankārikas generally follow.

जातिवादिन:-

These are the Mīmāṁsakas.

जातिविशिष्टव्यक्तिवादिन:

These are the ancient Naiyāyikas.

अपोहवादिन:-

Page 224

Page 11 ] NOTES . Second Flash १७१

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

यद्यापि व्यक्तिरेव—Our worldy dealings consist of प्रवृत्ति or निवृत्ति 1 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 सकत युक्त । '

तथापि तदुपपादौ एव संकेत —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 ) आननत्यम्, ( 2 ) व्यभिचार and ( 3 ) विषयविभागापत्ति We shall now see what these three reasons or faults are

आननत्यम् —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 आननत्य 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 आननत्य 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 ' 1 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

Page 225

१७२

172

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ Page 11

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

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

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 संकेताविषय. 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.

विषयविभागापत्ति -In connection with the question of understanding the conventional meaning of words the grammarians quote this typical sentence viz गौ शुक्लो डित्य (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 डित्य, 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 सज्ञाशब्द or द्रव्यशब्द or यच्छब्द 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 सज्ञा The four classes of words correspond to these four attributes

विषयविभागापत्ति - In connection with the question of understanding the conventional meaning of words, the grammarians quote this typical sentence viz. गौ शुक्लो डित्य (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 डित्य, 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 सज्ञाशब्द or द्रव्यशब्द or यच्छब्द. 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 सज्ञा. 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 शुक्लो डित्य' 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 विमित्र विषय इत्यर्थ ), but would point to only one entity viz the individual bull ( गोव्यक्ती ) This is the defect विषयविभागापत्ति, referred to in 'गौ शुक्लो न प्राप्नोति'

Now, if the convention of words were to refer to an individual, it is clear that in the sentence 'गौ शुक्लो डित्य' 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 विमित्र विषय इत्यर्थ), but would point to only one entity viz. the individual bull (गोव्यक्ती). This is the defect विषयविभागापत्ति, referred to in 'गौ शुक्लो न प्राप्नोति'.

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

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

Page 226

Page 11 ] NOTES : Second Flash १७३

Page 11 ] NOTES : Second Flash 173

question as to where exactly the convention is understood, they differ

The grammarians believe that the convention is understood in the

attributes of the individual ( तदुपपौ तस्या व्यकतेरुपाधौ वर्मे जात्यादौ ) They

attributes of the individual ( tadupapau tasyā vyakteterupādhau varme jātyādau ) They

are, therefore, called जात्यादिवादिन् The Mīmāṃsakas on the other hand

are, therefore, called jātyādivādin The Mīmāṃsakas on the other hand

maintain that in the case of all the four classes of words convention

is understood in जाति only They are consequently known as जातिवादिन्

is understood in jāti only They are consequently known as jātivādin

उपाधिवेश महाभाष्यक — This passage contains an exposition of the

upādhiveśa mahābhāṣyaka — This passage contains an exposition of the

upādhis or attributes in which according to the Vaiyākaraṇas and the

Ālamkārikās convention is apprehended The nature of these attributes

will be clear from the following classification —

प्राणपद ( जाति ) 1 विशेषाधानहेतु ( गुण ) 2

prāṇapada ( jāti ) 1 viśeṣādhānahetu ( guṇa ) 2

An attribute of an individual is of two kinds viz ( 1 ) वस्तुधर्म

An attribute of an individual is of two kinds viz ( 1 ) vastudharm

or a property which is innate or inherent in the thing and ( 2 ) वक्तृयद

or a property which is innate or inherent in the thing and ( 2 ) vaktṛyad

छासनिर्वेशित उपाधि or an attribute, which has been imposed upon the

chhāsanirveśita upādhi or an attribute, which has been imposed upon the

thing by the sweet will ( येहच्छा = स्वेच्छा । ‘येहच्छा स्वैरिता’ अमर ) of the

thing by the sweet will ( yehacchā = svecchā । ‘yehacchā svairitā’ amar ) of the

speaker This attribute is सका or a proper name वस्तुधर्म is also of two

speaker This attribute is sakā or a proper name vastudharm is also of two

kinds viz ( 1 ) सिद्ध accomplished and ( 2 ) साध्य which is being accomp

kinds viz ( 1 ) sidddha accomplished and ( 2 ) sādhya which is being accomp

lished or is in the process of accomplishment साध्यवस्तु धर्म means क्रिया of

lished or is in the process of accomplishment sādhya-vastu dharma means kriyā of

action For, when we say देवदत्त ग्राम गच्छति, the action of going is not

action For, when we say devadatta grāma gacchati, the action of going is not

an accomplished and complete thing, but is in the process of

accomplishment An action consists of parts, which have become

prior ( पूर्व ) and posterior ( अपर ) i e which are continuous and occupy

prior ( pūrva ) and posterior ( apara ) i e which are continuous and occupy

successive periods of time पूर्वापरीभूता प्राक्प्रश्वत्कालव्यापिनि क्रमिक इत्यर्थे अव

successive periods of time pūrvāparībhūtā prākprśvatkalavyāpini kramika ityarthe ava

यवा विभागा यस्या सा पूर्वापरीभावावया सा च असौ क्रिया च, तदूप सिद्ध वस्तुधर्मे is

yavā vibhāgā yasyā sā pūrvāparībhāvāvayavā sā ca asau kriyā ca, tadūpa siddha vastudharme is

again of two kinds viz ( 1 ) प्राणपद or that which gives life to an entity

again of two kinds viz ( 1 ) prāṇapada or that which gives life to an entity

and ( 2 ) विशेषाधानहेतु or that which is the cause of endowing it with

and ( 2 ) viśeṣādhānahetu or that which is the cause of endowing it with

its speciality ( विशेषस्य वेष्ट्यस्य आधानं स्थापन तस्य हेतु ) प्राणपद सिद्ध वस्तुधर्म, re

its speciality ( viśeṣasya veṣṭyasya ādhānaṃ sthāpan tasye hētu ) prāṇapada siddha vastudharm, re

ferred to in the text as आथ्य, is जाति or generality or class-characteristic

ferred to in the text as āthyya, is jāti or generality or class-characteristic

It is not the form but the generality, called जाति that makes a bull a

It is not the form but the generality, called jāti that makes a bull a

bull मम्मट supports his statement by quoting from भट्टहरि-'s वाक्यप्रदीप

bull mammat supports his statement by quoting from bhatṭahari-'s vākya-pradīpa

Page 227

गौ स्वरूपेण न गौ नापि अगौः

Nor can we call it a non-bull on account of its form

i e we cannot call an entry a bull because of its form

जाति गोत्वं that gives a bull its essence or life

It is जाति गोत्वं that gives a bull its essence or life

is a quality, as for example, white Whiteness serves to distinguish an object, which has already come into existence (लघुसत्ताक) from other of the same class

But गुण is not प्राणपद to an entity, because it can be seen dissociated from that entity A thing can exist without गुण but not without जाति

लघुसत्ताकम् is explained as जात्या प्राप्तव्यवहारयोग्यताकम् लघुसत्ताकम्perhaps refers to the Vaisesika idea that during the first moment of its existence an entity is निर्गुण or quality less Qualities go to it during the second moment

वाक्यपदीय—This is the name of a metrical work dealing with the philosophy of grammar by Bhartrhari, who flourished in the first half of the seventh century A, D The Vakyapadiya is divided into three chapters called the Brahma or Agama-kanda, the Vākya-kanda and the Pada or Prakırma-kanda Bhartrhari is also reported to have written a commentary on the Mahabhāsya of Patanjali This work is, however, not available at present

जित्यादिशब्दानां सन्निवेशित ) स अयम् ( उपाधि ) सङ्कारूप ( 1 e स्फोटरूप ) इति

Construe यहच्छात्मक ( 1 e वक्तृयहच्छा सन्निवेशित ) स अयम् ( उपाधि ) सङ्कारूप ( 1 e स्फोटरूप ) इति

The problem here is What is the exact उपाधि or attribute that we impose on an individual, when we give him a particular name ? In the case of जाति, गुण and क्रियात्मक words we can point to specific attributes viz generality, quality and action as the basis or their वाचकत्व But what is the attribute that forms the essence or foundation of a सङ्का, यहच्छा or दृव्य शब्द

As we cannot think of any perceptible attribute that can be said to have been imposed on an individual by investing him with a particular name, it is held that the उपाधि in this case is the ideal form or स्फोट of the name in question ( विल्यादिशब्दाना स्वरूप स्फोटरूपमित्यर्थे )

This is shown by the adjectives अन्यस्मिन्निर्निर्ग्राह्या and सहेतुकम् The स्फोट of a word, as we saw before, is understood by the comprehension of its last syllable, helped by the impressions left by the preceding syllables Then again, as स्फोट is निरवयव and अक्षरात्म्क्, it has no क्रम or order of constituent parts, as physical or impermanent words such as घट, कमल and others have. It will thus be seen that what this sentence tells us is that the उपाधि imposed on an individual by a

Page 228

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

speaker in giving him a particular name is the designation of that name, which here is designated as a name

This sentence is differently interpreted by चण्डीदास as noted by प्रदीप According to him, proper names denote individuals only and no other attribute is imposed upon them We do not accept his explanation firstly because he interprets मम्मट's words like अन्ययुज्यादिनिर्बन्धम्, सहत्कमम् and उपाधिलेन fancifully and secondly पतञ्जलि does suggest that even in a सज्ञाधनद, it is the attribute that the convention is understood

This sentence is differently interpreted by Chandidas as noted by Pradip. According to him, proper names denote individuals only and no other attribute is imposed upon them. We do not accept his explanation firstly because he interprets Mammata's words like 'anyayujyadinirbandham', 'sahatkamam', and 'upadhilena' fancifully, and secondly, Patanjali does suggest that even in a 'sanjnadhana', it is the attribute that the convention is understood

गौ इत्युक्टे महाभाष्यकार—Mammata here quotes the authority of Pat anjali ( about 150 B C ), the author of the Mahābhāsya, for the four fold conventional meaning, which is expressed by वाचक words

Mammata here quotes the authority of Patanjali (about 150 B.C.), the author of the Mahabhasya, for the four-fold conventional meaning, which is expressed by 'vachaka' words

परमाण्वादौना गुणवत्वम्—This sentence refers to a technical point in Vaiśesika philosophy That point does not possess much of a relevancy here, but serves to show Mammata's acquaintance with the Vaiśesika system

This sentence refers to a technical point in Vaisesika philosophy. That point does not possess much relevance here but serves to show Mammata's acquaintance with the Vaisesika system

The Vaiśesikas divide all cognizable things in the world into seven heads or categories ( ‘द्रव्यगुणकर्मसामान्यविशेषसमवायाभावाख्या सप्त पदार्था ।’ तक्कैसंग्रह ) Of these गुण or quality is of 24 kinds among which परिमाण or dimension is one परिमाण is of four kinds viz अणु ( minute ), महत् ( large ), दीर्घ ( long ) and हस्व ( short ), Read मानव्यवहारकारण परिमाणम् । नवद्रव्यप्राप्ते । तच्चतुर्विधम् । अणु महद् दीर्घ हस्व चेति । तक्कैसंग्रह To these four dimensions two more are added viz परिमाण्डल्य ( atomic sphericity ) and विशालत्व ( all-pervadingness ) पारिमाण्डल्य belongs to atoms and विशालत्व to such entities as आकाश and आत्मा, which are all pervading The dimension परमाणु or परिमाण्डलत्य is thus a गुण, according to the Vaiśesikas

The Vaisesikas divide all cognizable things in the world into seven heads or categories ('dravyagunakarmasamanya-vishesasamavayabhavakhya sapta padartha'). Of these, 'guna' or quality is of 24 kinds, among which 'parimana' or dimension is one. 'Parimana' is of four kinds: 'anu' (minute), 'mahat' (large), 'dirgha' (long), and 'hrasva' (short). To these four dimensions, two more are added: 'parimandalya' (atomic sphericity) and 'visalattva' (all-pervadingness). 'Parimandalya' belongs to atoms, and 'visalattva' to such entities as 'akasha' and 'atman', which are all-pervading. The dimension 'paramanu' or 'parimandalya' is thus a 'guna' according to the Vaisesikas

But according to the grammarians and the rhetoricians परमाणुत्व is a जाति and परमाणु a जातिवाचक word For, परमाणुत्व is an attribute ( उपाधि ) of the atoms, which gives them their very life ( प्राणप्रद ) ' If we were to take away परमाणुत्व from the atoms, they would cease to be atoms Such is not the case with गुणs. Whiteness for example, is not प्राणप्रद to a bull, for, a black bull can be found

But according to the grammarians and rhetoricians, 'paramanutva' is a 'jati' and 'paramanu' is a 'jativachaka' word. For 'paramanutva' is an attribute ('upadhi') of the atoms, which gives them their very life ('pranaprada'). If we were to take away 'paramanutva' from the atoms, they would cease to be atoms. Such is not the case with 'gunas'. Whiteness, for example, is not 'pranaprada' to a bull, for a black bull can be found

In spite of this, the परिमाणु परिमाण and others are regarded as गुणs by the वैशेषिकs This is merely a technicality ( परिभाषा ) This arises out of their rule that if two जातिs are found in an object, they must be related as पर ( more extensive ) and अपर ( less extensive ) But if परमाणुत्व is a जाति it is impossible to determine whether it is पर or अपर Since therefore it cannot be admitted as a जाति, it is considered as a गुण

In spite of this, 'paramanu parimana' and others are regarded as 'gunas' by the Vaisesikas. This is merely a technicality ('paribhasha'). This arises out of their rule that if two 'jatis' are found in an object, they must be related as 'para' (more extensive) and 'apara' (less extensive). But if 'paramanutva' is a 'jati', it is impossible to determine whether it is 'para' or 'apara'. Since, therefore, it cannot be admitted as a 'jati', it is considered as a 'guna'

Page 229

१७६

176

काव्यप्रकाश

Kavyaprakasha

Since the grammarians do not admit such a rule they have no difficulty in regarding परमाणु as a जाति

Since the grammarians do not admit such a rule, they have no difficulty in regarding paramāṇu as a jāti

Here ends the treatment of जातिवाचक words, which as we have seen primarily convey the idea of जाति or generality

Here ends the treatment of jāti-vācaka words, which, as we have seen, primarily convey the idea of jāti or generality

गुणक्रियायहच्छना आलम्बनमेदात्—The problem here is this A गुणवाचक word like शुक्ल is declared to have its convention in the quality viz शुक्लत्व or whiteness Now, the whiteness found in different abodes appears to be different. Thus, the whiteness of snow appears different from the white of milk, or the white of a conch We have, therefore, not one, but many whites The question then is With reference to which white is the convention of the word शुक्ल to be understood? Is it understood with reference to all whites, or one particular white, or a limited number of whites? We have seen before that these alternatives land us in either आननत्य or व्यभिचार So, what is the way out of this difficulty?

The problem here is this: A guṇavācaka word like śukla is declared to have its convention in the quality viz śuklatva or whiteness. Now, the whiteness found in different abodes appears to be different. Thus, the whiteness of snow appears different from the white of milk, or the white of a conch. We have, therefore, not one, but many whites. The question then is: With reference to which white is the convention of the word śukla to be understood? Is it understood with reference to all whites, or one particular white, or a limited number of whites? We have seen before that these alternatives land us in either ānanatva or vyabhicāra. So, what is the way out of this difficulty?

Mammata's answer is that the white everywhere is really of one form ( वस्तुत एकरूप ) It appears to be as though different owing to the difference of abodes (आश्रयमेद ) in which it is found, even as one and the same face appears to be diverse as it is reflected in a polished sword, mirror or oil.

Mammata's answer is that the white everywhere is really of one form (vastutaḥ ekarūpa). It appears to be as though different owing to the difference of abodes (āśrayabheda) in which it is found, even as one and the same face appears to be diverse as it is reflected in a polished sword, mirror, or oil.

The same reasoning applies to क्रियावाचक and यहच्छा words Action such as cooking appears different when it refers to treacle ( गुड ), rice and others. Similarly, the action of going appears different when the person going is an ordinary man, a soldier, or a lovely damsel But cooking and going are one and the same, wherever they are found. Thus, क्रियावाचक words appropriately express the one action to which they refer

The same reasoning applies to kriyā-vācaka and yadṛcchā words. Action such as cooking appears different when it refers to treacle (guḍa), rice, and others. Similarly, the action of going appears different when the person going is an ordinary man, a soldier, or a lovely damsel. But cooking and going are one and the same, wherever they are found. Thus, kriyā-vācaka words appropriately express the one action to which they refer.

यहच्छा means free will, then the Sphota of proper names, which, as we have seen before, the speaker by his own free will imposes on individuals, when he endows them with those proper names Thus, the correct meaning of यहच्छा here is the Sphota of proper names This is shown by the fact that the expression गुणवियायहच्छानाम् refers to the attributes of the individual in the case of गुण, क्रिया and यहच्छा शब्दs and the attribute connected with यहच्छाशब्दs is the Sphota, as Mammata has stated before in ‘दित्यादिसब्दाना यहच्छात्मक इति’ But Sphota is not an object of perception. Therefore, यहच्छा here is to be taken in the sense of proper names (यहच्छाशब्द)

If yadṛcchā means free will, then the Sphoṭa of proper names, which, as we have seen before, the speaker by his own free will imposes on individuals when he endows them with those proper names. Thus, the correct meaning of yadṛcchā here is the Sphoṭa of proper names. This is shown by the fact that the expression guṇakriyāyadṛcchānām refers to the attributes of the individual in the case of guṇa, kriyā, and yadṛcchā śabdas, and the attribute connected with yadṛcchā-śabdas is the Sphoṭa, as Mammata has stated before in 'dityādiśabdānāṃ yadṛcchātmak iti'. But Sphoṭa is not an object of perception. Therefore, yadṛcchā here is to be taken in the sense of proper names (yadṛcchā-śabda).

Page 230

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

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

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

It should be noted that difference owing to the difference of abodes in the case of arbitrary words is not quite so marked as it is in the case of quality words and action words 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 Sphota by अभिधा and then the individual possessed of that action and that Sphota by आक्षेप or अनुमान

The process of understanding the meaning from action and arbitrary words is once more the same as was seen in the case of quality words. Thus, they first express the action and the Sphota by denotation and then the individual possessed of that action and that Sphota by implication or inference

हिमपय शुक्त्याश्रेयु इति अन्ये—So far Mammata explained the view of the grammarians, who are जात्यादिवादिन The view of the Mimāmsakas, referred to in ‘जातिरेव वा’ of the Kārikā on p 5 is now being explained in this passage

Some others say that snow, water, and pearl are related - So far Mammata explained the view of the grammarians, who are proponents of class etc. The view of the Mimāmsakas, referred to in 'class alone' of the Kārikā on page 5 is now being explained in this passage

The whites that are found in snow, milk, conch and others are really different ( परमार्थत मिन्न ) from one another even as individual bulls ( गोव्यक्तयत ) are different from one another

The whites that are found in snow, milk, conch and others are really different from one another even as individual bulls are different from one another

Yet with reference to the different whites we use an identical expression ( अभिन्नाभिधानम ) viz शुक्क, as when we say ‘ शुक्को हिमम्’, ‘शुक्क पयः’ and शुक्क शुक्त get an identical cognition or apprehension ( अभिन्न प्रत्यय ) viz the cognition of white ( शुक्कप्रतीति )

Yet with reference to the different whites we use an identical expression viz white, as when we say 'white snow', 'white water' and 'white pearl' get an identical cognition or apprehension viz the cognition of white

This is because, though the individual whites ( शुक्कव्यक्तयत ) are different from one another, they possess a common class-characteristic, called शुक्कत्व, 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

This is because, though the individual whites are different from one another, they possess a common class-characteristic, called whiteness, on account of which an identical expression and an identical apprehension arise with reference to the different whites, even as identical expression and identical apprehension arise with reference to different individual bulls owing to their possessing the common class characteristic cowness

Thus, the word शुक्क, which is regarded as गुणवाचक by the grammarians, is exactly simular to the word गो Both of them are, therefore, equally जातिवाचक

Thus, the word white, which is regarded as a quality-denoting word by the grammarians, is exactly similar to the word cow Both of them are, therefore, equally class-denoting

It should be noticed that according to the first view i e the view of वैयाकरण's, the seeming ly different whites are really one and they appear to be different owing to the difference of abodes

It should be noticed that according to the first view i e the view of grammarians, the seemingly different whites are really one and they appear to be different owing to the difference of abodes

The मीमांसक's on the other hand regard these white as really different and accept

The Mimāmsakas on the other hand regard these whites as really different and accept

Page 231

१७८

178

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 13

जाति 1 e शक्तत्व to avoid the faults of आनुप्य and व्यभिचार Actually there is not much difference between the two views.

To avoid the faults of आनुप्य and व्यभिचार, actually there is not much difference between the two views regarding जाति and शक्तत्व.

We find that both the Vaiyākarans and the Mīmāmsakas say that अभिन्नाभिधान and अभिन्नप्रत्यय arise from the one शक्तत्व, which, however, is called a गुण by the grammarians and a जाति by the Mīmāmsakas. Apart from these two terms which they use to designate this शक्तत्व they are at one as regards the purpose which शक्तत्व serves

We find that both the Vaiyākarans and the Mīmāmsakas say that अभिन्नाभिधान and अभिन्नप्रत्यय arise from the one शक्तत्व, which is called a गुण by the grammarians and a जाति by the Mīmāmsakas. Apart from these terms, they agree on the purpose of शक्तत्व.

It may here be pointed out that in designating शक्तत्व as a जाति the Mīmāmsakas have the support of the Vaiseśikas, according to whom सामान्य or generality resides in substance, quality and action (‘ [ सामान्य ] द्रव्यगुणकर्मस्वत्ति । 'तर्कसंग्रह ) Thus, शक्तत्व and पाकत्व are सामान्यs or जातिस, according to the Mīmāmsakas and the Vaśesikas

It may be pointed out that the Mīmāmsakas, supported by the Vaiseśikas, designate शक्तत्व as a जाति, as सामान्य or generality resides in substance, quality, and action. Thus, शक्तत्व and पाकत्व are सामान्यs or जातिस according to them.

Similar reasoning is adopted by the Mīmāmsakas to prove that क्रियाशब्द's and सज्ञा or यदृच्छा शब्द's also possess जाति as their सकेतिर्थ Cooking, connected with molasses ( गुड ), is really different from that which makes the rice पक But the two are referred to by the same term पाक and produce in us the same idea of cooking, because the class characteristic पाकत्व or cookingness resides in them both. 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 क्रियाबाचक words by the grammarians are really जातिवाचक

The Mīmāmsakas use similar reasoning to prove that क्रियाशब्द's and सज्ञा or यदृच्छा शब्द's possess जाति. Cooking with molasses is different from cooking rice, yet both are referred to as पाक due to the class characteristic पाकत्व. Similarly, the action of going varies with the subject, but अभिन्नाभिधान and अभिन्नप्रत्यय arise due to गमनत्व. Thus, क्रियाबाचक words are really जातिवाचक.

Even सज्ञाशब्द's, which signify a single individual, possess जाति as their conventional meaning This is proved from two points of view First, take a proper name like दित्य This word, when uttered ( उदीरित ) by different individuals such as a child, an old man, a parrot and others with differing degrees of loudness and distinctness, is really different in every case But with reference to these different दित्यशब्द's we get an identical cognition ( अभिन्नप्रत्यय. ) That is due to the fact that these different दित्यशब्द's possess the class characteristic दित्यत्व Secondly, the entity named दित्य, 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 That is once again due to the possession by these different Ditthas of the class-characteristic दित्यत्व Thus, सज्ञाशब्द's also are जातिवाचक

Even सज्ञाशब्द's, signifying a single individual, possess जाति as their conventional meaning. This is proved from two viewpoints: the identical cognition arising from different utterances of a name like दित्य due to the class characteristic दित्यत्व, and the changing entity named दित्य still being referred to identically due to दित्यत्व. Thus, सज्ञाशब्द's are also जातिवाचक.

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

It should be noted that the Mimamsakas' idea that words uttered by different individuals become really different proceeds from

Page 232

the fact that they do not admit Sphota Secondly, the Mimāmsakas' statement that entities like Dı̣ttha change every moment has reference to the Budhhıstıc doctrine of ‘ सर्वे क्षणिकम्’ Though the Mımāmsakas do not believe in this doctrine themselves, they seem to have made use of it to prove the जातिवाचकत्व of सज्ञा words

सर्वेषा शब्दाना जातिरेव प्रयत्निनिमित्तम् — This sums up the view of the Mimāmsakas, who believe that all words possess जाति as the cause of currency i e as their संकेतित, वाच्य or मुख्य अर्थ

It must be remarked that the Mimāmsakas' attempt to prove that जाति is the import of सज्ञाशब्दs cannot be regarded as successfful 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 अनेक and अनेकात्मक The Mimāmsakas prove the plurality of entities expressed by proper names by resorting to the Budhhıstıc 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 ( प्रतिक्षण भिद्यमानता ) is not peculiar to द्रव्यादि अर्थs Even entities expressed by regularly जातिवाचक words undergo such change. Further, the Mimāmsakas' idea that words like Dıttha, when uttered by dufferent individuals, become really dufferent, is not peculiar to सज्ञाशब्दs The same can be said with reference to जातिशब्दs also, when they are uttered by different individuals Altogether the doctrine that सज्ञाशब्दs are जातिवाचक does not appear to us to be satısfactory

तद्वान् अपोहो वा शब्दार्थ कैश्चिद् उक्त —In this sentence Mammata refers to two more views regarding the convention of words These are the views of the ancient Naryāyıkas, who are known as जातिविशेष्यवादिन and of the Buddhists, who are designated अपोहवादिन

तद्वान् शब्दार्थ means जातिवान् जातिविशिष्ट पदर्थ व्यक्तिरूप शब्दार्थ शब्दस्य संकेतित अर्थ This is the view of ancient Naryāyıkas They feel that it is not possible to fix the convention in the individual because of the faults of आाननस्य 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, आाननस्य and व्यभिचार faults do not arise

Page 233

१ <0> काव्यप्रकारः

अपोह means distinction or difference of an object from all others, which again are different from it The Bauddhas believe in the doctrine that everything is momentary ( क्षणिक ) Obviously therefore they cannot fix the convention जाति since it is एकनित्य and अनेकानुगत Nor is it possible to refer the convention to गुणक्रिया and सज्ञा because these three are नित्य This according to them amounts to saying that it is not possible to get any positive idea of entities from words Therefore what the words signify is merely the distinction of things from others which they are not गो e g tells us that the entity we call गो is not अश्वो i e not a horse, elephant etc

The last two views मम्मट mentions only in the वृत्ति because in his judgement they are uselss for our purpose मम्मट dismisses them so unceremoniously because perhaps according to him they lack reasoning and are not so sound as the first two It must however be mentioned that it is difficult to agree with मम्मट here The last two views have as much relevancy as the first two Whether you accept them or not is entierly different matter

Thus, we have seen four views regarding the convention of words viz (1) जात्यादिवाद of the grammarians, (2) जातिवाद of the Mimamsakas, (3) जातिलिङ्गविशिष्टव्यक्तिवाद of the ancient Naiyāyikas and (4) अपोहवाद of the Buddhists Then there is the fifth view viz (5) व्यक्तिवाद or केवलव्यक्तिवाद of the modern or new Naiyāyikas This view, though not specifically mentioned by Mammata, is clearly referred to by him in अर्थक्रियाकारितया पदार्थनिरूपणयोग्या व्यक्तिरेव ' Modern Naiyayikas solely rely on વ્યવહાર for determining the सङ्केत of words વ્યવહાર deals with व्यक्तिस Therefore, व्यक्ति represents the conventional meaning of words That is their view Read 'व्यक्तिवादिनस्तु आहु ! शब्दस्य व्यक्तिरेव वाच्या । जातेस्तु उपलक्षणभावेन आधयणात् आनन्वादिदोषानवकाशः ' कैयट's प्रदीप p 17 ( निर्णयसागर )

Out of these five views regarding the convention of words Mammata favours the first This can be deduced from the following reasons : (1) The rhetoricians are usually the followers of the grammarians in such matters They always speak about the gramma-rians with respect It is, therefore, logical to suppose that Mammata, a rhetorician, accepts the view of the grammarians as regards the convention of words (2) The जात्यादिवाद is explained at some length, possible objections against it have been removed ( in the passage परमाण्वादीनामेदात् ) and it is supported by quoting the authority of Patañjali (3) Mammata'a divisions of the figure विरोध (Text p 83) are based on the four kinds of words which the जात्यादिवाद of the

Page 234

grammarians presupposes

(4) In his शब्दव्यापारविचार Mammata clearly prefers the जात्यादिवाद to the जातिवाद

(5) At the end of his treatment of the जातिवाद Mammata uses the word 'इति अन्ये'

The जातिविवक्ष्ययक्तिवाद and अभोहवाद are referred to by the words 'कैश्चिदुक्त'

But no such remark follows the exposition of the जात्यादिवाद

Mammata has so far dealt with the question as to what constitutes the conventional meaning of words

But he does not tell us how conventional meaning is apprehended from words

There are eight ways in which conventional meaning is grasped

These are enumerated in 'शक्तिप्रधन्यकरणोपमानकोशस्ववाक्याद् व्यवहारात् तत्त्वम् । वाक्यस्य शेषाद् विदितेतरेंदन्ति सानिध्यात् सिद्धपदस्य वृत्तौ ।'

quoted in परमलघुमंजूषा p 145 for the elucidation of this read न्यायकोश pp 858-859

स मुख्योऽर्थः — In Kārikā 2nd we have the definition of a वाचक word

This second half of Kārikā 3 defines मुख्यार्थ or वाच्यार्थ and अभिधा or expressed sense

This is the definition of मुख्यार्थ or वाच्यार्थ अभिधा (Expression, Denotation, Expressive or Denotative Power) is defined as the primary process with reference to that primary sense i e which conveys that primary sense

The word मुख्य in मुख्यो व्यापार is significantly used

It serves to exclude अभिधामूल्यज्योतक, which conveys another irrelevant directly conventional sense in the case of अभिधामूल्यज्योतक words after they have expressed the relevant directly conventional sense to which they are restricted owing to conjunction etc

Thus, the अभिधामूल्यज्योतक conveys साक्षात् सकेतितार्थ, but as it is not the मुख्यार्थ्यापार on the primary process with reference to it, it is not अभिधा

अभिधामूल्यज्योतक is called an अनुुख्य or a secondary process, because it is based on अभिधा and begins to operate after अभिधा has expressed its own सकेतितार्थ

It is pointed out that वाच्यार्थ is called मुख्यार्थ, not because it is principal, but because it is first comprehended ('मुख्यः प्राथमिकः, न तु प्रधानभूतः' — साहिल्यचूडामणि, 'प्रथमं प्रतीयमानवलेन एवं अन्य अर्थस्य मुख्यत्वोपपत्ति' वामनाचार्य)

The word मुख्य is explained as 'मुखामिव मुख्य,' according to 'शाब्दिभ्यो य' पा 5 3 103

Mammata does not give us the divisions of अभिधा

But they are mentioned by other writers and deserve to be known

अभिधा is of three kind viz (1) योग (etymology), (2) रुढि (convention) and (3) योगरुढि (etymology-cum-convention)

In accordance with this division a वाचक शब्द is also of three kinds viz (1) यौगिक, (2) रुढ and (3) योगरुढ

Read रसगंगाधर pp 140-141

Page 235

१८२

182

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 14

Page 14

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

So far Mammata has defined vācaka, śabda vācyārtha and abhidhā. Now he commences the treatment of lākṣaṇika śabda, lakṣyārtha and lakṣaṇā. Out of these lakṣaṇā is defined in Kārikā 4, where we get a tacit definition of lakṣyārtha also, and lākṣaṇikashabda in Kārikā 9a.

Karikā 4 — Here ‘यत् अन्य अर्थ ल्क्ष्यते स क्रिया लक्षणा’ is the definition of लक्षणा ‘मुख्यार्थबाधे तयोरेव रूढितोऽथ प्रयोजनात्’ enumerates the three conditions, under which लक्षणा becomes possible. आरोपिता is descriptive of लक्षणा ‘य अन्य अर्थ ल्क्ष्यते स ल्क्ष्यार्थः’ is the definition of ल्क्ष्यार्थ that is implied

Kārikā 4 — Here 'yat anya artha lakṣyate sa kriyā lakṣaṇā' is the definition of lakṣaṇā. 'mukhyārthabādhe tayoreva rūḍhito'tha prayojanāt' enumerates the three conditions under which lakṣaṇā becomes possible. āropitā is descriptive of lakṣaṇā. 'ya anya artha lakṣyate sa lakṣyārthaḥ' is the definition of lakṣyārtha 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

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 (anya artha), 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, ‘कर्मेणि कुशल ’ ‘गङ्गाया घोष ’ ( कुशल ज्ञान लाति असौ ) means one who picks up Kusa grass ( दर्भम्रहीता ) कर्मेणि means in action, say, in the action of studying or painting ( अभ्यासकर्मेणि चित्रमर्मेणि वा ) Now, we find that the meaning दर्भम्रहीता 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 प्रविणो वा ) has to be obtained from that word This other sense चतुर or प्रविण is ल्क्ष्यार्थ and the process by which it is conveyed is लक्षणा

Mammata's two examples of lakṣaṇā are, 'karmeṇi kuśala' 'gaṅgāyā ghoṣa'. (kuśala jñāna lāti asau) means one who picks up Kusa grass (darbhagrāhītā). karmeṇi means in action, say, in the action of studying or painting (abhyāsakarmeṇi citrakarmanī vā). Now, we find that the meaning darbhagrāhītā is in no way connected with the action of studying or painting. Thus, the primary or literal meaning of kuśala is incompatible in this sentence. Hence, another meaning viz. clever (catura praviṇo vā) has to be obtained from that word. This other sense catura or praviṇa is lakṣyārtha and the process by which it is conveyed is lakṣaṇā.

Similar is the case with ‘गङ्गाया 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,

Similar is the case with 'gaṅgāyā ghoṣa'. ghoṣa 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 Gaṅgā, which is the primary sense of the word gaṅgāyām. The primary sense being thus incompatible gaṅgāyām indicates another sense viz. gaṅgātaṭe. This is done by means of lakṣaṇā.

Three Conditions of Laksanā —

Three Conditions of Lakṣaṇā —

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

The three conditions under which lakṣaṇā becomes possible are (1) mukhyārthabādha, (2) tayoga and (3) rūḍhiprayojanānyatarat. We shall find that in all the four examples of lakṣaṇā given above these three conditions are satisfied.

First Condition-The first condition for understanding a word in a लाक्षणिक sense is मुख्यार्थबाध, which means मुख्यार्थस्य वाच्यार्थस्य सकेतिकार्थस्य

First Condition-The first condition for understanding a word in a lākṣaṇika sense is mukhyārthabādha, which means mukhyārthasya vācyārthasya saketikārthasya.

Page 236

बाधः अनुपपत्तौ अनौचित्यं वा

incompatibility, impropriety or incompatibility

of the primary sense This incompatibility arises when the primary sense is opposed to some प्रमाण or means of proof such as प्रत्यक्ष Thus in गङ्गायां घोषः the primary sense 'the stream of the Gangā is set aside (पराहत) by प्रत्यक्ष or direct perception, which tells us that a hamlet cannot be situated on the stream of the Gangā and leads to योग्यताभाव between गङ्गाप्रवाह and घोष Similarly, कुशल in its primary sense of दरबंग्रहोता is incompatible with कर्मन्, either of अभ्यास or of चित्र, and hence मुख्यार्थबाध comes in

In the above cases, the primary sense of the लाक्षणिक words is found to be incompatible with other words in the sentences It should be noticed that we also take into consideration the general purport or वाक्यार्थ or the intention of the speaker while determining whether the sense is बाधित or not. Otherwise there is no reason why in the example of गङ्गायां घोषः the लक्षण should not apply to घोष The same is true of 'काकेभ्यो दधि रक्ष्यताम्' and 'छत्रिणो यान्ति' given as illustrations of अजहल्लक्षणा (this will be explained later)

It will thus be seen that मुख्यार्थबाध occurs when the primary sense is प्रमाणपराहत or वक्तृतात्पर्यविरोध्य Strictly speaking प्रमाणपराहतत्ल is included in वक्तृतात्पर्यविषयत्व

Second Condition - The second condition is तययोग This means तस्य मुख्यार्थस्य लक्षणया यौग सवन्धः तेन मुख्यार्थेन लक्षणार्थस्य योगः संवन्ध इति वा

The idea is the मुख्यार्थ must in some way be connected with the लक्षणार्थ, called अमुख्यार्थ, which is conveyed by it (मुख्येन अमुख्ययोः लक्षणयाते), when it is itself found to be incompatible If this condition were not there, any thing absolutely unconnected with the मुख्यार्थ would be indicated when the मुख्यार्थ is बाधित For example when from the word 'Wilson College' we understand as लक्षणार्थ the members of the College, the second condition is satisfied in that there is a relation of आध्यायाध्यभाव between the two

Similarly, between दरबंघहोता and चतुर or प्रवीन, which are respectively the मुख्यार्थे and लक्षणार्थी of कुशल, there is the connection of विवेककत्व or discrimination (विवेककत्वादि सवन्धे मुख्यलक्षणयोः संवन्चे इत्यर्थः) For, one who grasps the Darbha-blades as well as one who is clever or expert in same work have to be discriminating Then again, between गङ्गाप्रवाह and गङ्गातट which are respectively the मुख्यार्थ and लक्षणार्थ of गङ्गा, there is the connection of सामीप्य or nearness or vicinity, For, the bank is near the stream.

Thusε, the second condition of लक्षणा lays down that the लक्षणार्थ must in some way be connected with the मुख्यार्थ In a stanza attributed

Page 237

१८४

184

काव्यप्रकाश.

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 14

to भर्तृमित्र this connection is stated to be of five kinds, thus अभिधेयेन सन्ध्यात् साध्यशात् समवायत् । वैपरित्याद् क्रियायोगाल्लक्षणा पद्यधा मता ॥

to Bhartr̥mitra this connection is stated to be of five kinds, thus

This stanza has been quoted and explained by Mukulabhatta (अभिधावृत्तिमातृका pp 17 18 ), Mammata ( शब्दव्यापारविचार pp 8 9 ) and Māṇikyacanḍra ( संकेत pp 27 28 )

This stanza has been quoted and explained by Mukulabhatta (Abhidhāvṛttimātṛkā pp 17 18), Mammata (Śabdavyāpāravicāra pp 8 9) and Māṇikyacanḍra (Sañket pp 27 28)

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

Third Condition—The third condition is rūḍhipryojanānyatarat, which means that lakṣaṇā must proceed either from rūḍhe or established usage or prayojana or purpose

The idea underlying this condition is ‘The natural sense of a word is the expressed or primary sense लक्षणा necessitates the understanding of a word in a sense other than the primary or natural, ‘That is why scientific writers are generally unwilling to understand a word in its secondary sense’ Note ‘अगत्या लक्षणा वृत्ति’ कुमारिलभट्ट, Therefore, whenever लक्षणा is resorted to, there must be some justification for doing do

The idea underlying this condition is 'The natural sense of a word is the expressed or primary sense lakṣaṇā necessitates the understanding of a word in a sense other than the primary or natural, 'That is why scientific writers are generally unwilling to understand a word in its secondary sense' Note 'agatyā lakṣaṇā vṛtti' Kumārilabhaṭṭa, Therefore, whenever lakṣaṇā is resorted to, there must be some justification for doing so

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 गङ्गायाम् means गङ्गातटे

Hence, it was held that lakṣaṇā must always proceed from some definite purpose prayojanavatī lakṣaṇā was thus the first to be evolved 'Gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa' is an example of such prayojanalakṣaṇā, where gaṅgāyām means gaṅgātaṭe

Here the question is Why should we not say ‘ गङ्गातटे घोष ’ instead of ‘ गङ्गायां घोष ’?

Here the question is Why should we not say 'Gaṅgātaṭe ghoṣa' instead of 'Gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa'?

The answer is गंगा the stream is possessed of the qualities of coolness, holiness and others, when we say ‘गङ्गायां घोष’ instead of ‘गङ्गातटे घोष’ our purpose is to convey the idea that the hamlet possesses those qualities of coolness, holiness etc in a pre eminent or excessive degree

The answer is Gaṅgā the stream is possessed of the qualities of coolness, holiness and others, when we say 'Gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa' instead of 'Gaṅgātaṭe ghoṣa' our purpose is to convey the idea that the hamlet possesses those qualities of coolness, holiness etc in a pre-eminent or excessive degree

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

It is true that 'Gaṅgātaṭe ghoṣa' 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 'Gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa' only

This then viz conveying the idea that the hamlet possesses these qualities in an excessive degree forms the purpose of the लक्षणा in ‘गङ्गायां घोष’

This then viz conveying the idea that the hamlet possesses these qualities in an excessive degree forms the purpose of the lakṣaṇā in 'Gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa'

Thus, when लक्षणा first began to be used in the language it had a definite purpose

Thus, when lakṣaṇā 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

But the words continued to be used in their secondary sense all the same

Such use of words in a secondary sense without a purpose was put down to रूढि लक्षणा or Indication proceeding from practice or usage ‘कर्मणि कुशल’ is an example of रूढिलक्षणा

Such use of words in a secondary sense without a purpose was put down to rūḍhi lakṣaṇā or Indication proceeding from practice or usage 'Karmaṇi kuśala' is an example of rūḍhi-lakṣaṇā

With reference to these रूढिलक्षणा s Viśvanātha remarks “पूर्वत्र प्रयोजनाभावाद् रूढिरेव”

With reference to these rūḍhilakṣaṇā s Viśvanātha remarks 'Pūrvatra prayojanābhāvād rūḍhireva'

He has even like Mammata paraphrased रूढि by प्रसिद्धि

He has even like Mammata paraphrased rūḍhi by prasiddhi

It will thus be seen that all रूढिलक्षणाs were originally प्रयोजनलक्षणाs and that when their प्रयोजन came to be lost, they were regarded as

It will thus be seen that all rūḍhilakṣaṇās were originally prayojanalakṣaṇās and that when their prayojana came to be lost, they were regarded as

Page 238

रूढिलक्षणाs

But even now it is possible to discover the प्रयोजन in most cases of रूढिलक्षणाs Thus, in 'कर्मणि कुगल' ' we may say that the original प्रयोजन was to suggest excess of discrimination (विवेकक्नातिगय ) It is true 'कर्मणि चतुर् ' means the man is possessed of विवेककत्व But विवेकक्नातिगय is suggested, when we say 'कर्मणि कुशल '

The same point is brought out by माणिक्यचन्द्र when he says निश्चिता इति श्रद्योपचारप्रनितय । It should only be noted that this applies only to those निश्चित लक्षणाs which are based on similarity e g this applies to कर्मणि कुगल but not to कलिङ्ग साहसिक

The same point is brought out by माणिक्यचन्द्र when he says निश्चिता इति श्रद्योपचारप्रनितय. It should only be noted that this applies only to those निश्चित लक्षणाs which are based on similarity e.g. this applies to कर्मणि कुगल but not to कलिङ्ग साहसिक

The first condition of लक्षणा is मुख्यार्थबाध But what is the मुख्यार्थ in the case of words which have two meanings, one etymological and the other current Take the word लावण्य Etymologically it means "saltiness or salinity Currently it expresses the meaning of loveliness Which of the two is the मुख्यार्थे लावण्य ? मम्मट and जगन्नाथ are of the opinion that the etymological meaning of the word is मुख्यार्थे and when it is वाचित as in कन्यकाया लावण्यम we have रूढि लक्षणा In the opinion of हेमचन्द्र and विश्वनाथ an etymological meaning is different from its current meaning and the latter is the primary sense or मुख्यार्थे In that case 'कर्मणि कुशल' is not an illustration रूढि लक्षणा विश्वनाथ further adds that if the etymological meaning were regarded as primary meaning, we shall have to admit लक्षणा in गौ गते for गौ etymologically means "one who is going"

The first condition of लक्षणा is मुख्यार्थबाध. But what is the मुख्यार्थ in the case of words which have two meanings, one etymological and the other current? Take the word लावण्य. Etymologically it means "saltiness or salinity". Currently it expresses the meaning of loveliness. Which of the two is the मुख्यार्थे लावण्य? मम्मट and जगन्नाथ are of the opinion that the etymological meaning of the word is मुख्यार्थे and when it is वाचित as in कन्यकाया लावण्यम we have रूढि लक्षणा. In the opinion of हेमचन्द्र and विश्वनाथ an etymological meaning is different from its current meaning and the latter is the primary sense or मुख्यार्थे. In that case 'कर्मणि कुशल' is not an illustration रूढि लक्षणा. विश्वनाथ further adds that if the etymological meaning were regarded as primary meaning, we shall have to admit लक्षणा in गौ गते for गौ etymologically means "one who is going"

Hemacandra and Viśvanātha are opposed to this view Their opinion is that the etymological meaning of a word is different from its current meaning ('अन्यद् हि शब्‍दाना ध्युत्पत्तिनिमित्तम् अन्यच्च प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम्' साहित्यदर्पण II 5 ) And it is the current meaning of a word which is its primary, conventional or expressed sense (मुख्यार्थ ) It is possible in the case of some words e g पाचक But in the case of others they may not be so e g गो The etymological meaning of गो is one who is going, but its current, primary or conventional meaning is गो-जाति and hence by implication गोत्वविशिष्टा गोव्यक्ति Similarly, Viśvanātha thinks that though धर्ममहीता is the etymological meaning of कुशल, its current or primary meaning is चतुर् Therefore, according to him there is no रूढिलक्षणा in 'कर्मणि कुगल', Viśvanātha's example of रूढि लक्षणा is 'कलिङ्ग साहसिक', which is analogous to 'Germany is proud' कलिङ्ग primanly means a country ( modern Orissa) That sense can not be approprnately construed with साहसिक It is thus वाधित Hence लक्षणा is resorted to and it conveys the ल‍क्ष्यार्थे viz inhabitants of

Hemacandra and Viśvanātha are opposed to this view. Their opinion is that the etymological meaning of a word is different from its current meaning ('अन्यद् हि शब्‍दाना ध्युत्पत्तिनिमित्तम् अन्यच्च प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम्' साहित्यदर्पण II 5). And it is the current meaning of a word which is its primary, conventional or expressed sense (मुख्यार्थ). It is possible in the case of some words e.g. पाचक. But in the case of others they may not be so e.g. गो. The etymological meaning of गो is one who is going, but its current, primary or conventional meaning is गो-जाति and hence by implication गोत्वविशिष्टा गोव्यक्ति. Similarly, Viśvanātha thinks that though धर्ममहीता is the etymological meaning of कुशल, its current or primary meaning is चतुर्. Therefore, according to him there is no रूढिलक्षणा in 'कर्मणि कुगल'. Viśvanātha's example of रूढि लक्षणा is 'कलिङ्ग साहसिक', which is analogous to 'Germany is proud'. कलिङ्ग primanly means a country (modern Orissa). That sense can not be approprnately construed with साहसिक. It is thus वाधित. Hence लक्षणा is resorted to and it conveys the ल‍क्ष्यार्थे viz inhabitants of

Page 239

Kalinga Viśvanātha further points out that if the etymological meaning of a word were regarded as its primary meaning we should have to admit लक्षणा in 'गौ रेते', For, गौ in its etymological meaning of 'one who is going' is incompatible with रेते

इत्यादौ कलिङ्गव्दो देशविशेषादिरूपे स्वार्थेऽसंभवन् यया शब्दशक्त्या स्वसंज्ञान पुरुषादीन् प्रत्याययति सा शकिलक्षणा नाम । [अत्र] हेतु रूढि प्रसिद्धिरेव ।

From the practical point of view there is some validity in Viśvanāth's point because most of these words like लावण्य, तैल, मण्डल etc are used in a secondary sense when they mean beauty, oil and bower respectively. But from the strictly scientific point of view Viśvanāth's position cannot be accepted. For originally all words convey literal or etymological meaning and only at a later stage, they acquire secondary meaning

Thus, the third condition of लक्षणा lays down that it must proceed from either रूढे or प्रयोजन Viśvanātha points out that if this condition were not there, anything, which is somehow connected with the मुख्यार्थ, would be indicated Read 'हेतु विनापि यस्य कस्यचिद् सम्बन्धिनो लक्षणे अतिप्रसङ्गः स्यात्‌युक्तकं रूढे प्रयोजनाद्वापि' इति । 'साहित्यदर्पण under II 5

मुख्येन (वाच्यार्थेन) अमुख्य (लक्ष्य) अर्थ लक्षणते (प्रतिपाद्यते) यत् (येन शब्दव्यापारेण) स शब्दव्यापार लक्षणा This is the definition of लक्षणा Note here that मुख्य is कर्तरी तृतीया and यत्, understood करणे तृतीया This means that the वाच्यार्थ conveys the लक्ष्यार्थ by means of लक्षणा लक्षणा is thus a function which really belongs to वाच्यार्थ It is 'आभिया properly belongs to word A word conveys its वाच्यार्थ by means of आभिधा It is then no power to convey anything further The वाच्यार्थ, being incompatible, conveys the लक्ष्यार्थ by means of लक्षणा Thus, लक्षणा belongs to वाच्यार्थ and is said to belong, or is attributed, to शब्द secondarily, because शब्द expresses वाच्यार्थ Mammata expresses this idea by the use of आरोपिता in his definition of लक्षणा आरोपिता means superimposed or attributex The process (क्रिया), called लक्षणा, does not properly belong to word, but to वाच्यार्थ It is however, superimposed on word, because word expresses वाच्यार्थ This is the idea conveyed by आरोपिता in the definition.

The expression सान्तरार्थनिष्ठ: is a paraphrase of आरोपित The expression, therefore, is to be interpreted as अन्वयरेण सहित अर्थ सान्तरार्थ वाच्यार्थ-इत्यर्थ । तस्मिन् स्थित सान्तरार्थनिष्ठ । i. e. belonging to वाच्यार्थ i. e. attributed

Page 240

to शब्द secondarily It is called सान्तर because it occupies the interval between शब्द and लक्ष्यार्थ The प्रदीप and प्रभा interpret सान्तरार्थनिष्ठ to mean yielding the लक्ष्यार्थ ( सान्तरार्थ = लक्ष्यार्थ, निष्ठ = बोधक ) This is no paraph rase of आरोपित and is tataulous उdyot paraphrases the word as ' साक्षादर्थनिष्ठ सान्तरा परपरया शब्दानिष्ठ इत्थम् ' it is not very happy though it con veys the sense as an interpretation above

to word secondarily It is called sānтара because it occupies the interval between word and लक्ष्यार्थ The प्रदीप and प्रभा interpret सान्तरार्थनिष्ठ to mean yielding the लक्ष्यार्थ ( सान्तरार्थ = लक्ष्यार्थ, निष्ठ = बोधक ) This is no paraphrase of आरोपित and is tautologous उdyot paraphrases the word as ' साक्षादर्थनिष्ठ सान्तरा परपरया शब्दानिष्ठ इत्थम् ' it is not very happy though it conveys the sense as an interpretation above

Thus, the word आरोपिता in the definition of लक्षणा conveys the idea that लक्षणा properly belongs to वाच्यार्थ and that it is said to belong to शब्द secondarily We must here remark that we do not feel convinced of the necessity and even of the wisdom of regarding लक्षणा as a function of वाच्यार्थ Word in the Alamkārasāstra is everywhere declared to possess three powers or functions viz अभिधा, लक्षणा and व्यंजना Mammata practi cally says the same thing when he states at the beginning of this Ullāsa that word in poetry is three-fold viz वाचक, लाक्षणिक and व्यंजक Then again, when Mammata said सर्वेषा प्रयोज्योड्यानां व्यजकत्वमपीष्यते We should only point out here that nowhere earlier did मम्मट indicate that लक्षणा does not belong to word Here only he introduces the idea that लक्षणा belongs to मुख्यार्थे विश्वनाथ on the contray thinks that लक्षणा is a function of a word Only it is not a natural function or imparted to it by God

Thus, the word आरोपिता in the definition of लक्षणा conveys the idea that लक्षणा properly belongs to वाच्यार्थ and that it is said to belong to शब्द secondarily We must here remark that we do not feel convinced of the necessity and even of the wisdom of regarding लक्षणा as a function of वाच्यार्थ Word in the Alamkārasāstra is everywhere declared to possess three powers or functions viz अभिधा, लक्षणा and व्यंजना Mammata practically says the same thing when he states at the beginning of this Ullāsa that word in poetry is three-fold viz वाचक, लाक्षणिक and व्यंजक Then again, when Mammata said सर्वेषा प्रयोज्योड्यानां व्यजकत्वमपीष्यते We should only point out here that nowhere earlier did मम्मट indicate that लक्षणा does not belong to word Here only he introduces the idea that लक्षणा belongs to मुख्यार्थे विश्वनाथ on the contrary thinks that लक्षणा is a function of a word Only it is not a natural function or imparted to it by God

Kārikā 5 — Having dealt with the definition of लक्षणा in general, Mammata now proceeds to give us its divisions This Kārikā defines उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा ' स्वसिद्धये पराक्षेप उपादानम् ' is the definition of उपादानम् or उपादानलक्षणा and परार्थ स्वसमर्पणम् लक्षणम् ' the definition of लक्षणम् or लक्षणलक्षणा That Mammata should have used the words उपादानम् and लक्षणम् to stand for उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा is once again an indication of his loose terminology

Page 15

उपादानलक्षणा — is defined as the implication ( आक्षेप ) of another 1 e of the secondary or indicated sense in order to establish itself 1 e, in order to make itself viz the primary sense compatible The general nature of उपादानलक्षणा is this The primary sense is incompatible Therefore, it indicates an ther sense, which in made of itself i e the primary sense and some additional sense With the help of this additional sense the primary sense becomes compatible

उपादानलक्षणा — is defined as the implication ( आक्षेप ) of another i.e. of the secondary or indicated sense in order to establish itself i.e., in order to make itself viz the primary sense compatible The general nature of उपादानलक्षणा is this The primary sense is incompatible Therefore, it indicates another sense, which is made of itself i.e. the primary sense and some additional sense With the help of this additional sense the primary sense becomes compatible

कुन्ता प्रविशान्ति ' and यष्टया प्रविशान्ति ' are examples of उपादानलक्षणा Here we find that lances ( कुन्ता ) and sticks or canes ( यष्टि ), being inanimate, are incompatible, with the action of entering Thus, there

कुन्ता प्रविशान्ति ' and यष्टया प्रविशान्ति ' are examples of उपादानलक्षणा Here we find that lances ( कुन्ता ) and sticks or canes ( यष्टि ), being inanimate, are incompatible with the action of entering Thus, there

Page 241

१८८

188

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 15

1s मुख्यार्थी बाघ Consequently, they viz lances and sticks imply 1 e convey by indication men connected with them 1 e lancers (कुन्तिन्) and soldiers who carry their regimental sticks or canes (यष्टिवन्त सैनिका)

1s The primary sense implies the indicated sense, namely, the lancers and soldiers who carry their regimental sticks or canes.

The indicated senses, lancers and stick-carrying soldiers, are made of the primary senses, viz the lances and the sticks, plus the additional sense viz the men who carry those lances and the sticks.

Here the indicated senses, lancers and stick-carrying soldiers, are made of the primary senses, viz the lances and the sticks, plus the additional sense viz the men who carry those lances and the sticks Thus, there is तद्योग, because the primary senses viz lances and sticks are connected by means of सयोग or conjunction with the lancers and the stick-carrying soldiers Though Mammata does not specifically say so, उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा are प्रयोजनलक्षणा's i e they proceed from a purpose

Here the indicated senses, lancers and stick-carrying soldiers, are made of the primary senses, namely, the lances and the sticks, plus the additional sense, namely, the men who carry those lances and the sticks. Thus, there is taddharma, because the primary senses, namely, lances and sticks, are connected by means of sanyoga or conjunction with the lancers and the stick-carrying soldiers. Though Mammata does not specifically say so, upadanalaksana and lakshanalaksana are prayojanalaksana, i.e., they proceed from a purpose.

The reason why we say 'कुन्ता प्रविशन्ति' and 'यष्ट्यः प्रविशान्ति' in preference to 'कुन्तिनः प्रविशान्ति' and 'यष्टिवन्त सैनिका प्रविशान्ति' is to suggest that a dense crowd of lancers and soldiers is entering, or that the lancers and soldiers are possessed of sharpness i.e., want of compassion even like the lances and sticks.

The reason why we say 'कुन्ता प्रविशन्ति' and 'यष्ट्यः प्रविशान्ति' in preference to 'कुन्तिनः प्रविशान्ति' and 'यष्टिवन्त सैनिका प्रविशान्ति' is to suggest that a dense crowd of lancers and soldiers is entering, or that the lancers and soldiers are possessed of sharpness i e want of compassion even like the lances and sticks

The reason why we say 'kuntā pravisanti' and 'yashtyaḥ pravisanti' in preference to 'kuntinaḥ pravisanti' and 'yashtivant sainya pravisanti' is to suggest that a dense crowd of lancers and soldiers is entering, or that the lancers and soldiers are possessed of sharpness, i.e., want of compassion even like the lances and sticks.

It should be noted that आक्षिप्यन्ते occurring in the Vritti means लक्षणया, लक्षणया प्रतिपाद्यन्ते This is seen from the fact that what is implied is 'स्वसयोगिन् पुरुषा', which represents the लक्ष्यार्थ Thus the आक्षिप्यार्थ is really the लक्ष्यार्थ Analogously आक्षेप of the Kankā means लक्षणया प्रतिपादनम् Therefore, पर in पराक्षेप means लक्ष्यार्थ and the correct paraphrase of पराक्षेप is परस्य लक्ष्यार्थस्य कुन्त्यादे आक्षेप लक्षण लक्षणया प्रतिपादनम्

It should be noted that 'ākshipyante' occurring in the Vritti means 'lakshanaya, lakshanaya pratipadyante'. This is seen from the fact that what is implied is 'svasayogin purusha', which represents the lakshyartha. Thus, the akshipyartha is really the lakshyartha. Analogously, 'āksepa' of the Kankā means 'lakshanaya pratipadanam'. Therefore, 'para' in 'parāksepa' means 'lakshyartha' and the correct paraphrase of 'parāksepa' is 'parasya lakshyarthasya kuntyāde āksepa lakshana lakshanaya pratipadanam'.

It will thus be seen that if we were to interpret पराक्षेप as परस्य आधेयस्य अर्थस्य पुरुषादे आक्षेप, we would be wrong For, what is आक्षित is not merely 'पुरुषा,' but 'स्वसयोगिन् पुरुषा,' as we learn from the Vritti

It will thus be seen that if we were to interpret 'parāksepa' as 'parasya ādheyasya arthasya purushāde āksepa', we would be wrong. For, what is ākshipta is not merely 'purusha', but 'svasayogin purusha', as we learn from the Vritti.

उपादानम् literally means acceptance or inclusion and उपादानलक्षणा or Inclusive Indication is so called because it is characterized by the inclusion of the primary sense in the लक्ष्यार्थ or the secondary sense that is ultimately conveyed But according to Mukulabhatta the उपादानलक्षणा arises from the fact that there other additional sense is brought in to make up the indicated sense Thus, उपादान in उपादानलक्षणा means either मुख्यार्थेस्य कुन्तादे लक्ष्यार्थे उपादानं समावेश or मुख्यार्थोद्बोधकस्य पुरुषादे सहायकत्वेन उपादानं स्वीकार

Upadānam literally means acceptance or inclusion, and Upadānalakshanā or Inclusive Indication is so called because it is characterized by the inclusion of the primary sense in the lakshyartha or the secondary sense that is ultimately conveyed. But according to Mukulabhatta, the Upadānalakshanā arises from the fact that there is another additional sense brought in to make up the indicated sense. Thus, 'upadāna' in Upadānalakshanā means either 'mukhya arthasya kuntāde lakshyartha upadāna samāvesha' or 'mukhyārthodbodhakasya purushāde sahāyakatvena upadāna svīkāra'.

Mammata gives us no clue as to which view he holds in this matter.

Mammata gives us no clue as to which view he holds in this matter

Mammata gives us no clue as to which view he holds in this matter.

It should be noted that the six divisions of लक्षणा, beginning with उपादानलक्षणा and रक्षणरक्षणा, that Mammata gives, are all प्रयोजनलक्षणा's This can be seen from the fact that in the case of all these except उपादानलक्षणा Mammata explains the प्रयोजन and even in the case of उपादानलक्षणा he suggests that it has a प्रयोजन (Vide 'धनयो प्रयोजनसंप्रतिपय' p 18), though he does not state what it is He gives us only

It should be noted that the six divisions of lakshanā, beginning with Upadānalakshanā and Rakshanarakshanā, that Mammata gives, are all Prayojanalakshanas. This can be seen from the fact that in the case of all these except Upadānalakshanā, Mammata explains the prayojana, and even in the case of Upadānalakshanā, he suggests that it has a prayojana (Vide 'dhanayo prayojanasampratipaya' p. 18), though he does not state what it is. He gives us only.

Page 242

one example of रूढिलक्षणा viz कर्मोणि कुशल 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 लक्षणाs based on रूढि are too numerous to be definite and that रूढ लक्षणिक words, such as द्विरेफ ( a bee ), द्विक ( a crow ), अनुकूल्य and लक्षण्य, are similar to वाचक words That is perhaps why, he suggests, रूढिलक्षणाs are not mentioned by Mammata Read प्रयोजनवती या लक्षणा तस्या एतौ भेदौ। रूढितस्तु या लक्षणा सा लोके प्राचुर्य गता इति न तस्या नैैयत्यम्। अभिधाव्यापारतुल्यत्वात्। संकेत p 29

This apologia for Mammata's failure to treat रूढिलक्षणाs is unsatisfactory Holding as he does that कर्मोणि कुशल is an example of रूढि 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 अजहत्स्वार्थी ( अजहत स्वार्थी याम ) or अजहल्लक्षणा) In order to understand this terminology l c e must remember that लक्षणा is, according to some, dıvided in to three kinds viz जहल्लक्षणा or जहत्सार्थी, अजहल्लक्षणा or अजहत्सार्थी and जहदजहल्लक्षणा or जहदजहत्स्वार्थी जहदजहल्लक्षणा is the same as our लक्षणलक्षणा, as l c e shall presently see where काक sıgnifies in addition to the crows all other दशपुच्छघातक 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 सोऽयम् देवदत्त Here स means तत्कालविशिष्ट देवदत्त and अयम् sıgnifies एतत्कालविशिष्ट देवदत्त and in order to account for the identity of these two देवदत्तs तत्कालविशिष्टत्व and एतत्कालविशिष्टत्व, forming part of the primary senses of स and अयम्, are dropped This Indication finds no parallel in the Vedantins to account for the identity in तत्वमसि

उपादानलक्षणा is defined as ‘स्वसिद्धये परामर्श’ In examples like ‘काकेभ्यो दधि रक्ष्यताम्’ स्वसिद्धि already exists, For, काकेभ्यो 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 तात्पर्याणुगुणा वस्तु मिप्रायानुणा वा स्वसिद्धि and it has been shown before that the mere primary sense of काक is not compatible with the intention of tne speaker

Page 243

'गौरनुबन्ध्य' इत्यादौ।

'Gauranubandhya' and so on.

Having dealt with उपादानलक्षणा in general Mammata now treats two cases, which are regarded as examples of उपादानलक्षणा by मुकुलभट्ट, (a minor rhetorician, author of the अभिधावृत्ति-मातृका, who flourished in the first quarter of the 10th century A D.), but which, according to him are examples of अतुल्यमान and अर्थापत्ति

Jyotistoma is a Soma-sacrifice in which three animals are to be slaughtered One of them is a bull Its slaughter is laid down by the Vedic sentence 'गौ अनुनन्ध्य'

Jyotistoma is a Soma-sacrifice in which three animals are to be slaughtered. One of them is a bull. Its slaughter is laid down by the Vedic sentence 'गौ अनुनन्ध्य'

The primary meāning of गो is गोत्वजाति, The sentence 'गौरनुबन्ध्य', therefore, expresses 'Bullness should be slaughtered ' But it is not possible (कथं स्यात्) that slaughter (अनुबन्धनं = हननम्), which has been enjoined by the Veda (श्रुतिचोदिते = वेदविहितम्), should belong to the generality bullness For, bullness is an abstract idea and is eternal and is, therefore, impossible to be killed Thus, the primary meaning of the word गौ viz गोत्वजाति being incompatible in this sentence, it indicates by means of लक्षणा (आक्षिप्यते = लक्षणया बोध्यते) the individual bull (व्यक्ति), which is connected with it by means of विशेष्यविशेषणभाव or आश्रयाश्रयिभाव. The first two conditions of लक्षणा viz, मुख्यार्थबाध and तद्योग are fulfilled, when गोत्वजाति indicates गोव्यक्ति in this manner

The primary meaning of गो is गोत्वजाति. The sentence 'गौरनुबन्ध्य', therefore, expresses 'Bullness should be slaughtered.' But it is not possible (कथं स्यात्) that slaughter (अनुबन्धनं = हननम्), which has been enjoined by the Veda (श्रुतिचोदिते = वेदविहितम्), should belong to the generality bullness. For, bullness is an abstract idea and is eternal and is, therefore, impossible to be killed. Thus, the primary meaning of the word गौ viz गोत्वजाति being incompatible in this sentence, it indicates by means of लक्षणा (आक्षिप्यते = लक्षणया बोध्यते) the individual bull (व्यक्ति), which is connected with it by means of विशेष्यविशेषणभाव or आश्रयाश्रयिभाव. The first two conditions of लक्षणा viz, मुख्यार्थबाध and तद्योग are fulfilled, when गोत्वजाति indicates गोव्यक्ति in this manner

Somebody may perhaps urge here that अभिधा would first convey from the word गो the primary sense गोत्वजाति and then once more express the sense the individual bull Thus, there would be no necessity of understanding लक्षणा in गौरनुबन्ध्य'

Somebody may perhaps urge here that अभिधा would first convey from the word गो the primary sense गोत्वजाति and then once more express the sense the individual bull. Thus, there would be no necessity of understanding लक्षणा in गौरनुबन्ध्य'

To this Mukulabhatta is supposed to reply that गोव्यक्ति connot here be expressed by the word गौ (शब्देन गौशब्देन इत्यर्थे गोव्यक्ति न उच्यते न अभिधया बोध्यते) For अभिधा or Expression has its power exhausted (क्षीणशक्ति) in expressing the qualification viz गोत्वजाति and, therefore, it cannot proceed to express the qualified viz गोव्यक्ति in addition Thus, लक्षणा is necessary. And this लक्षणा is उपादानलक्षणा, because the लक्षणार्थ: पद: गोत्वजातिविशिष्टविशेषनामिधा includes in it the primary sense viz गोत्वजाति. विशेषणे—This maxim means that a power such as अभिधा cannot express more than one meaning one after the other. For, it is exhausted after it conveys the first meaning The maxim is based on sound common sense If अभिधा were to express one meaning after another, there would be no end to its expressive capacity The same idea is conveyed by a still another न्याय viz 'अनन्यलभ्य शब्दार्थ', which means that a word should be supposed to express only that meaning which is not possible to be obtained in any other way Here

To this Mukulabhatta is supposed to reply that गोव्यक्ति connot here be expressed by the word गौ (शब्देन गौशब्देन इत्यर्थे गोव्यक्ति न उच्यते न अभिधया बोध्यते). For अभिधा or Expression has its power exhausted (क्षीणशक्ति) in expressing the qualification viz गोत्वजाति and, therefore, it cannot proceed to express the qualified viz गोव्यक्ति in addition. Thus, लक्षणा is necessary. And this लक्षणा is उपादानलक्षणा, because the लक्षणार्थ: पद: गोत्वजातिविशिष्टविशेषनामिधा includes in it the primary sense viz गोत्वजाति. विशेषणे—This maxim means that a power such as अभिधा cannot express more than one meaning one after the other. For, it is exhausted after it conveys the first meaning. The maxim is based on sound common sense. If अभिधा were to express one meaning after another, there would be no end to its expressive capacity. The same idea is conveyed by a still another न्याय viz 'अनन्यलभ्य शब्दार्थ', which means that a word should be supposed to express only that meaning which is not possible to be obtained in any other way. Here

Page 244

the sense गोव्यक्ति 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 गौ 1 e as having been expressed by it by means of अभिधा.

the sense govyakti can be obtained by ākṣepa or anumāna as Mammata is going to tell us below Therefore, it should not be regarded as the meaning of gau 1 e as having been expressed by it by means of abhidhā.

इत्युपादानलक्षणा तु. व्यतिरेकाक्षियते — Mammata here points out that ' गौ अनुबन्थ्य ' should not be quoted as an example of उपादानलक्षणा, because though it satisfies the first two conditions of लक्षणा viz मुख्यार्थबाध and तद्योग, it does not fulfil the third viz रूढिप्रयोजनान्यतरतत् . 1 e it cannot be shown that लक्षणा in ' गौरनुबन्ध्य ' arises from either प्रयोजन or रूढि To explain

ityupādānalakṣaṇā tu. vyatirekākṣiyate — Mammata here points out that ' gau anubandhya ' should not be quoted as an example of upādānalakṣaṇā, because though it satisfies the first two conditions of lakṣaṇā viz mukhyārthabādha and tadyoga, it does not fulfil the third viz rūḍhipryojanānyataratat . 1 e it cannot be shown that lakṣaṇā in ' gauranubandhya ' arises from either prayojana or rūḍhi 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 ' गौरनुबन्ध्य ' as an example of लक्षणा, there can possibly be no प्रयोजन for it.

na hi atra prayojanamasti—there is no prayojana here because the mukhyārtha here is gotvajāti and a jāti can have no attributes So if we understand ' gauranubandhya ' as an example of lakṣaṇā, there can possibly be no prayojana 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 कुशल

na vā rūḍhiriyam —rūḍhi 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 kuśala

Originally it must have for some time been current in the language in the primary sense of दर्भकर्तृकता But it has now given up that sense completely and indicates the sense चतुर or प्रवीन There is no special purpose that we can easily assign for such indication Therefore, the indication of the sense चतुर by the word कुशल is said to proceed from रूढि or usage Now in the present example ' गौ अनुबन्थ्य ' we cannot say that there is रूढि for two reasons First, the word गौ has never been used in the language in its primary sense of गोत्वजाति only

Originally it must have for some time been current in the language in the primary sense of darbhakatṛkatā But it has now given up that sense completely and indicates the sense catura or pravīṇa There is no special purpose that we can easily assign for such indication Therefore, the indication of the sense catura by the word kuśala is said to proceed from rūḍhi or usage Now in the present example ' gau anubandhya ' we cannot say that there is rūḍhi for two reasons First, the word gau has never been used in the language in its primary sense of gotvajāti only

Secondly, when the word conveys the sense of गोव्यक्ति, which is supposed to be its लःयार्थ, it does not completely give up its primary sense of गोत्वजाति For, the sense गोव्यक्ति necessarily includes गोत्वजाति An individual bull would not be a bull unless it was possessed of गोत्वजाति

Secondly, when the word conveys the sense of govyakti, which is supposed to be its laḥyārtha, it does not completely give up its primary sense of gotvajāti For, the sense govyakti necessarily includes gotvajāti An individual bull would not be a bull unless it was possessed of gotvajāti

It will thus be seen that the conveying of the sense of गोव्यक्तिः by the word गौ cannot be said to be due to लक्षणा based on रूढि

It will thus be seen that the conveying of the sense of govyaktiḥ by the word gau cannot be said to be due to lakṣaṇā based on rūḍhi

The absence of प्रयोजन and रूढि in the case of ' गौ अनुबन्थ्य ' is well brought out by the सप्तप्रकाशिनी as follows —

The absence of prayojana and rūḍhi in the case of ' gau anubandhya ' is well brought out by the saptaprakāśinī as follows —

' क्रियिय प्रयोजनलक्षणम् उत त रूढा । न तावदाया, प्रयोजनाभावात् । मुख्यार्थधर्माणां हि लक्षणगतत्वप्रतीतिलक्षणाया प्रयोजनम् । न हि एतत् प्रकृते सभवति । जातेरेव किल्वादिति भाव । नापि रूढा । रूढयाहि मुख्यार्थस्यैव त्यागो भवेत् । इह तु प्रतीताया जातेरैक्यार्था-प्रवेशाय प्रयास इति कथम् रूढिलक्षणा । ' pp 52-53

' kriyiya prayojanalakṣaṇam ut ta rūḍhā । na tāvadāyā, prayojanābhāvāt । mukhyārthadharmāṇāṃ hi lakṣaṇagatvatvaprātitalakṣaṇāya prayojanam । na hi etat prakṛte sambhavati । jāterev kilvādi iti bhāva । nāpi rūḍhā । rūḍhāhi mukhyārthasyaiva tyāgo bhavet । iha tu pratītāyā jāterākyārthā-praveśāya prayāsa iti katham rūḍhilakṣaṇā । ' pp 52-53

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

So for Mammata has shown that ' gauranubandhya ' cannot be an example of ' upādānalakṣaṇā based on either prayojana or rūḍhi One point incidentally

Page 245

१९२

192

काव्यप्रकार:

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 15

emerges out of this viz it is suggested that, according to Mammata,

उपादानलक्षणा based on हृदि 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 sentenceगौरवबन्ध्य we get an idea of व्यक्ति गौ from the primary

sense जाति by means of inference ( अभिधया सनुमीयते ) This is because

there is an invariable association between जाति and व्यक्ति जाति being

an abstract idea can never be an object of व्यवहार And therefore it also

implies by means of inference the व्यक्ति with which it is invariably

associated The latter is an आश्रय for the former, it is like a man being

asked to bring water, bringing it in a pot

According to प्रभा आखिप्यते in this passage means अर्थोपर्या बोध्यते or

अनुमानेन बोध्यते What अर्थोपर्यति means we shall see a little later

यथा क्रियताम् इत्यत्र इत्यादि च-मम्मट here gives us some examples of

अनुमान based on आविनाभाव In कुरु we infer an object invariably connec

ted with the क्रिया Same is true of others

It will be noticed that मम्मट gives two types of illustrations for

inference (1) क्रियताम् and कुरु (2) प्रविश and पिण्डीम These have

reference to two schools of मीमासकs viz The प्रभाकर school and the

school of कुमारिल भट्ट प्रभाकर believes in अभिक्षेप 1 e that is why मम्मट

says कर्ता (अक्षिप्यते ) कुमारिल on the other hand, maintains that a word is

necessary to complete the sense, शाब्दी हि आकाक्षा । शब्देनैव पूर्यते (साहित्य-

दर्पण under 11 10 ab ) Hence only the आकाक्षा created by प्रविश and पिण्डीम

is fulfilled by गृहम् and भक्ष्य 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, आखिप्यते has been used in two senses viz

in the sense of लकष्यते or लक्षणया बोध्यते in 'इति जात्या व्यक्ति आखिप्यते' and

in the sense of अनुमीयते or अनुमानेन बोध्यते in 'व्यक्त्यविनाभाववितवाक्ष जात्या

व्यक्ति आकक्ष्यते' This loose use of आखिप्यते struck the सपदायप्रकाशिनी,

which tries to explain it in this manner 'द्विधो हि आख्षेप । लक्षणामूल

अविनाभावमूलक् । इह [1 e in व्यक्त्यविनाभावविल्वातetc ] अविनाभावमूलकेव अर्थान्तर-

प्रतीति, न लक्षणामूलेन इति यावत् ।' p 53

A point to note in connection with this discussion is Mukula-

bhatta has quoted गौरवबन्ध्य ', as an exAmple of उपादानलक्षणा and

Mammata has shown that as the third condition of लक्षणा is not here

Page 246

satisfied, 'गौरतुनब्ध ' cannot be a लक्षणा at all Here the उद्योत points out

satisfied, 'gauravtunabdhy' cannot be a लक्षणा at all. Here the उद्योत points out

that even if we were to suppose that 'गौरतुनब्ध ' was a case of लक्षणा,

that even if we were to suppose that 'gauravtunabdhy' was a case of लक्षणा,

it would not be उपादानलक्षणा In an उपादानलक्षणा we understand some

it would not be उपादानलक्षणा. In an उपादानलक्षणा we understand some

sense in addition to the मुख्यार्थ and the whole of the लक्ष्यार्थ thus consti-

sense in addition to the मुख्यार्थ and the whole of the लक्ष्यार्थ thus constituted becomes compatible with the rest of the sentence. Here the

tuted becomes compatible with the rest of the sentence Here the

tuted becomes compatible with the rest of the sentence. Here the

लक्ष्यार्थ, according to Mukulabhatta, is गोत्वजातिविशिष्ट गोव्यक्ति and it is easy

to see that the whole of this लक्ष्यार्थ cannot properly be construed with

अनुवन्धन For, though गोव्यक्ति can be an object of अनुवन्धन, गोत्वजाति

अनुवन्धन. For, though गोव्यक्ति can be an object of अनुवन्धन, गोत्वजाति

cannot Therefore, 'गौरतुनब्ध ' cannot be an example of उपादानलक्षणा

cannot. Therefore, 'गौरतुनब्ध' cannot be an example of उपादानलक्षणा

It would, if at all, be an example of लक्षणलक्षणा Read वस्तुतो लक्षणायामपि

It would, if at all, be an example of लक्षणलक्षणा. Read वस्तुतो लक्षणायामपि

नोपादानत्व जातेरकुबन्धानादन्यायास्वन तथा अनन्वयादिति तत् च

'पीनो देवदत्तो'-The other case, which Mukulabhatta gives as an

example of उपादानलक्षणा, is 'पीनो देवदत्तो दिवा न भुङ्क्ते'

The primary sense of 'दिवा न भुङ्क्ते' is incompatible with देवदत्तस्य

पीनत्वम Thus, there is मुख्यार्थबाध The primary sense, therefore,

पीनत्वम्. Thus, there is मुख्यार्थबाध. The primary sense, therefore,

indicates that though Devadatta may not be taking food by day, he

must be having a hearty good meal at night As the लक्ष्यार्थ viz,

must be having a hearty good meal at night. As the लक्ष्यार्थ viz,

दिवाभोजनापेक्षितरात्रिभोजन This becomes an example of उपादानलक्षणा तथा, the second condition of

दिवाभोजनापेक्षितरात्रिभोजन. This becomes an example of उपादानलक्षणा तथा, the second condition of

लक्षणा, should be regarded as satisfied by supposing that the लक्ष्यार्थ

रात्रिभोजन is connected with the मुख्यार्थे दिवा अभोजन by means of some

such relation as कार्यकारणभाव For, not taking food by day leads to

such relation as कार्यकारणभाव. For, not taking food by day leads to

the taking of food at night The लक्षणा here is प्रयोजनवती and the

the taking of food at night. The लक्षणा here is प्रयोजनवती and the

purpose is उत्कर्षप्रतीति or आाश्रयप्रतीति And this उत्कर्ष or आाश्रये should

purpose is उत्कर्षप्रतीति or आाश्रयप्रतीति. And this उत्कर्ष or आाश्रये should

somehow be regarded as a characteristic of the मुख्यार्थ दिवा अभोजन,

because it springs from that मुख्यार्थ Thus, all the three conditions of

because it springs from that मुख्यार्थ. Thus, all the three conditions of

लक्षणा having been fulfilled, 'पीनो देवदत्तो दिवा न भुङ्क्ते ' becomes an example

लक्षणा having been fulfilled, 'पीनो देवदत्तो दिवा न भुङ्क्ते' becomes an example

of उपादानलक्षणा

Against this Mammata simply remarks that रात्रिभोजन cannot be

regarded as having been indicated ( न लक्यते = न लक्षणया बोध्यते ) here

regarded as having been indicated (न लक्यते = न लक्षणया बोध्यते) here

For, the sentence 'पीनो भुङ्क्ते ' is the province of श्रुतार्थापत्ति or अर्थापत्ति

For, the sentence 'पीनो भुङ्क्ते' is the province of श्रुतार्थापत्ति or अर्थापत्ति

अर्थापत्ति - The Mīmāmsakas and some of the Vedāntins admit

अर्थापत्ति. The Mīmāmsakas and some of the Vedāntins admit

अर्थापत्ति and अनुलबलन्धि as the fifth and the sixth प्रमाण's or means of proof

in addition to the four viz प्रत्यक्ष, अनुमान, उपमान and शब्द, which are

accepted by the Naiyāyikas ( Naiyayikas ) अर्थापत्ति is "postulating

accepted by the Naiyāyikas (Naiyayikas). अर्थापत्ति is "postulating

something to account for what apparently clashes with experience and

is therefore in the nature of hypothesis " In 'पीनो देवदत्तो दिवा न भुङ्क्ते

is therefore in the nature of hypothesis". In 'पीनो देवदत्तो दिवा न भुङ्क्ते

the fatness of देवदत्त is accounted for by presuming रात्रिभोजन on his part

का १३

Page 247

दृष्टार्थापत्ति and श्रुतार्थापत्ति — अर्थापत्ति is of two kinds viz दृष्टार्थापत्ति

Drst!ārthāpatti and Śrutārthāpatti — Arthāpatti is of two kinds viz Drst!ārthāpatti

( Factual, Actual or Virtual presumption ) and श्रुतार्थापत्ति ( Verbal Presumption ) The difference between दृष्टार्थापत्ति and श्रुतार्थापत्ति is that while in the former we actually see one fact and presume another to account for it, in the latter we come to know a certain thing by hear say and then proceed to make the necessary presumption by the use of words दृष्टार्थोपत्ति is admitted by Prabhākara and his followers ( प्रभाकर मीमांसक्‍‌ा ), while श्रुतार्थोपत्ति is recognized by Kumārilabhatta and his followers ( भट्टमीमांसक्‍‌ा )

It should be noted that Mammata merely states that रात्रिभोजन in ‘पीने देवदत्तो दिवा न भुङ्क्ते’ is not conveyed by means of लक्षणा He gives no reason for this statement His only reason appears to be that ‘पीने भुज्‍‌डके’ forms the province of श्रुतार्थोपत्ति or दृष्टार्थोपत्ति, according as the fatness of Devadatta is merely heard or actually seen Note here that in ‘अर्थापत्तौ तस्य विषयत्वात्‌’ अर्थापत्ते is really equal to दृष्टार्थोपत्ते This is one more example of Mammata's careless writing

It should be noted that Mammata merely states that Rātri-bhojana in 'Pīne devadatto divā na bhunkte' is not conveyed by means of Lakṣaṇā. He gives no reason for this statement. His only reason appears to be that 'Pīne bhunkte' forms the province of Śrutārthāpatti or Drst!ārthāpatti, according as the fatness of Devadatta is merely heard or actually seen. Note here that in 'Arthāpattau tasya viṣayatvāt' Arthāpatte is really equal to Drst!ārthopatte. This is one more example of Mammata's careless writing.

It must be remarked that this is by no means a sound reason The rhetoricians do not admit अर्थापत्ति as an independent प्रमाण It is, therefore, no use saying to a rhetorician like Mukulabhatta that what he regards as an उपादानलक्षणा is really the अर्थापत्ति of the Mimāmsakas For, what the Mimāmsakas admit is no concern of the rhetoricians We have seen before that ‘पीने भुङ्क्ते’ satisfies all the three conditions of लक्षणा Therefore, Mukulabhatta is perfectly right in holding that it is a case of लक्षणा Mammata's attempt to prove that it is not so must be declared to be unsuccessful

It must be remarked that this is by no means a sound reason. The rhetoricians do not admit Arthāpatti as an independent Pramāṇa. It is, therefore, no use saying to a rhetorician like Mukulabhatta that what he regards as an Upādānalakṣaṇā is really the Arthāpatti of the Mīmāmsakas. For, what the Mīmāmsakas admit is no concern of the rhetoricians. We have seen before that 'Pīne bhunkte' satisfies all the three conditions of Lakṣaṇā. Therefore, Mukulabhatta is perfectly right in holding that it is a case of Lakṣaṇā. Mammata's attempt to prove that it is not so must be declared to be unsuccessful.

Page 16

‘गङ्गायां घोषः’ इत्यत्र — Having dealt with उपादानलक्षणा and also with two cases which are regarded as उपादानलक्षणा by Mukulabhatta, Mammata now proceeds to treat लक्षणलक्षणा, which is defined as परार्थ स्वसमर्पणम् = परस्य लक्षणार्थस्य कृते स्वस्य मुख्यार्थस्य समर्पणं त्याग the abandonment or surrender of the primary sense in the interest of the secondary or indicated sense i e in order that the secondary sense may go well with the rest of the sentence ‘गङ्गायां घोषः’ is an example of लक्षणलक्षणा Here the word गङ्गा abandons its primary sense viz the stream in order that the indicated sense viz the bank, should be established as the abode of the hamlet (घोषाधिकारणत्वसिद्धये) This लक्षणा is प्रयोजनवती, the प्रयोजन being शैत्यपावनत्वादियतिहेतुप्रतीति

'Gangāyāṃ ghoṣaḥ' ityatra — Having dealt with Upādānalakṣaṇā and also with two cases which are regarded as Upādānalakṣaṇā by Mukulabhatta, Mammata now proceeds to treat Lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā, which is defined as Parārtha svasamarpanam = Parasya lakṣaṇārthasya krte svasya mukhyārthasya samarpanaṃ tyāga the abandonment or surrender of the primary sense in the interest of the secondary or indicated sense i.e. in order that the secondary sense may go well with the rest of the sentence 'Gangāyāṃ ghoṣaḥ' is an example of Lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā. Here the word Gangā abandons its primary sense viz the stream in order that the indicated sense viz the bank, should be established as the abode of the hamlet (Ghoṣādhikaraṇatvasiddhaye). This Lakṣaṇā is prayojanavatī, the prayojana being Śaityapāvanatvādivyatirekapratīti.

इत्यैवमादौ लक्षणेन एवा लक्षणा—This explains why लक्षणलक्षणा is so called लक्षणेन here is explained in two ways (1) स्वार्थैसमर्पणेन. As

Ityaivamādau lakṣaṇena evā lakṣaṇā—This explains why Lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā is so called. Lakṣaṇena here is explained in two ways (1) Svārthasamarpanena. As

Page 248

this लक्षणा is characterized by the abandonment of the primary sense, it is called लक्षणलक्षणा ( लक्षणोपलक्षितात् लक्षणा लक्षणलक्षणा ) ( 2 ) उपलक्षणेन उपलक्षणम् means a pointing characteristic In ' काकेन दवदत्तस्य गृहं ' and ' जटाभिस्तोपस ' काकेन and जटाभि are उपलक्षणs In the present case the primary sense stream serves to point out the indicated sense bank and is, therefore, an उपलक्षणा This explanation of लक्षणा is favoured by Visvanatha as can be seen from his definition of लक्षणलक्षणा सा द 11 7 लक्षणलक्षणा is otherwise called जहल्लक्षणा or जहद्स्वार्थो because a word here completely abandons its primary sense

this lakṣaṇā is characterized by the abandonment of the primary sense, it is called lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā ( lakṣaṇopalakṣitāt lakṣaṇā lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā ) ( 2 ) upalakṣaṇena upalakṣaṇam means a pointing characteristic In ' kākene davadattasya gṛhaṁ ' and ' jaṭābhistopas ' kākene and jaṭābhi are upalakṣaṇas In the present case the primary sense stream serves to point out the indicated sense bank and is, therefore, an upalakṣaṇā This explanation of lakṣaṇā is favoured by Visvanatha as can be seen from his definition of lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā sā da 11 7 lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā is otherwise called jahallakṣaṇā or jahadartho because a word here completely abandons its primary sense

उभयरूपा चेयं आमिश्रितत्वात्—This sentence represents Mammata's paraphrase of ' उत्का शुद्धैव सा द्विधा' occurring in Kārikā 5 These two divisions of लक्षणा viz उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा are शुद्ध or Pure, because they are not mixed ( आमिश्रित ) with उपचार Mammata is here tacitly giving us the distinguishing characteristics or definitions of शुद्ध लक्षणा and अशुद्ध मिश्र or गौण लक्षणा ( which is mentioned below on p 19 ) शुद्ध लक्षणा is that which is उपचारेण आमिश्रित, while गौणलक्षणा is the one which is उपचारेण मिश्रिता उपचारामिश्रिता शुद्धा । उपचारामिश्रिता गौणा । The absence or presence of उपचार makes a लक्षणा शुद्ध or गौण

ubhayarūpā ceyaṁ āmiśritatvāt—This sentence represents Mammata's paraphrase of ' utkā śuddhaiva sā dvidhā' occurring in Kārikā 5 These two divisions of lakṣaṇā viz upādānalakṣaṇā and lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā are śuddha or Pure, because they are not mixed ( āmiśrita ) with upacāra Mammata is here tacitly giving us the distinguishing characteristics or definitions of śuddha lakṣaṇā and aśuddha miśra or gauṇa lakṣaṇā ( which is mentioned below on p 19 ) śuddha lakṣaṇā is that which is upacāreṇa āmiśrita, while gauṇalakṣaṇā is the one which is upacāreṇa miśritā upacārāmiśritā śuddhā । upacārāmiśritā gauṇā । The absence or presence of upacāra makes a lakṣaṇā śuddha or gauṇa

उपचार —This word has both a general or wide and a particular or restricted sense In its general sense उपचार means figurative, secondary or metaphorical use of a word In its particular sense it signifies secondary use of a word based on similarity between the primary and the indicated sense These two senses of उपचार viz (1) general and (2) restricted should be carefully noted so that no confusion would be caused in our mind, when we find the word used in one or the other of these two senses Thus, in this passage उपचार is used in its restricted sense, while below in कचित् तादर्थ्यादुपचार p 21 it occurs in its general sense It will thus be seen that उपचार in its general or wide sense occurs in all cases of लक्षणा For लक्षणा itself means figurative or secondary use of a word But when this secondary use is based on similarity, it makes the लक्षणा गौण शुद्धलक्षणा is, therefore, the one in which उपचार in its restricted sense does not occur

upacāra —This word has both a general or wide and a particular or restricted sense In its general sense upacāra means figurative, secondary or metaphorical use of a word In its particular sense it signifies secondary use of a word based on similarity between the primary and the indicated sense These two senses of upacāra viz (1) general and (2) restricted should be carefully noted so that no confusion would be caused in our mind, when we find the word used in one or the other of these two senses Thus, in this passage upacāra is used in its restricted sense, while below in kacit tādrśyādupacāra p 21 it occurs in its general sense It will thus be seen that upacāra in its general or wide sense occurs in all cases of lakṣaṇā For lakṣaṇā itself means figurative or secondary use of a word But when this secondary use is based on similarity, it makes the lakṣaṇā gauṇa śuddhalkṣaṇā is, therefore, the one in which upacāra in its restricted sense does not occur

In the examples गङ्गायां घोष and कुन्ता प्रविशन्ति the words गङ्गायाम् and कुन्ता are secondarily used But between the primary sense of गङ्गा and its secondary sense i e the तट in the first example and the primary sense of कुन्ता -lances and the secondary sense-the lances in the se con illustration, the relation of similarity does not exist They are co

In the examples gaṅgāyāṁ ghoṣa and kuntā praviśanti the words gaṅgāyām and kuntā are secondarily used But between the primary sense of gaṅgā and its secondary sense i e the taṭa in the first example and the primary sense of kuntā -lances and the secondary sense-the lances in the second illustration, the relation of similarity does not exist They are co

Page 249

nncted with each other by the सामीप्यसवनध In the first case ( गङ्गा and गङ्गातट ) and सयोगसवनध in the other ( कुन्ता and कुल्लिन )

connected with each other by the proximity connection In the first case ( Ganga and Ganga bank ) and conjunction connection in the other ( Kuntala and Kuntalin )

Hence these two are illustrations of शुद्ध लक्षणा and not गौण Expre ssions like मुखचन्द्र and माणवक अभि are however examples of गौण लक्षणा

Hence these two are illustrations of pure indication and not secondary Expre ssions like face-moon and boy fire are however examples of secondary indication

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

In the first case moon secondarily means the face while in the other fire metaphorically means the boy In both these cases, between the primary sense and the metaphorical sense, similarity exists and hence they are illustrations of secondary indication

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 simila rity, the लक्षणा is गौण Note साध्येतेरसबन्धा शुद्धास्ता सकला अपि ॥ 9 साध्येतरानु

It will thus be seen that the distinction between pure and secondary 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 indication is pure But when such use is based on similarity, the indication is secondary Note All other connections are pure, verse 9

माता गौण्य' सा द 11 , Mammata expresses the same idea in a differ- ent 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

Mother is secondary, verse 11 Mammata expresses the same idea in a different manner, thus When an indication is mixed with implication ( understood in its restricted sense), it is secondary When it is free from the mixture of such implication, it is pure

मुकुल distinguishes between शुद्ध उपचार and गौण उपचार, which correspond respectively with उपचार in its general and particular sense Read अभिधावृत्तिमातृका pp 7-8

Mukul distinguishes between pure implication and secondary implication, which correspond respectively with implication in its general and particular sense Read Abhidhavrttimatrika pp 7-8

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 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

It may here be pointed out that the word only in 'the best is pure only, it is twofold' of Karika 5 shows that attributive indication and indicative indication are varieties of pure indication only The force of only is that attribute and indication are not the divisions of secondary indication only thus distinguishes these varieties from superimposition and attainment, which are both secondary and pure

अनयोर्मेदयो भेद — This passage is once more directed against Mukulabhatta, who holds that in these two varieties of शुद्धलक्षणा viz उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा ( अनयोर्मेदयो = अनयो उपादानलक्षणा-लक्षणलक्षणा -रूपयो शुद्धलक्षणामेदयो ) the indicated or secondary sense ( लक्ष्यम् ) and the expressed or primary or indicative sense ( लक्षक्रम् ) stand apart or aloof from each other ( तटस्थ ) 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 Mukula means is this In ' गङ्गाया घोष ', 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

The distinction between these two - This passage is once more directed against Mukulabhatta, who holds that in these two varieties of pure indication viz attributive indication and indicative indication (the distinction between these two = the two forms of pure indication, attributive indication and indicative indication) the indicated or secondary sense and the expressed or primary or indicative sense stand apart or aloof from each other 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 Mukula means is this In 'Ganga's village', which is an example of indicative indication, the primary sense stream and the secondary sense bank stand aloof and are distinct from each other Similarly, in 'Kuntala

प्रविशान्ति', 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

enter', which illustrates attributive indication, 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

Page 250

Page 16] NOTES Second Flash १९७

nature, the indicated senses Thus, in these two varleties viz उपादान and लक्षण the indicative and indicated senses are apprehended as distinct and aloof, not as identical with each other Read अभिधाय्रुति मात्रा p ९

In nature, the indicated senses. Thus, in these two varieties, namely Upādāna and Lakṣaṇa, the indicative and indicated senses are apprehended as distinct and aloof, not as identical with each other. Read Abhidhāyukti Mātrā 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 be'tween उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा on the one hand and सारोप लक्षणा and साध्यवसान लक्षणा on the other is that while in उपादान and लक्षण the वाच्यार्थे ( लक्षणम् ) and the लक्ष्यार्थ ( लक्ष्यम् ) are comprehended as distinct and, therefore, as standing aloof, in सारोप and साध्यवसान they are realized as being identical

But in Sāropa and SādhyaVasāna Lakṣaṇā (which are being defined in the next Kārikā), illustrated respectively by 'MukhaCandra Udaiti' and 'Candra Udaiti', the indicative or primary sense, namely the moon, and the indicated or secondary sense, namely the face of the word Candra, are comprehended as being identical. Thus, according to Mukulabhatta, the distinction between UpādānaLakṣaṇā and LakṣaṇaLakṣaṇā on the one hand and Sāropa Lakṣaṇā and SādhyaVasāna Lakṣaṇā on the other is that while in Upādāna and Lakṣaṇa the VācyaArthe (Lakṣaṇam) and the LakṣyaArtha (Lakṣyam) are comprehended as distinct and, therefore, as standing aloof, in Sāropa and SādhyaVasāna 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 लक्षणक ( 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

Mammata controverts this view in the passage under discussion. He declares that in UpādānaLakṣaṇā and LakṣaṇaLakṣaṇā there is no such distinctive or difference producing aloofness between the Lakṣya (Lakṣyārtha) and the Lakṣaṇaka (VācyaArtha) as Mukula imagines. On the contrary, even in UpādānaLakṣaṇā and LakṣaṇaLakṣaṇā there is the comprehension of identity (AbhedaPratipatti) between the Lakṣyārtha and the VācyaArtha exactly as we have it in Sāropa Lakṣaṇā and SādhyaVasāna Lakṣaṇā. 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 characterstic 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

Both UpādānaLakṣaṇā and LakṣaṇaLakṣaṇā are Prayojanavati. We have seen before that the purpose in a Lakṣaṇā generally consists in suggesting that some characteristic or characteristics, which properly belong to the Mukhyārtha, are also associated with the Lakṣyārtha. Now, such association becomes possible only when we comprehend that the Mukhyārtha and the Lakṣyārtha are identical. For, when we get this comprehension, we transfer the characteristics of the Mukhyārtha to the Lakṣyārtha, with which they are thereupon realized as being associated. Hence, even in UpādānaLakṣaṇā and LakṣaṇaLakṣaṇā the apprehension of identity (AbhedaPratipatti) between the Mukhyārtha and the Lakṣyārtha is necessary in order to understand the Prayojana

Take 'गङ्गाया 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 प्रतिपिपादयिषति, which is desiderative of प्रतिपादयति, the causal of प्रतिपादयते from प्रति + पद् 4 A) is that the bank is characterized by coolness, holiness etc , in an excessive degree Vide p 252 above Now this purpose is comprehended

Take 'Gaṅgāyāṃ Ghoṣaḥ', which illustrates LakṣaṇaLakṣaṇā. Here the word Gaṅgā indicates (Pratipādane Lakṣaṇayā Bodhane ityarthaḥ) the bank. The purpose intended to be conveyed (Pratipādayiṣitaḥ p. p. p. of Pratipipādayiṣati, which is desiderative of Pratipādiyati, the causal of Pratipādayate from Prati + Pad 4 A) is that the bank is characterized by coolness, holiness, etc., in an excessive degree. Vide p. 252 above. Now this purpose is comprehended

Page 251

१९८

198

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ Page 16

( सम्प्रत्यय ) only when we realize the identity of the bank with the stream ( तत्त्वप्रतिपत्तौ = तट्यादिना गङ्गादित्यप्रतिपत्तौ ) 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 ' गङ्गाया घोष ' 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 गङ्गातटे घोष wherein the word गङ्गा is a मुख्य or वाचक word conveying the sense the stream, and गङ्गाया घोष ' which represents a लक्षणा and wherein गङ्गा is a लक्षणिक word indicating the sense, the bank

(sampratyaya) only when we realize the identity of the bank with the stream (tattvapratipattau = taṭyādina gaṅgādityapratipattau) 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 'gaṅgāya ghoṣa' we understand only the connection of the bank with the stream (gaṅgāsambandhamātrapratītou) and not the identity of the bank with the stream, there would be no difference between gaṅgātaṭe ghoṣa wherein the word gaṅgā is a mukhya or vācaka word conveying the sense the stream, and 'gaṅgāya ghoṣa' which represents a lakṣaṇā and wherein gaṅgā is a lakṣaṇika word indicating the sense, the bank.

What is meant is this We make use of the expression ' गङ्गाया घोष ' in preference to 'गङ्गातटे घोष ', 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 ' गङ्गाया घोष ' 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 घोष ', which also conveys the connection of the bank with the stream The expression 'गङ्गातटे घोष ' has this advantage that in it the word गङ्गा occurs in its primary sense ( मुख्यशब्द ) 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 ' गङ्गाया घोष ' instead of ' गङ्गातटे घोष ', it must be supposed that ' गङ्गाया घोष ' conveys more than what ' गङ्गातटे घोष ' 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 ' गङ्गाया घोष ' the identity of the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ is apprehended

What is meant is this: We make use of the expression 'gaṅgāya ghoṣa' in preference to 'gaṅgātaṭe ghoṣa', 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 'gaṅgāya ghoṣa' were to convey only the connection of the bank with the stream and not its identity with the stream, we might as well use 'gaṅgātaṭe ghoṣa', which also conveys the connection of the bank with the stream. The expression 'gaṅgātaṭe ghoṣa' has this advantage that in it the word gaṅgā occurs in its primary sense (mukhyaśabda). 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 'gaṅgāya ghoṣa' instead of 'gaṅgātaṭe ghoṣa', it must be supposed that 'gaṅgāya ghoṣa' conveys more than what 'gaṅgātaṭe ghoṣa' does, viz., that it conveys the identity of the bank with the stream, from which the purpose of the lakṣaṇā, viz., the association of the qualities of coolness and others with the bank, is understood. It will thus be seen that even in lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā such as 'gaṅgāya ghoṣa', the identity of the vācyārtha and the lakṣyārtha is apprehended.

Similarly, in उपादानलक्षणा also, as in ' कुन्ताः 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 लक्षण viz , the वाच्यार्थ lances and the लक्ष्य viz the लक्ष्यार्थ lancers Only on the apprehension of such identity of the purpose viz कुन्तिसम्बद्धगहनत्वप्रतीति or कुन्तिसम्बद्धतैक्ष्ण्यप्रतीति is had

Similarly, in upādānalakṣaṇā also, as in 'kuntāḥ pravisanti', there is abhedapratipatti. Here the purpose is gahanatvapratīti or taikṣṇyapratīti. Now gahanatva or taikṣṇya properly belongs to the primary sense of the word kunta, viz., lances. In order that it should be understood as connected with the lancers, which is the indicated sense of kunta, we must suppose that 'kuntāḥ pravisanti' conveys the identity of the lakṣaṇa, viz., the vācyārtha lances and the lakṣya, viz., the lakṣyārtha lancers. Only on the apprehension of such identity of the purpose, viz., kuntisambaddhagahanatvapratīti or kuntisambaddhataikṣṇyapratīti, is had.

Thus, in उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा there is अभेदप्रतिपत्ति between the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ exactly as in सारोप लक्षणा and साध्यवसान लक्षणा

Thus, in upādānalakṣaṇā and lakṣaṇalakṣaṇā, there is abhedapratipatti between the vācyārtha and the lakṣyārtha exactly as in sāropalakṣaṇā and sāādhyavasānalakṣaṇā.

Page 252

Page 16 ] NOTES : Second Flash १९९

Page 16 ] NOTES : Second Flash 199

Consequently Mukulabhatta's statement that it is the तात्स्थ्य between the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ that distinguishes उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा from सारोप लक्षणा and साध्यवसान लक्षणा, which are marked by अभेद between the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ, is not correct This is what Mammata wants to suggest in the passage 'अनयोः को भेदः '

Consequently Mukulabhatta's statement that it is the identity between the literal meaning and the indicated meaning that distinguishes superimposition and indication from metaphorical and purposive indication, which are marked by non-difference between the literal meaning and the indicated meaning, is not correct. This is what Mammata wants to suggest in the passage 'What is the difference between these two?'

Though अभेदप्रतिपत्ति has thus been shown to be common to all the four varieties of लक्षणा, उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा are distinguished from सारोप लक्षणा and साध्यवसान लक्षणा by the fact that in उपादान and लक्षण the अभेद is by no means prominent It hardly attracts our attention As Māṇikyacandra says 'अन्योद्दाहारणयोः आरोप्यारोपभाव प्रति [ 1 e वाच्यार्थलक्ष्यार्थयोरभेदः प्रति ] चित्तमेव न धावति । ' It is only when we think of the purpose that we become aware of the अभेद from which that purpose arises The अभेद in these two varieties is thus only indirectly felt But in सारोप and साध्यवसान the अभेद is directly felt owing to the आरोप and अध्यवसान on which they are based The terms आरोप and अध्यवसान will be explained presently

Though the understanding of non-difference has thus been shown to be common to all the four varieties of indication, superimposition and indication are distinguished from metaphorical and purposive indication by the fact that in superimposition and indication the non-difference is by no means prominent. It hardly attracts our attention. As Māṇikyacandra says 'In the case of other illustrations, the mind does not even run towards the non-difference between the literal meaning and the indicated meaning.' It is only when we think of the purpose that we become aware of the non-difference from which that purpose arises. The non-difference in these two varieties is thus only indirectly felt. But in metaphorical and purposive indication, the non-difference is directly felt owing to the superimposition and the mental appropriation on which they are based. The terms superimposition and mental appropriation will be explained presently.

It should be noted that the passage 'अनयोर्मेदयः को भेदः ' deals with उपादानलक्षणा and लक्षणलक्षणा, which are two of the divisions of शुद्ध लक्षणा, and refutes the view that तात्स्थ्य or भेदप्रतीति between the लक्ष्यार्थ and the वाच्यार्थ, which is found in उपादान and लक्षण, distinguishes these two varieties of शुद्धलक्षणा from सारोप लक्षणा and साध्यवसान लक्षणा, in which there is अभेदप्रतिपत्ति between the लक्ष्यार्थ and the वाच्यार्थ This is clear from the words अनयोर्मेदयोः which refer to उपादान and लक्षण, as well as from the passage from the आभियुक्तिमत्कृत quoted above. But Pradīpa tells us that according to some the passage controverts the view that तात्स्थ्य or भेदप्रतीति distinguishes शुद्धलक्षणा (in all its four varieties) from गौण लक्षणा This is incorrect for two reasons First, 'अनयोर्मेदयोः ' definitely refers to only two of the varieties of शुद्ध लक्षणा and not to शुद्ध लक्षणा in general i e to all its four varieties Secondly, it cannot be said that the other two varieties of शुद्धलक्षणा viz सारोप (श्रुतमायु) and साध्यवसान (आयु पिबति) are marked by तात्स्थ्य or भेदप्रतीति For, there we actually comprehend the identity between श्रुत and आयुस् owing to आरोप in 'श्रुतमायु ' and अध्यवसान in 'आयु पिबति ' Pradīpa also refers to some other people according to whom the passage refutes the view that तात्स्थ्य, which is found in लक्षणलक्षणा (गण्या घोषः), distinguishes it from उपादानलक्षणा (यत्री प्रवेशः), in which it is not found This also is not correct, because अनयोर्मेदयोः clearly shows that according to the view which is refuted here तात्स्थ्य marks both these divisions of शुद्ध लक्षणा viz उपादान and लक्षण

It should be noted that the passage 'What is the difference between these two?' deals with superimposition and indication, which are two of the divisions of pure indication, and refutes the view that identity or the perception of difference between the indicated meaning and the literal meaning, which is found in superimposition and indication, distinguishes these two varieties of pure indication from metaphorical and purposive indication, in which there is understanding of non-difference between the indicated meaning and the literal meaning. This is clear from the words 'of these two' which refer to superimposition and indication, as well as from the passage from the Ābhyuktimat-kṛta quoted above. But Pradīpa tells us that according to some the passage controverts the view that identity or the perception of difference distinguishes pure indication (in all its four varieties) from secondary indication. This is incorrect for two reasons. First, 'of these two' definitely refers to only two of the varieties of pure indication and not to pure indication in general, i.e., to all its four varieties. Secondly, it cannot be said that the other two varieties of pure indication, viz., metaphorical (heard meaning) and purposive (life drinks), are marked by identity or perception of difference. For, there we actually comprehend the identity between heard and life owing to superimposition in 'heard life' and mental appropriation in 'life drinks'. Pradīpa also refers to some other people according to whom the passage refutes the view that identity, which is found in indication (counted shout), distinguishes it from superimposition (entry into the place), in which it is not found. This also is not correct, because 'of these two' clearly shows that according to the view which is refuted here, identity marks both these divisions of pure indication, viz., superimposition and indication.

Page 253

२००

200

काव्यप्रकारा

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 17

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 साध्यवसानिक or साध्यवसान

Karika 6—Having dealt with Upadana-lakshana and Lakshana-lakshana and some other topics connected with them Mammata now proceeds to give us two more varieties of Lakshana viz Saropa and Sadhya-vasanika or Sadhya-vasana

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 रूपक or metaphor

Saropa lakshana or Superimponent Indication is that Indication in which, as the adjective Saropa shows, there is the superimposition (aropa) of one thing (visayi = aropyamana) on another (visaya = aropavishaya) and both these are mentioned by specific and separate words 'Mukha-chandra udeti', said when a girl with a lovely face is approaching, is an example of Saropa lakshana Here chandra is superimposed on mukha and both these are expressed by separate words Saropalakshana is thus the basis of the figure Rupaka or metaphor

Page 17

साध्यवसानिक लक्षणा or Introsusceptive Indication occurs when the thing on which something is superimposed or the object of superimposition (अन्यविषयं = विषय = आरोपविषये) is put within itself or swallowed (अन्तः कृत = निगीर्ण) 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 mentioned 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 अत्यक्षेपोक्ति or Hyperbole (First Variety)

Sadhya-vasanika lakshana or Introsusceptive Indication occurs when the thing on which something is superimposed or the object of superimposition (anyavishayam = visaya = aropavishaye) is put within itself or swallowed (antah krita = nigirna) by the thing which is superimposed (vishayina = aropyamana) so that only the thing that is superimposed (vishayi = aropyamana) is actually expressed by means of a word and the thing on which it is superimposed (visaya = aropavishaya) is not mentioned at all e.g. 'Chandra udeti' Here the vishayinam or the thing superimposed viz chandra completely swallows the visaya or the thing on which it is superimposed viz mukham so that only chandra is expressed by means of a word and mukham is not mentioned at all Sadhya-vasanika lakshana is thus the basis of the figure Atyakshopokti or Hyperbole (First Variety)

अन्या means just another variety different from the two dealt with in Karika 5 The प्रदीप explains अन्याः as गौणी Read 'अन्या अर्थात् गौणी आरोपाध्यवसानाभ्यां भिद्यते, न उद् उपादानलक्षणाभ्यामिति तु शब्दार्थः ।' 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 varieties are both गौणी and शुद्धा If अन्याः 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.

Anya means just another variety different from the two dealt with in Karika 5 The Pradipa explains anyah as gauni Read 'Anya arthatah gauni aropadhyavasanabhyam bhidyate, na ud upadana-lakshanabhyam iti tu shabda-arthah.' This is incorrect In Karika 6 Mammata makes no reference to gauni Here he just defines two more varieties of lakshana and then in the next karika tells us that these two varieties are both gauni and shuddha If anyah is here interpreted as gauni, as the Pradipa does, it would suggest that shuddha does not possess these divisions Saropa and Sadhya-vasanika, 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 अनपहुतभेदौ 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

Note that vishayi is the same as aropyamana, the same as upamanam Thus vishayi = aropyamana = upamanam Similarly, visaya = aropavishaya = upameyam Anapahuta-bhedau means whose difference has not been concealed i. e. which are mentioned by separate words. This word distinguishes Saropa lakshana from Sadhya-vasanika In 'Mukha-chandra', which illustrates Saropa, though there is the superimposition of chandra on mukham, the two are distinctly

Page 254

mentioned साध्यवसानिक as in ‘चन्द्र’ the distinction between चन्द्र and मुखम् is concealed so that मुखम् is not mentioned at all

mentioned sādhvasānika as in 'candra' the distinction between candra and mukham is concealed so that mukham is not mentioned at all

सामानाधिकरण्येन (समानम् अधिकरणं ययोः ते समानाधिकरण्ये तयोः भावः सामानाधिकरण्यम्) तेन हि 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

sāmānādhikaraṇyena (samānam adhikaraṇaṃ yayoh te sāmānādhikaraṇye tayoḥ bhāvaḥ sāmānādhikaraṇyam) tena hi In a state of common abode i e having the same case relationship In a sāropa lakṣaṇā the viṣayī and the viṣaya are mentioned in the same case relation, as in mukhacandra

As their names show सारोप लक्षणा and साध्यवसान लक्षणा are based on आरोप and अध्यवसान आरोप or superimposition means the identification of the object of superimposition i e the उपमेय with the thing superimposed i e the उपमान, when both of them are separately mentioned e g मुखं चन्द्र’ or ‘माणवक अभिन’ अध्यवसान 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 अभिन’ Read रसगङ्गाधर

As their names show sāropa lakṣaṇā and sādhvasāna lakṣaṇā are based on āropa and adhyavasāna āropa or superimposition means the identification of the object of superimposition i e the upameya with the thing superimposed i e the upamāna, when both of them are separately mentioned e g mukhaṁ candra' or 'māṇavaka abhinā' adhyavasānam or introsusception signifies the identification of the viṣaya or upameya with the viṣayin or the upamāna, when the viṣaya is not separately mentioned e g candra or abhinā' Read rasagaṅgādhar

आरोप 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

āropa ordinarily means attribution In mukhacandra we attribute the nature of the moon to the face and thus identify the two adhyavasāna means niścaya 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

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 =तद्विधत्तावै सति तद्भूतभयोर्योगवत्स्वम्) and from any other relation existing between them Thus, we learn that शुद्ध लक्षणा has in all four varieties viz. उपादान and लक्षण, treated of before, and सारोप and साध्यवसान, mentioned here गौण लक्षणा on the other hand has only two varieties viz सारोप and साध्यवसान Thus, लक्षणा has in all six divisions Vide Karika 7d p 22

Kārikā 7 abc—This Kārikā tells us that these two varieties of lakṣaṇā viz sāropa and sādhvasāna can be both gauṇa or Qualitative and śuddha or Pure according as they arise from similarity between the expressed sense and the indicated sense (sādṛśhyam =tadviṣayattāve sati tadbhūtayor yogavatsvam) and from any other relation existing between them Thus, we learn that śuddha lakṣaṇā has in all four varieties viz. upādāna and lakṣaṇa, treated of before, and sāropa and sādhvasāna, mentioned here gauṇa lakṣaṇā on the other hand has only two varieties viz sāropa and sādhvasāna Thus, lakṣaṇā has in all six divisions Vide Karika 7d p 22

गौण सारोप लक्षणा and गौण साध्यवसान लक्षणा, which are caused by or arise from similarity, (सादृश्यहेतु), are illustrated respectively in ‘गवांहीक’ and ‘गौरयम्’ In ‘गवांहीक’ 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, ‘गवांहीक’ 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 ‘गवांहीक’ is an example of गौण सारोप लक्षणा Similarly ‘गौरयम्’ is an example of गौण साध्यवसान लक्षणा, because here

gauṇa sāropa lakṣaṇā and gauṇa sādhvasāna lakṣaṇā, which are caused by or arise from similarity, (sādṛśyahetu), are illustrated respectively in ‘gavāṅhīka’ and ‘gaurayam’ In ‘gavāṅhīka’ we have the identification of gau (a bull), which is the viṣayin or upamāna, with vāhīka (an inhabitant of the Vahika country), which represents the viṣaya or upameya As both the viṣayin and viṣaya are mentioned, ‘gavāṅhīka’ is an example of sāropa lakṣaṇā Then again, between the Vahika and the bull similarity exists, because both of them possess qualities like dullness and stupidity Thus, as the lakṣaṇā is caused by similarity, it is gauṇa So ‘gavāṅhīka’ is an example of gauṇa sāropa lakṣaṇā Similarly ‘gauryam’ is an example of gauṇa sādhvasāna lakṣaṇā, because here

Page 255

२०२

202

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ Page 17

the विषय or the उपमेय viz वाह्हीक is not mentioned, being swallowed by

the subject or the object of comparison viz Vahhik is not mentioned, being swallowed by

the विषयिन् गो

the subject goat

वाह्हीक (the same as बाह्हीक or बाल्हीक) is the name of a country

Vahhik (the same as Bahhik or Balhik) is the name of a country

represented by modern Punjab

It should be noted that in गौर्यम् quoted as an illustration of गौणसाध्य

It should be noted that in Gaurya quoted as an illustration of Gaunasadhya

वसान लक्षणा, अयम् qualifies गौ and the expression means 'this bull' Also

Vasan Lakshana, Ayam qualifies Gau and the expression means 'this bull' Also

वाह्हीको गो would have been a better expression than गौर्वाह्हीक since the

Vahhiko Go would have been a better expression than Gaurvahhik since the

sentence is addressed to a वाह्हीक

sentence is addressed to a Vahhik

Some scholars like हेमचन्द्र, कुमारिल भट्ट and भोज consider गौणी वृत्ति as

Some scholars like Hemachandra, Kumarila Bhatta and Bhoja consider Gauni Vritti as

an independent function different from लक्षणा Thus according to them,

an independent function different from Lakshana Thus according to them,

word is of four kinds viz वाचक, गौण, लक्षणक and व्यञ्जक Sense also

word is of four kinds viz Vachaka, Gauna, Lakshanka and Vyankaka Sense also

correspondingly will be of four kinds But there is no vital difference

between मम्मट and, his school of thinkers मम्मट considers लक्षणा to be of two

between Mammata and, his school of thinkers Mammata considers Lakshana to be of two

kinds viz शुद्ध and गौणी which are regarded by हेमचन्द्र कुमारिल and भोज

kinds viz Shuddha and Gauni which are regarded by Hemachandra Kumarila and Bhoja

as independent functions and designated as लक्षणा and गौणी respectively

as independent functions and designated as Lakshana and Gauni respectively

For the terms शुद्धा and गौणी read 'इदं ( गौणी ) च गुणवयोगाद् गौणी इति

For the terms Shuddha and Gauni read 'Idam (Gauni) cha Gunavyogad Gauni iti

उच्यते । पूँवा ( शुद्धा ) तु उपचरितामात्रग्राहिणी । लक्ष्षा साहचर्यदर्शन इति under II 10 ab

Uchyate | Puva (Shuddha) tu Upacharitaamatragrahini | Laksha Sahacharyadarshana iti under II 10 ab

मम्मट now proceeds to state the 3 different views as regards how

Mammata now proceeds to state the 3 different views as regards how

गौणी लक्षणा (as for example in गौरवाहीक ) operates

Gauni Lakshana (as for example in Gaurvahhik) operates

First View—This view can be stated as follows —

गोसद्राव्—आभिधया ( गोतम् )—लक्षणया स्वाथसाहचयँसवनधेन ( गोगता जाड्य-

Gosradhav-Abhidhya (Gotam)-Lakshanaya Swathasahacharyasavanadhena (Gogatā Jāḍya-

मान्यादय )—पुनरभिधया ( वाह्हीक )

Mānyādya)—Punarabhidhya (Vahhik)

According to this view the sense वाह्हीक is obtained from the word

According to this view the sense Vahhik is obtained from the word

गौ in three stages First, the word गौ expresses the sense गोत्व, because

Gau in three stages First, the word Gau expresses the sense Gotva, because

it is a जातिवाचक word Secondly, this sense is found incompatible

it is a Jativachaka word Secondly, this sense is found incompatible

with the coordination of गौ with वाह्हीक Thus, we have मुख्यार्थबाध

with the coordination of Gau with Vahhik Thus, we have Mukhyarthabādha

Therefore, by लक्षणा गौ indicates qualities such as dullness and stupidity,

Therefore, by Lakshana Gau indicates qualities such as dullness and stupidity,

belonging to the bull तद्योग is thus सँतुष्ट, because between गोत्व,

belonging to the bull Taddhyoga is thus Santushta, because between Gotva,

which is the primary sense of गा, and जाड्यमान्यादिगुणs, which represent

which is the primary sense of Ga, and Jāḍyamānyādiguṇas, which represent

its secondary sense, there exists the relation of साहचयँ or association,

its secondary sense, there exists the relation of Sāhacharya or association,

as both of them reside in the same substratum viz the individual bull.

It is not easy to imagine what the प्रयोजन of this लक्षणा can be. We may,

It is not easy to imagine what the Prayojana of this Lakshana can be. We may,

however, say that the प्रयोजन is to convey the idea that these qualities

however, say that the Prayojana is to convey the idea that these qualities

are as essential ( प्राणप्रद ) to the bull as गोत्व itself i e to suggest that

are as essential (Pranaprada) to the bull as Gotva itself i e to suggest that

the bull is extremely dull and stupid Thus, in the second stage गौ

the bull is extremely dull and stupid Thus, in the second stage Gau

indicates जाड्यमान्यादि qualities belonging to the bull

indicates Jāḍyamānyādi qualities belonging to the bull

Now thirdly, these जाड्यमान्यादि qualities, so indicated, become

Now thirdly, these Jāḍyamānyādi qualities, so indicated, become

the cause of the currency ( प्रवृत्तिनिमित्तम् ) of the word गो in expressing

the cause of the currency (Pravrittinimittam) of the word Go in expressing

Page 256

the sense Vāhika (परार्थाभिधाने = परार्थो वाह्हीकः तस्य अभिधाने अभिधया बोधने)-

the sense Vāhika (in the expression 'for the sake of another' = the other is Vāhika, in the expression of that, in the knowledge by the expression)-

What happens is this When गौगतजाद्यमात्यादि qualities are indicated by the word गौ in the second stage, we are reminded of simular qualities kelonging to the Vahika owing to the grammatical co-

What happens is this: When the qualities like jāti etc. associated with 'cow' are indicated by the word 'gou' in the second stage, we are reminded of similar qualities belonging to the Vahika owing to the grammatical co-

ordination of the two words वाह्हीक and गो Then we argue that as the word गौ conveys by means of अभिधा or expresses the sense गोत्व, which is associated with जाडयमान्यादि qualities in the individual गो, even so it should express the sense Vāhika, which is also connected with simular जाडयामान्यादि qualities that are possessed by the Vāhika Thus,

ordination of the two words 'Vāhika' and 'go'. Then we argue that as the word 'gou' conveys by means of 'abhidhā' or expresses the sense 'gotva', which is associated with qualities like 'jādyamānādi' in the individual 'go', even so it should express the sense 'Vāhika', which is also connected with similar 'jādyamānādi' qualities that are possessed by the Vāhika. Thus,

as the गोगतजाद्यमात्यादि qualities form the basis of our reasoning which results in the word गौ expressing the Vahika, they are declared to become the प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त of the word गो in expressing the Vāhika It will thus be seen that according to the first view अभिधा, लक्षणा and अभिधा once more function in order to enable the word गौ to convey the sense वाह्हीक with a view to justify their co ordination in 'वाह्हीक गौ'

as the 'gogatjādyamātyādi' qualities form the basis of our reasoning which results in the word 'gou' expressing the Vahika, they are declared to become the 'pravṛttinimitta' of the word 'go' in expressing the Vāhika. It will thus be seen that according to the first view 'abhidhā', 'lakṣaṇā' and 'abhidhā' once more function in order to enable the word 'gou' to convey the sense 'vāhīka' with a view to justify their co-ordination in 'vāhīka gou'

This view cannot be accepted, because it is open to the following five objections (1) According to this view the word गो expresses वाह्हीक in the third stage Now, a word can express only that meaning about which a direct convention has been made Nobody can say that the direct convention of गो is with reference to वाह्हीक Therefore, the word गो has no power to express the sense वाह्हीक (2) In the first stage गौ expresses by means of अभिधा the sense गोत्व abhidha is thus exhausted It cannot revive again and denote वाह्हीक in the third stage (3) The प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त or cause of currency of a word is its मुख्यार्थ or वाच्यार्थे Here the लक्षणार्थ of गौ viz गोगतजाद्यमात्यादि qualities are said to become the प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त of गो in expressing वाह्हीक This is impossible in the very nature of things The holder of the first view was apparently aware of this difficulty That is why he put in अपि in 'लक्ष्यमाणा अपि ' showing thereby that a लक्षणार्थ could not usually be the प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त of a word (4) The प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त of a word is समनाधिकरण with, or resides in, the sense which is ultimately conveyed by अभिधा Thus, गोत्व which is the प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त of गो, resides in गौव्यक्ति, which is expressed by अभिधा ultimately In the present case the alleged प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त viz गोगत जाडयमान्यादिगुणs do not reside in the sense viz वाह्हीक, which is supposed to be ultimately conveyed by गौ by means of अभिधा Thus, here the प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त is व्यधिकरण and not समनाधिकरण with the sense ultimately understood Therefore, गोगतजाद्यमात्यादिगुणs cannot be the प्रवृत्तिनिमित्त of the word गो in expressing वाह्हीक (5) As this view consists of three stages or functions. viz अभिधा, लक्षणा and पुनरभिधा it involves गौरव or cumbrousness

This view cannot be accepted, because it is open to the following five objections: (1) According to this view, the word 'go' expresses 'vāhīka' in the third stage. Now, a word can express only that meaning about which a direct convention has been made. Nobody can say that the direct convention of 'go' is with reference to 'vāhīka'. Therefore, the word 'go' has no power to express the sense 'vāhīka'. (2) In the first stage, 'gou' expresses by means of 'abhidhā' the sense 'gotva'; 'abhidhā' is thus exhausted. It cannot revive again and denote 'vāhīka' in the third stage. (3) The 'pravṛttinimitta' or cause of currency of a word is its 'mukhyārtha' or 'vācyārthe'. Here, the 'lakṣyārtha' of 'gou' viz. 'gogatjādyamātyādi' qualities are said to become the 'pravṛttinimitta' of 'go' in expressing 'vāhīka'. This is impossible in the very nature of things. The holder of the first view was apparently aware of this difficulty. That is why he put in 'api' in 'lakṣyamāṇā api', showing thereby that a 'lakṣyārtha' could not usually be the 'pravṛttinimitta' of a word. (4) The 'pravṛttinimitta' of a word is 'samanādhikaraṇa' with, or resides in, the sense which is ultimately conveyed by 'abhidhā'. Thus, 'gotva', which is the 'pravṛttinimitta' of 'go', resides in 'gouvyakti', which is expressed by 'abhidhā' ultimately. In the present case, the alleged 'pravṛttinimitta' viz. 'gogat jādyamānādi guṇas' do not reside in the sense viz. 'vāhīka', which is supposed to be ultimately conveyed by 'gou' by means of 'abhidhā'. Thus, here the 'pravṛttinimitta' is 'vyadhikaraṇa' and not 'samanādhikaraṇa' with the sense ultimately understood. Therefore, 'gogatjādyamātyādi guṇas' cannot be the 'pravṛttinimitta' of the word 'go' in expressing 'vāhīka'. (5) As this view consists of three stages or functions, viz. 'abhidhā', 'lakṣaṇā' and 'punarabhidhā', it involves 'gaurava' or cumbrousness.

Page 257

गौशब्दात्—अभिधया (गोत्वम्)—लक्षणया स्वार्थेसहचारिगुणाभेदरूपसवन्येन (वाच्यीकृताजात्यादय) —आक्षेपेण अनुमानेन अविनाभावेन वा (वाचीक)

From the word 'cow'—through denotation (cowness)—through indication by the associated quality in the same sense (the universal 'cowness' made to be denoted)—through inference or implication (the qualities associated with the denoted universal)

Second View—This view can be thus stated —

According to this view also three stages are necessary for the word गौ to convey the sense वाचीक The first stage is the same as in the first view In the second stage गौ indicates the qualities, belonging, not to the bull as in the first view, but to the Vāhika तद्योग here arises from the relation of सहचारिगुणभेद The primary sense of गौ is गोत्वं Its सहचारिगुण are गोर्गतजात्याद्यमान्यादय These qualities are identical (अभिन्न) with वाच्यीकृताजात्याद्यमान्यादय So वाच्यीकृताजात्याद्यमान्यादय are indicated by गौ What the third stage according to the second view is is not specifically stated by Mammata But we can infer it from his words 'न तु परार्थोडभिधीयते' According to the second view then the sense Vāhika (परार्थे = वाच्यीकृत्यर्थ) is not in the third stage expressed by गौ, but it is inferred (आक्षिप्यते) from वाच्यीकृताजात्यमान्यादय, which represent the लक्ष्यार्थ of गौ in the second stage Qualities like dullness and others require a substratum to reside in Hence from the लक्ष्यार्थ of गौ viz वाच्यीकृताजात्यमान्यादय an abode viz वाच्यीकृत्यक्तित् is inferred as their substratum Thus, in the third stage the sense वाच्यीकृत्यक्तित् is obtained by आक्षेप

According to this view also, three stages are necessary for the word 'cow' to convey the sense 'Vachika'. The first stage is the same as in the first view. In the second stage, 'cow' indicates the qualities belonging not to the bull as in the first view, but to the Vāhika. The connection here arises from the relation of सहचारिगुणभेद. The primary sense of 'cow' is 'cowness'. Its सहचारिगुण are गोर्गतजात्याद्यमान्यादय. These qualities are identical with वाच्यीकृताजात्याद्यमान्यादय. So, वाच्यीकृताजात्याद्यमान्यादय are indicated by 'cow'. What the third stage according to the second view is, is not specifically stated by Mammata. But we can infer it from his words 'न तु परार्थोडभिधीयते'. According to the second view, then the sense Vāhika is not in the third stage expressed by 'cow', but it is inferred from वाच्यीकृताजात्यमान्यादय, which represent the लक्ष्यार्थ of 'cow' in the second stage. Qualities like dullness and others require a substratum to reside in. Hence, from the लक्ष्यार्थ of 'cow' viz वाच्यीकृताजात्यमान्यादय, an abode viz वाच्यीकृत्यक्तित् is inferred as their substratum. Thus, in the third stage, the sense वाच्यीकृत्यक्तित् is obtained by आक्षेप.

This view differs from the first in two respects (1) According to the first view the sense वाच्यीक is expressed by गौ in the third stage According to the second वाच्यीक is neither expressed nor indicated, but obtained by inference (2) The लक्ष्यार्थ in the first view is obtained by गोर्गतजात्याद्यमान्यादय In the second view the लक्ष्यार्थ is वाच्यीकर्गतजात्याद्यमान्यादय, which being similar to गोर्गतजात्याद्यमान्यादय are looked upon as identical with those

This view differs from the first in two respects: (1) According to the first view, the sense वाच्यीक is expressed by 'cow' in the third stage. According to the second, वाच्यीक is neither expressed nor indicated, but obtained by inference. (2) The लक्ष्यार्थ in the first view is obtained by गोर्गतजात्याद्यमान्यादय. In the second view, the लक्ष्यार्थ is वाच्यीकर्गतजात्याद्यमान्यादय, which being similar to गोर्गतजात्याद्यमान्यादय are looked upon as identical with those.

This second view though an improvement on the first is still open to same objections It is said that the word गौ conveys वाच्यीकर्गत गुणs and the word वाच्यीक means वाच्यीक व्यक्तित् Since here the two words do not signify the same thing the सामानाधिकरण्यम् is not possible Secondly over and above लक्षणा why adopt अनुमान Let लक्षणा which is already adopted convey the sense that is needed Moreover this view also involves गौरव because of अभिधा, लक्षणा and अनुमान functions used.

This second view, though an improvement on the first, is still open to the same objections. It is said that the word 'cow' conveys वाच्यीकर्गत गुणs and the word वाच्यीक means वाच्यीक व्यक्तित्. Since here the two words do not signify the same thing, the सामानाधिकरण्यम् is not possible. Secondly, over and above लक्षणा, why adopt अनुमान? Let लक्षणा, which is already adopted, convey the sense that is needed. Moreover, this view also involves गौरव because of अभिधा, लक्षणा, and अनुमान functions used.

गौशब्दात्—अभिधया (गोत्वम्)—लक्षणया साधारणगुणाश्रितया (वाच्यीक)

From the word 'cow'—through denotation (cowness)—through indication based on common qualities (Vachika)

Third View—This view can thus be stated —

This is the proper and correct view about गौण लक्षणा In 'वाच्यीको गौ' the two words are सामानाधिकरण्य The primary sense गोत्व of गौ is incompatible with its equation with वाच्यीक Thus, मुख्यार्थबाध comes in लक्षणा

This is the proper and correct view about गौण लक्षणा. In 'वाच्यीको गौ', the two words are सामानाधिकरण्य. The primary sense 'cowness' of 'cow' is incompatible with its equation with वाच्यीक. Thus, मुख्यार्थबाध comes in लक्षणा.

Page 258

is therefore, resorted to and by means of that लक्षणा गौ indicates the

is therefore, resorted to and by means of that implication, the word 'gou' indicates the

sense वाच्य ( परार्थे = वाच्यार्थ ) तयोग is present in this लक्षणा because

sense 'vācya' (or 'parāthe' = 'vācyārtha') conjunction is present in this implication because

both the bull and the Vahika, which represent the मुख्यार्थे and the लक्ष्यार्थे

both the bull and the Vahika, which represent the primary sense and the implied sense

respectively of गौ , possess the common qualities of dullness, stupidity

respectively of the word 'gou', possess the common qualities of dullness, stupidity

and others Thus, as both the words are एकार्थामिश्रयक or convey the

and others. Thus, as both the words are mixed in one sense or convey the

idea of one entity viz वाचक, their सामानाधिकरण्य is explained

idea of one entity, namely, the signifier, their co-referentiality is explained

It should be remembered that when in the above discussion we

say that गौ expresses गोव by means of अभिधा, we mean गोव्यक्ति as well

say that the word 'gou' expresses 'go' by means of denotation, we mean the individual cow as well

For, we have already seen that the proper primary senses of words

viz जाति, गुण, क्रिया and द्रव्य convey by inference the individual in

such as class, quality, action, and substance convey by inference the individual in

which they reside That is why the bull has been stated to represent

which they reside. That is why the bull has been stated to represent

the मुख्यार्थे of गौ in the paragraph

the primary sense of 'gou' in the paragraph

Mammata supports the third view by quoting the authority of

कुमारिलभट्ट The couplet 'अभिधेयाविनाभूतं o' comes from Kumarila's तन्त्रवार्तिक

'Kumarilabhatta'. The couplet 'abhidheyavinabhootam o' comes from Kumarila's 'Tantravarttika'

The couplet defines two independent functions viz लक्षणा and गौणी वृत्ति,

The couplet defines two independent functions, namely, implication and secondary function,

which, as we noted before correspond with Mammata's शुद्ध लक्षणा and

which, as we noted before, correspond with Mammata's pure implication and

गौणी लक्षणा

secondary implication

अभिधेयाविनाभूतंप्रतीतितात्क्षण्यकारकं सा च-This is Kumarila's definition of लक्षणा,

'Abhidheyavinabhootam pratititadnyata kshanyam karyaṃ sā ca'-This is Kumarila's definition of implication,

which is the same as Mammata's शुद्ध लक्षणा Explain it, therefore as

which is the same as Mammata's pure implication. Explain it, therefore, as

अभिधेये वान्यर्थे ( प्रवाहादि ममादिवो ) तेन अविनाभूत सम्बद अर्थ इत्यर्थे ( तटादि

'in a sense other than the denoted sense (such as the current, etc.)', by that, it means 'a connected sense', i.e., (such as the bank, etc.)

मध्यस्थबालकादिवी ) तस्य प्रतीति ज्ञाने लक्षण इति उच्यते Indication, according

'or the children standing in between'). 'Tasya pratiti jnane lakshanam iti uchyate'. Indication, according

to Kumarila, is the apprehension of the sense connected with the

primary sense

अविनाभावोदत्रo-In this paragraph Mammata gives two reasons

'Avinabhavodgraho'-In this paragraph, Mammata gives two reasons

why अविनाभाव, occuring in Kumarila's definition of लक्षणा is to be

why 'avinabhavam', occurring in Kumarila's definition of implication, is to be

understood in the sense of connection only ( सबन्धमात्रम् ) and not in

understood in the sense of connection only (i.e., mere relation) and not in

that of invariable connection (1) If अविनाभाव were to mean invariable

that of invariable connection. (1) If 'avinabhavam' were to mean invariable

association ( तत्व = अविनाभावस्य नान्तरीयकत्वे), 'मधा कोशान्ति', which is generally

association (i.e., inseparability), 'the bees are buzzing in the honey', which is generally

regarded as an example of लक्षणा, would not be so For, मधा (bed-

regarded as an example of implication, would not be so. For, 'madha' (honey-

steads, cots ) is here a लक्षणणिक word and indicates children sleeping on

stands or cots) is here a word used implicatively and indicates children sleeping on

the bed-steads ( मध्यस्थबालका ) The children are not invariably connected

the bed-steads (i.e., children standing in between). The children are not invariably connected

( नित्यतसबद ) with the bedsteads, but are only temporarly so connected

(i.e., not connected by an eternal relation) with the bedsteads, but are only temporarily so connected

Hence, if अविनाभाव were to mean नित्यतसवनध, मध्यस्थबालका would not be

Hence, if 'avinabhavam' were to mean an eternal connection, 'children standing in between' would not be

the लक्ष्यार्थे of मधा and 'मधा कोशान्ति' not an example of लक्षणा Therefore,

the implied sense of 'madha' and 'madha koshanthi' not an example of implication. Therefore,

अविनाभाव must be taken to mean connection only ( 2 ) If अविनाभाव in

'Avinabhavam' must be taken to mean connection only. (2) If 'avinabhavam' in

the sense of व्याप्ति were the relation between the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थे,

the sense of pervasion were the relation between the primary sense and the implied sense,

the लक्ष्यार्थ viz मध्यस्थबालका would be established by inference only and

the implied sense, namely, 'children standing in between', would be established by inference only, and

लक्षणा would not be necessary at all.

implication would not be necessary at all.

Page 259

२०६

206

काव्यप्रकारः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 17

Note that in ‘अविनाभावोऽत्र सबन्धमात्रं’ सबन्धमात्रं really means साध्येतरसबन्धमात्रं For, ‘अभिधेया लक्षणोच्यते’ is the definition of what to Mammata is मुख्य लक्षणा

Note that in 'avinābhāvo'tra sabandhamātram' sabandhamātram really means sādhya-itara-sabandha-mātram. For, 'abhidheyā lakṣaṇocyate' is the definition of what to Mammata is mukhya lakṣaṇā

लक्ष्यमाणगुणे योगाद् इत्तेरित्थं तु गोणता।

lakṣyamāṇaguṇe yogād itteritthaṃ tu goṇatā

This is Kumarila's definition of gaṇī vṛtti which is the same as Sāṃmata's Gauṇa Lakṣaṇa

This is Kumaril's definition of गौणी वृत्ति which is the same as सममत's गौण लक्षणा This line has been quoted to support the third view regarding the operation of गौण लक्षणा It also furnishes a reason why the function is called गौणी

This is Kumarila's definition of gaunī vritti which is the same as Sammat's Gauṇa Lakṣaṇa. This line has been quoted to support the third view regarding the operation of Gauṇa Lakṣaṇa. It also furnishes a reason why the function is called gaunī

The line has been variously explained (1) लक्षणमाणो यो वाहक तस्या गुणै जाद्यमान्यादिमि योग सबन्ध वाच्यार्थस्य गाव इत्यर्थे तस्मात्। लक्षणमाणे वाहके ये जाद्यमान्यादयो गुणा सन्ति त एव वाच्ये गवि वर्त्तने अत सहशगुणाश्रयत्वात् साध्याद्‌वा इयं वृत्ति गौणी इति इष्यते।

The line has been variously explained (1) lakṣaṇamāṇo yo vāhaka tasyā guṇai jādyamānyādim i yōga sabandha vācyārthasya gāv ityarthe tasmāt. lakṣaṇamāṇe vāhake ye jādyamānyādayo guṇāh santi te eva vācye gavi vartante ataḥ sahaśagunāśrayatvāt sādhyaad vā iyam vritti gaunī iti iṣyate

Here yog, it will be seen, means the connection between वाच्यार्थ and लक्ष्यार्थगुणा Such connection exists, because the वाच्यार्थ possesses the same qualities as those of the लक्ष्यार्थ And it is this connection which makes the function गौणी This is the best interpretation

(2) लक्षणमाणगुणे वाहकगुणे इतताद् योगाद् वाच्यार्थलक्ष्यार्थसबन्धाद्।

(2) lakṣaṇamāṇaguṇe vāhaka-guṇe ittatād yogād vācyārtha-lakṣyārtha-sabandhād

Here yog means the connection is effected by वाहकगुणs, which are the same as गो गुणs As the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ are thus connected by means of common qualities, their function is known as गौणी

Here yog means the connec tion is effected by वाहीकगुणs, which are the same as गो गुणs As the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ are thus connected by means of common qualities, their function is known as गौणी It may be noted that the वाच्यार्थ and the लक्ष्यार्थ can as well be said to have been connected by गो गुणs, because गो गुणs and वाहीकगुणs are the same कुमारिल chooses वाहीकगुणs, perhaps because वाच्यार्थ is the object that is ultimately indicated

Here yog means the connection is effected by vāhīkaguṇs, which are the same as go guṇs. As the vācyārtha and the lakṣyārtha are thus connected by means of common qualities, their function is known as gaunī. It may be noted that the vācyārtha and the lakṣyārtha can as well be said to have been connected by go guṇs, because go guṇs and vāhīkaguṇs are the same. Kumarila chooses vāhīkaguṇs, perhaps because vācyārtha is the object that is ultimately indicated

(3) लक्ष्यमाणस्य वाच्यार्थस्य, गुणै गोवाहीकसाधारगै गुणै योगात् वाच्यार्थेन गवि सबन्धात्।

(3) lakṣyamāṇasya vācyārthasya, guṇai govāhīkasādhāraṇair guṇair yogāt vācyārthena gavi sabandhāt

This means because the connection between the लक्ष्यार्थ and the वाच्यार्थ arises from common qualities This way is unsatisfactory, because here लक्ष्यमाण is detached from गुणै and is construed with योगात, which is very far fetched

(4) लक्षणमाण साधारणतया हेत्स्यमाना ये गुणा गोवाहीकोभयगता जाद्यमान्यादि तै योगात् गोवाहीकसंबन्धात्।

(4) lakṣyamāṇa sādhāraṇatayā het syamānā ye guṇā govāhīkobhaya-gatā jādyamānyādi tai yogāt govāhīka-sambandhāt

This brings out the required sense more directly than the other three and would have been the best But the explanation of लक्षणमाण as साधारणतया हेत्स्यमान is not only unusual, but quite unacceptable in the present context When लक्षणा is the topic, लक्षणमाण must mean what is indicated It cannot be understood in the literal sense of लक्ष् लक्षणते लक्ष्यति - ते to observe and साधारणतया tacked on to it

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

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

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

Page 260

simple matter In the case of a गौण लक्षणा such as 'वाहीको गौः', गौः indicates गोसहशाज्ज्यादिमान्। पुग् 1 e, वाहीक owing to similarity between the two The two words thus convey the same sense (एकार्थ-मिधायक) and the सामानाधिकरण्य between them is justfiable Nobody is likely to have any misgiving about this Who the exponents of the first two views are and why their absurd opinions are mentioned here we cannot say

simple matter In the case of a secondary indication such as 'वाहीको गौः', गौः indicates something that possesses the qualities of a cow or the like. The word वाहीक, owing to similarity between the two, conveys the same sense as गौः (synonymous) and the apposition between them is justifiable. Nobody is likely to have any misgiving about this. Who the exponents of the first two views are and why their absurd opinions are mentioned here, we cannot say.

'आयुर्घेतम्' o.—Having dealt with गौण लक्षणा and the three views regarding its operation Mammata now proceeds to treat शुद्ध लक्षणा 'आयुर्घेतम् ( Ghee is life )' in an example of शुद्ध सारोप लक्षणा Here आयु in its primary sense of life is incompatible with its co ordination (सामानाधिकरण्यम्) with ghee Thus, there is मुख्यार्थबाध Between life i e long life, which is the primary sense of आयु, and दीर्घायुर्जनक वरतु i e ghee, which represents its secondary sense there is the relation of कार्यकारणभाव For, ghee is the cause of longevity or long life Thus, the वाच्यार्थे and लक्ष्यार्थे are कार्यकारणभावेन सबद्ध Hence, तद्योग is secured The प्रयोजन or purpose is to suggest that ghee conduces to long life in a manner different from or superior to other articles of food (अन्यवैलक्षण्येन = क्षीराद्यन्वयवैसादृश्येन) Thus, all the three conditions of लक्षणा are satisfied As the relation between the वाच्यार्थे ( life ) and the लक्ष्यार्थे (life producing article viz ghee)is कार्यकारणभाव, which is other than similarity (सादृश्यादन्यात्) the लक्षणा is शुद्ध

'आयुर्घेतम्' o.—Having dealt with secondary indication and the three views regarding its operation, Mammata now proceeds to treat pure indication 'आयुर्घेतम् (Ghee is life)' is an example of शुद्ध सारोप लक्षणा. Here आयु in its primary sense of life is incompatible with its coordination with ghee. Thus, there is an obstruction to the primary sense. Between life, i.e., long life, which is the primary sense of आयु, and दीर्घायुर्जनक वरतु, i.e., ghee, which represents its secondary sense, there is the relation of cause and effect. For, ghee is the cause of longevity or long life. Thus, the denoted meaning and the indicated meaning are connected by the relation of cause and effect. Hence, the connection is secured. The purpose is to suggest that ghee conduces to long life in a manner different from or superior to other articles of food. Thus, all the three conditions of indication are satisfied. As the relation between the denoted meaning (life) and the indicated meaning (life-producing article, viz., ghee) is cause and effect, which is other than similarity, the indication is pure.

'आयुरेवेदम्' is an example of शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा, Here the विषय viz धृतम् is swallowed by the विषयी viz आयु Hence the लक्षणा is साध्यवसान The प्रयोजन is to suggest that ghee conduces to long life invariably or without fail (अव्यभिचारेण=नियमेन ) Other things are the same as above

'आयुरेवेदम्' is an example of शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा. Here the object, viz., ghee, is swallowed by the subject, viz., life. Hence, the indication is साध्यवसान. The purpose is to suggest that ghee conduces to long life invariably or without fail. Other things are the same as above.

The example 'आयुर्घेतम् and आयुरेवेदम्' are open to the same objections that were urged against 'गौरवाहीक' and गौरयम्.' Thus, 'आयुर्घेतम्' should have been given as 'घृतमायुः' and instead of 'आयुरेवेदम्', the proper example would have been 'आयुर्विपति' As it is, इदम् must be understood as qualifying आयु and not as standing for धृतम् Otherwise the लक्षणा would be शुद्ध सारोप.

The examples 'आयुर्घेतम्' and 'आयुरेवेदम्' are open to the same objections that were urged against 'गौरवाहीक' and 'गौरयम्'. Thus, 'आयुर्घेतम्' should have been given as 'घृतमायुः' and instead of 'आयुरेवेदम्', the proper example would have been 'आयुर्विपति'. As it is, इदम् must be understood as qualifying आयु and not as standing for धृतम्. Otherwise, the indication would be शुद्ध सारोप.

एवमादौ o.—एवमादौ refers to the illustrations of the two divisions of लक्षणा given in the preceding sentence viz शुद्ध सारोप लक्षणा and शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा एवमादौ=एवमाद्यु उदाहरेणु कार्यकारणभावादि कार्यकारणसंनन्धादि लक्षण स्वरूप यस्य तत्, ईदृशा पूर्वं कारण ययो ते which possess a cause

एवमादौ o.—एवमादौ refers to the illustrations of the two divisions of लक्षणा given in the preceding sentence, viz., शुद्ध सारोप लक्षणा and शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा. एवमादौ means 'such as these' or 'and so on'. It refers to the examples that possess a cause-and-effect relationship or other similar relationships that are characteristic of लक्षणा.

Page 261

२०८

208

काव्यप्रकारा

Kavyaprakasha

[Page 17

whose nature is such a relation as that of effect and cause. In

this expression the word लक्षण is unnecessary and is better dropped.

पूर्वे means a cause, because a cause usually precedes its effect. What

is meant is that the basis of शुद्ध लक्षणा is a relation such as कार्यकारणभाव

i.e. a relation other than साहश्य. The word शादि includes relations

like तादथ्य, which are mentioned below.

अत्र गौणमेदयोः - In this paragraph Mammata is pointing out the

purposes of the four divisions of लक्षणा viz गौण सारोप, गौण साध्यवसान, शुद्ध

सारोप and शुद्ध साध्यवसान, which he has just illustrated. Mammata's

words clearly show that he is making a general statement as to what

constitutes the purposes in these four divisions and not merely

explaining the purposes that are found in the four illustrations that

have been given. But वामनाचार्य apparently holds that Mammata's

words here refer to the purposes of the four examples quoted and not

to the purposes in general of these four divisions. Accordingly, in

the four examples of शुद्ध लक्षणा given in the next paragraph he assigns a

different purpose to each case.

Our view in the matter is that 'मेदेऽपि तादृप्यप्रतीति' and 'सर्वेऽपि

अभेदावगमः' represent the purposes in general of गौण सारोप लक्षणा and

गौण साध्यवसान लक्षणा, whatever may be the illustrations thereof. Thus,

'मेदेऽपि तादृप्यप्रतीति' is the purpose in all examples of गौण सारोप लक्षणा

such as 'वाहीको गौः', 'मुखं चन्द्र' and मानवक अमि'. Similarly, 'सर्वेऽपि

अभेदावगमः' is the purpose common to all illustrations of गौण साध्यवसान

लक्षणा such as 'गरामाहयति', 'चन्द्र उदेति' and 'अभि कुष्णति'. As गौण लक्षणा

arises from only one relation viz. साहश्य. It is reasonable that it should

have one common purpose, whatever the illustrations might be.

But the case of शुद्धलक्षणा is different. It proceeds from numerous

relations. It is, therefore, proper that each particular example

thereof should have its own special purpose. Thus, अन्यवैलक्षण्येन

कार्यकारित्वम्' and 'स्व्यमिचारेण कार्यकारित्वम्' are purposes peculiar to

'आयुर्घेतमः' and 'आयुरेवेदमः', which respectively illustrate शुद्ध सारोप लक्षणा

and शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा.

Mammata does not, however, seem to hold this view. His words

as noted above, show that the purposes explained in this passage are

common to these divisions of गौण and शुद्ध लक्षणा and not peculiar to the

illustrations thereof. That examples of शुद्ध लक्षणा have each a purpose

of its own may perhaps be deduced from the word आदि in कार्यकारित्वादि.

But this would be too far fetched.

Page 262

अत्र

Here

stands generally for all the four divisions, being equal to एष-चतुष्टये भेदेऽपि मध्ये। Thus in 'गौरहीक', which illustrates गौण सारोप लक्षणा, the purpose is 'भेदेऽपि तादृप्रप्रतिपत्ति'

गुद्मेद्योऽस्तु॰

In 'आयुर्देतम्' the purpose is to suggest that ghee is the most nutritious of the articles of our diet and that it brings about longevity in a manner superior to that of any other article (अन्यवैलक्षण्येन)

In 'आयुरेवेदम्' the purpose is to convey that ghee leads to longevity invariably or without fail (अव्यभिचारेण) This unfailing effectiveness in producing longevity, which is the purpose in शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा, cannot be regarded as the प्रयोजन in शुद्ध सारोप लक्षणा, because here i e in शुद्ध सारोप we are conscious of the distinction between घृत and आयुष् and hence there is a possibility of our sometimes growing sceptical about the efficacy of ghee But in शुद्ध साध्यवसान no such possibility exists, because we realize ghee as being completely identical with life

काचित् तादर्थ्यीकू॰

We have been told that शुद्ध लक्षणा arises from a relation other than साहस्य

This साहस्येतरसंबन्ध may be of various kinds We have already seen threee such relations viz (1) संयोग or साहचर्य in कुन्ता प्रतिष्ठान्ति and यष्टि प्रतिष्ठान्ति, (2) सामीप्य in मल्लाया धाव and (3) कार्यकारणभाव in आयुर्देततम् In this paragraph Mammata gives us four more relations which give rise to शुद्ध लक्षणा

का १८

Page 263

२१०

210

काव्यप्रकाश.

Kavyaprakasha.

[ Page 19

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

Mammata's view about the commonness of purpose for all sāropa or

साध्यवसान शुद्ध लक्षणाs we may say that the प्रयोजन here is व्यभिचारेण इष्टप्रदत्वम्

sādhyavasāna śuddha lakṣaṇā we may say that the prayojana here is vyabhicāreṇa iṣṭapradatvam

It should be noted that उपचार in ‘कचित् तादथ्यादुपचार ’ possesses

It should be noted that upacāra in 'kacit tādathhyādupacāra' 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

When the word rājā indicates the sense of an officer of the king

it becomes an example of शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा once more Here the

it becomes an example of śuddha sādhyavasāna lakṣaṇā once more Here the

relation underlying the लक्षणा is स्वस्वामिभावसवन्ध 1 C मृत्यस्वामिभावसवन्ध

relation underlying the lakṣaṇā is svasvāmibhāvasambandha 1 C mṛtyusvāmibhāvasambandha

and the purpose is अनतिक्रमणीयत्वाल्लम्

and the purpose is anatikramaṇīyatvāllam

अग्रहस्त ( अप्रकट असौ हस्तस्थ इति कर्मधारय ) is another example of शुद्ध

agrahasta ( aprakāṭa asau hastastha iti karmadhāraya ) is another example of śuddha

साध्यवसान लक्षणा Now here between the लक्ष्यार्थ ( palm ) and the वाच्यार्थे

sādhyavasāna lakṣaṇā Now here between the lakṣyārtha ( palm ) and the vācyārthe

( hand ) the relation of अवयव-अवयवी भाव exists So अग्रहस्त is an

( hand ) the relation of avayava-avayavī bhāva exists So agrahasta is an

example of शुद्ध लक्षणा, which is based on अवयवावयविभाव The purpose

example of śuddha lakṣaṇā, which is based on avayavāvayavibhāva The purpose

here is to suggest बलादेक्यम्

here is to suggest balādakhyam

तात्कर्म्ये is another relation from which शुद्ध लक्षणा, arises तात्कर्म्ये

tātkarmye is another relation from which śuddha lakṣaṇā, arises tātkarmye

means the work of another तक्शा means a carpenter by caste When

means the work of another takṣā means a carpenter by caste When

a Brāhmaṇa does the work of a carpenter, he is designated तक्शा Here

a Brāhmaṇa does the work of a carpenter, he is designated takṣā Here

तक्शा, applied to and meaning a Brāhmaṇa, becomes an example of

takṣā, applied to and meaning a Brāhmaṇa, becomes an example of

शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा arising from तात्कर्म्ये The purpose is to suggest the

śuddha sādhyavasāna lakṣaṇā arising from tātkarmye The purpose is to suggest the

Brāhmaṇa's proficiency in the work of the carpenter ( तक्शकर्मनिपुणत्व

Brāhmaṇa's proficiency in the work of the carpenter ( takṣakarmānipuṇatva

प्रयोजनम् )

prayojanam )

लक्षणा तेन षड्विधा —In Kārikā 7 abc four varneties of लक्षणा are men-

lakṣaṇā tena ṣaḍvidhā —In Kārikā 7 abc four varieties of lakṣaṇā are mentioned

tioned viz गौण सारोप, गौण, साध्यवसान, शुद्ध सारोप and शुद्ध साध्यवसान There-

viz gauṇa sāropa, gauṇa, sādhyavasāna, śuddha sāropa and śuddha sādhyavasāna There-

fore ( तेन = उत्तचारुत्वि यत्प्रतिपादनेन ), along with the two divisions first

fore ( tena = uttacārutva i yattatpratipādanen ), along with the two divisions first

mentioned ( आदिमद्वयसह ) viz शुद्ध उपादान and शुद्ध लक्षण, लक्षणा is of six

mentioned ( ādimadvyasaha ) viz śuddha upādāna and śuddha lakṣaṇa, lakṣaṇā is of six

kinds Thus, the divisions of लक्षणा, according to Mammata, are as

kinds Thus, the divisions of lakṣaṇā, according to Mammata, are as

follows —

लक्षणा

lakṣaṇā

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

( 1 ) upādāna ( 2 ) lakṣaṇa ( 3 ) sāropa ( 4 ) sādhyavasāna ( 5 ) sāropa ( 6 ) sādhyavasāna

कुन्ता प्रविशान्ति गडाया घोष आयु:श्रितम आयुर्वेदम

kuntā praviśanti gaḍāya ghoṣa āyuḥśritam āyurvedam

आयु पिबति

āyu pibati

गौरीहिक गौरयम

gaurīhika gauryam

गामाहयति

gāmāhayati

Page 264

There is not the slightest doubt in our mind that the above represents the classification of लक्षणा intended by Mammata But commentators of the Kāvyaprakāśash, 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 viz 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 लक्षण 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 (आभेदाभ्या 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 (वेदयितुं च साध्यताम् सबन्धान्तरतस्तथा। गौणे शुद्धौ च विद्हेयौ) 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, आयुर्वेदतम् and आयु पिबति, which are given as illustrations of शुद्ध सारोप and शुद्ध साध्यवसान respectively, may as well be regarded as लक्षणलक्षणा, because in both these illustrations आयु completely gives up its मुख्यार्थे Similarly, गौरवोद्भिक

Page 265

२१२

काव्यप्रकाश.

[ Page 19

and गौरीहयति, which illustrate गौण सारोप and गौण साध्यवसान respectively,

can again be लक्षणलक्षणा also, because गौ completely sacrifices its primary sense for the sake of the secondary

Then again, it is pointed out that in 'गजाया घोष', which is given as an illustration of लक्षणलक्षणा,

there is an element of साध्यवसान लक्षणा also For, here the विषयी (गज्या)

swallows the विषय (तट). Similarly, in 'कुन्ता प्रतिशान्ति', which

illustrates उपादानलक्षणा, the विषयी (कुन्ता) swallows the विषय (कुन्तिन्

पुरुष). Thus, these two viz उपादान and लक्षण can also be looked upon

as साध्यवसान

Though Mammata's classification of लक्षणा is thus logically in

accurate, it is simple and useful from the practical point of view

Any example of लक्षणा that we may come across can be classed under

one or the other of his six divisions To give a logically accurate and

simple division is almost an impossibility

The following will be the classification according to प्रदीप —

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

कुन्ता कुन्तिन् कुन्ता प्रतिशान्ति आयुग्रुष्टम्

प्रविशान्ति गज्या तटे घोष गज्यां घोष

(5) सारोपा (6) साध्यवसाना

गौर्वाहीक गौरियम्

This classification is unsatisfactory for the following reasons

(1) The idea that उपादान and लक्षण are intermediate and not final

divisions of शुद्ध finds no support in the text of the Kāvyaprakāsa.

It seems to have been introduced by the Pradīpa in order to get rid of

the overlapping which is involved in what we regard as Mammata's

classification (2) Though this classification removes overlapping

from शुद्ध सारोप and शुद्ध साध्यवसान, still overlapping continues in गौण सारोप

and गौण साध्यवसान So this classification also is not logically accurate

(3) Expressions like 'कुन्ता कुन्तिन् प्रतिशान्ति' and 'गज्यां तटे घोष', which

illustrate शुद्ध उपादान सारोप and शुद्ध लक्षण सारोप in this classification, are

never used in the language (4) If this classification be supposed to

represent the one intended by Mammata we shall have to believe that

Page 266

Page 19] NOTES : Second Flash 213

Mammata forgot to give an illustration for one variety viz शुद्ध उपादान सारोप and gave to illustrations for another viz शुद्ध लक्षण साध्यवसान, 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 उपचार-मिश्रा as a primary division of लक्षणा along with शुद्धा, Nor can thus be deduced from statement उभयत्रापि चेयं शुद्धा उपचारेणामिश्रितत्वात्। For when this is read along with the Karika 7abc (मेदाविमौ-विज्ञेयौ) it is obvious that according to मम्मट शुद्ध and गौण are the primary divisions of लक्षणप्रकृति gives लक्षणशुद्धालक्षणा 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 classfication of लक्षणा, we shall have to suppose that the words गौणौ and शुद्धौ in the Karika ‘गौणौ शुद्धौ च विधेयौ’ are used in the sense of गौणोपचारमिश्रौ and शुद्धोपचारमिश्रौ Similarly, the word गौणमेदयो and शुद्धभेदयो will have to be understood as standing for गौणोपचारामिश्रभेदयो and शुद्धोपचारमिश्रभेदयो This appears to us to be highly improbable Mammata nowhere speaks of any divisions like गौणोपचारमिश्रा and शुद्धोपचारमिश्रा

( 4 ) In the classfication of Mukulabhatta the division of उपचार into शुद्ध and गौण plays an important part. It is the princible 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 subscnbing to Mukulabhatta's classfication of लक्षणा It is true, as we have already noted, that Mammata uses the word उपचार in its general

Page 267

२९८

298

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ Page 19

as well as in its restricted sense. But this cannot be supposed to imply that he wanted to divide उपचार into शुद्ध and गौण in the manner of Mukulabhatta If he had intended to do so, he would have specifically made that division and not left it to be understood by implication

( 5 ) The word अन्य in ‘सारोपान्या तु यत्कौ’ ( Kārika 6 a ) supposed to refer to उपचारमिश्रा ) and the particle तु to imply that उपचारमिश्रा alone is सारोपा, but not शुद्धा This supposition is not correct, उपचारमिश्रा has not been mentioned anywhere before, neither in Kārikā 5 nor in Vrtti thereon therefore, अन्य cannot refere to it अन्य just means another variety, different from the two mentioned in the preceding Kārikā तु suggests that a new topic viz सारोप लक्षणा is commenced. Mammata uses तु in the sense of such suggestion several times in the tenth Ullasa

( 6 ) Mammata apparently did not hold Mukulabhatta in very great esteem. We have already seen that he controverts Mukulabhatta's views in two places In his treatment of लक्षणा he does not seem to follow Mukula. As a matter of fact Mukula himself is not quite consistent in his classification of लक्षणा In his Kārikās he begins by dividing लक्षणा in two (‘शुद्धोपचारमिश्रलात लक्षणा द्विविधा मता’) viz शुद्धा and उपचारमिश्रा But in his Vritti on p 9 he says that लक्षणा is primarly three fold (‘एषा च लक्षणा त्रिस्कन्या’) The classification given above is according to his Kārikās

Viśvanātha in his Sahityadarpana gives a scientifically accurate classification of लक्षणा which, according to him, is divided into 80 varieties These divisions are more theoretical than practical and many of them refer to expressions that are not current in the language

The classificafication of लक्षणा as given by Jagannātha in his Rasa-gangadhara ( pp 145 ff ) is as follows

लक्षणा

Lakṣaṇā

प्रयोजनवती

Prayojanavati

शुद्धा

Śuddhā

गौणी

Gauṇī

अनुकूल

Anukūla

प्रतिकूल

Pratikūla

लावण्यम्

Lāvaṇyam

वाच्यार्थ = कुलानुगत

Vācyārtha = Kulānugata

लक्ष्यार्थ = अनुपुण

Lakṣyārtha = Anupuṇa

वाच्यार्थ = कुलप्रतीप

Vācyārtha = Kula-pratīpa

लक्ष्यार्थ = प्रतीपुण

Lakṣyārtha = Pratīpuṇa

वाच्यार्थ = रसणस्य भाव

Vācyārtha = Rasaṇasya Bhāva

लक्ष्यार्थ = सौन्दर्य

Lakṣyārtha = Saundarya

Salt-ness

सारोपा

Sāropā

साध्यवसाना

Sādhyavasānā

e g मुखे चन्द्र

e.g. Mukhe Chandra

e g पुरेडसिमन् सौधशिखरे चन्द्रराजी विराजते

e.g. Pureḍasiman Saudhaśikhare Candrarājī Virajate

अजहस्वार्थी (लक्षण)

Ajahatsvārthī (Lakṣaṇa)

अजहस्वार्थी (उपादान)

Ajahatsvārthī (Upādāna)

सारोपा साध्यवसाना

Sāropā Sādhyavasānā

Page 268

It will be seen from above that Jagannātha's six divisions of प्रयोजनवती are the same as Mammata's only he calls लक्षणलक्षणा and उपादानलक्षणा 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 (व्यक्षणव्यापारगम्यमेव ) 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 रूढि or हृढ All this may be represented as follows —

लक्षणा

(1) व्यञ्ग्यरहिता [रूढौ आश्रिता] e g कमेण कुशल कलिङ्ग साहसिक (2) गूढव्यङ्ग्या e g मुग्धं विकसितस्मितम् etc (3) अगूढव्यङ्ग्या e g श्रीपरिणयात् 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 व्यङ्ग्य This means it is an example of लक्षणामूलव्यङ्ग्या (p 24) Thus, here we have a प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा and the प्रयोजन thereof is such as can be understood only by a sahrdaya 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 —

Page 269

लाक्षणिक शब्द

Indicative word

मुख्यार्थबाध

Obstruction to the primary meaning

लक्ष्यार्थ

Indicated meaning

मुख्यार्थसंबन्ध

Relation to the primary meaning

गूढं व्यङ्ग्य प्रयोजनम्

Hidden suggested purpose

विकसित

Developed

विकासस्य पुष्पघनेस्मा बाध | कार्यकारणभाव | विकास प्रसारणस्य | सौरभम्

वशित

Controlled

वशीकरणस्य चेतनधर्मस्य प्रेक्षिते बाध | कारणम् कार्यकारणभाव | वशीकरण स्वाधी | स्वेच्छया स्वाधीन The lady can in dulge in a crooked glance exactly when it pleases her

समुच्छलित

Moved

समुच्छलनस्य ऊर्ध्वगमनस्य मृतधर्मस्य अमूर्ते वि भ्रमे बाध | नत्वस्य कारणम् कार्यकारणभाव | समुच्छलित प्रादुर्भावस्य कारणम् | बाहुल्यं साहजिकत्व वा Her gait showed profuse or natural sportive movements

अपास्त

Removed

मुदुलित

Delighted

मुदुलितस्य स्तनयोबाध | लतावत् किञ्चिदुद्रततल्त च विकसीता वनवत् | साधारण्यम् | अलङ्गनयोग्यत्व कठि नत्व वा

उद्दुर

Uddur

उद्घृतधुरावत्चस्य चेतधर्मस्य जघने बाध | सिद्ध य भारसहन क्षमतात् | समाने सामर्थ्यम् | रतियोगयत्वम्

उद्रम

Uddram

उद्रमस्य मृतधर्मस्य अमूर्ते यौ बाध | उदरमने प्रादुर्भावस्य कारणम् | कार्यकारणभाव | आकर्षितत्वम्

मोदते

Rejoices

मोदस्य चेतनधर्मस्य यौवनोद्भवे बाध | सातिशय प्रस्रति मोदस्य धर्मे | घानन्दजनकत्वम्

Stanza 5— This stanza describes what a miracle wealth can work manners of the wise This proposition is illustrated by an example in the second half Youth alone is enough to make girls indulge in amorous movements Nothing else is necessary

Here उपदिशाति is a लाक्षणिक शब्द Its primary sense is ‘impats instruction by the use of approprate words,’ Thls is a चेतनधर्मे andis inapplicable to the अचेतन यौवनमद So उपदिशाति indicates the sense आविष्करोति ( manifests, exhibits ) The संबन्ध is कार्यकारणभाव The प्रयोजन according to मम्मट is ‘learning without any effort’ विश्वनाथ thinks that the purpose here is आविष्कारातिशय

Page 270

तत्र व्यपारो व्यञ्जनात्मक्

With this Mammata commences the treatment of व्यञ्जना

In an indicative word there exists a function (व्यापार) of the nature of suggestion (व्यञनात्मक्) e g in गङ्गायाम् we obtain, in addition to वाच्यार्थ (प्रवाह) and लक्ष्यार्थ (तट), व्यङ्ग्यार्थ

Page 271

२१८

218

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 21

( शीतत्पपावनत्वादि ) and Mammata 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 व्यङ्गच्याथ or प्रयोजन of the लक्षणा is called लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना.

( Shitatvapavanatvadi ) and Mammata 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 vyaṅgyārtha or prayojana of the lakṣaṇā is called lakṣaṇāmūla vyaṅjanā.

So व्यञ्जनात्मक = लक्षणामूलव्यञ्जनात्मक

So vyaṅjanātmaka = lakṣaṇāmūlavyaṅjanātmaka

It will thus be seen that Mammata commences his treatment of व्यञ्जना with लक्षणामूल व्यक्षणा He does not give us a general definition of व्यक्षणा

It will thus be seen that Mammata commences his treatment of vyaṅjanā with lakṣaṇāmūla vyākhyānā He does not give us a general definition of vyākhyānā

This yields the following classification of व्यञ्जना —

This yields the following classification of vyaṅjanā —

व्यञ्जना

Vyaṅjanā

शब्दमूला शाब्दी वा अर्थमूला

Śabdamūla śābdī vā arthamūla

( २ ) अभिधामूलो भवदात्मनो दुरोधिरोहतो Stanza 7

( 2 ) Abhidhāmūlo bhavadātmanaḥ durodhirōhatō Stanza 7

(1) लक्षणामूला गङ्गाया घोष

(1) Lakṣaṇāmūlā gaṅgāyā ghōṣa

वाच्यार्थेमूला मातङ्गहोपकरणम् Stanza 1

Vācyārthemulā mātaṅgahōpakaraṇam Stanza 1

(3) अर्थमूला अर्थी वा प्रकृतिप्रत्ययादिमूला

(3) Arthamūla arthī vā prakṛtipattyayādimūla

लक्ष्यार्थमूला साधयन्ती सखी Stanza 2

Lakṣyārthamūla sādhayanti sakhi Stanza 2

व्यङ्गच्यार्थमूला पश्य निश्श्वल Stanza 3

Vyaṅgyārthamūla paśya niśśvala Stanza 3

Out of these divisions of व्यञ्जना Mammata deals with लक्षणामूला and अभिधामूला in this Ullāsa and अर्थमूला in the third Ullāsa We already have had illustrations of आर्थी व्यञ्जना under Kārikā 2ab ‘ सर्वेषा प्रायशोऽर्थानां व्यञकत्वमपीष्यते ’ The Pradīpa says that Mammata treats लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना first for two reasons viz ( 1 ) लक्षणा is the matter in hand, because Mammata 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 Mammata 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

Out of these divisions of vyaṅjanā Mammata deals with lakṣaṇāmūlā and abhidhāmūlā in this Ullāsa and arthamūlā in the third Ullāsa We already have had illustrations of ārthī vyaṅjanā under Kārikā 2ab ‘sarveṣāṃ prāyaśo'rthānāṃ vyaṅjakatvamapīṣyate’ The Pradīpa says that Mammata treats lakṣaṇāmūla vyaṅjanā first for two reasons viz ( 1 ) lakṣaṇā is the matter in hand, because Mammata has been dealing with it all the while So lakṣaṇāmūla vyaṅjanā would naturally occur to him first ( 2 ) lakṣaṇāmūla vyaṅjanā is well known, more so than the other viz abhidhāmūla A third reason may also be suggested ( 3 ) All this while Mammata has been discussing prayojanavatī lakṣaṇā That discussion would not be complete unless we know how the prayojana is conveyed to us This is done by lakṣaṇāmūla vyaṅjanā Therefore, this vyaṅjanā 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 ( सङ्केतं आाश्रीयते ) 1 e when we use a लक्षणलक शब्द, in as गङ्गाया घोष,’ we do so with the desire

Kārikā 9 cd and 10 ab—This gives us the definition of lakṣaṇāmūla vyaṅjanā The definition is given in a somewhat fighting mood with the object of proving the necessity of vyaṅjanā for understanding the purpose of a lakṣaṇā When we resort to lakṣaṇā ( saṅketaṃ āśrīyate ) 1 e when we use a lakṣaṇalaka śabda, in as gaṅgāyā ghōṣa,’ we do so with the desire

Page 272

नामिधा समयाभावात्

Because of the absence of convention

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.

हेतुभावात् न लक्षणा

The लक्षणा cannot convey the प्रयोजन

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 धर्मा. 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 (हेतुभावात् = हेतो: अभावात्) in the present case for resorting to a second लक्षणा.

The word हेतु in हेतुभावात् stands for the three causes viz मुख्यार्थबाध तयोग and रूढिप्रयोजनान्यतरत्

The word हेतु in हेतुभावात् stands for the three causes viz मुख्यार्थबाध, तयोग, and रूढिप्रयोजनान्यतरत्

Kārikā 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

Kārikā 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 purpose of the first

मुख्यार्थबाध — In the example 'गङ्गायां घोष:' at the stage where we have arrived viz 'गङ्गातटे घोष:', the sense गङ्गातट is not the मुख्यार्थ (लक्ष्य तटरूपं न मुख्यं न गङ्गाशब्दस्य मुख्यार्थी)

Obstruction of the primary sense — In the example 'गङ्गायां घोष:', at the stage where we have arrived viz 'गङ्गातटे घोष:', the sense गङ्गातट is not the primary sense (the indicated bank is not the primary sense, nor is it the primary meaning of the word गङ्गा)

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 टट is the मुख्यार्थ, we find that it is not बाधित or incompatible in the present case viz in गङ्गातटे घोष:. Therefore, the first condition मुख्यार्थबाध is not fulfilled.

तद्योग — This means the connection of the मुख्यार्थ with the लक्ष्यार्थ

Connection — This means the connection of the primary sense with the indicated sense

Page 273

रूढिप्रयोजनान्यतरत्

It cannot be said that there is any usage or custom ( रूढि ) in the language, sanctioning the use of the word तट to indicate the sense पावनत्वादि Similarly, no second प्रयोजन can be thought of to justify the use of तट to indicate the first प्रयोजन viz पावनत्वादि Thus, the third condition also is not satisfied

Therefore, it is proved that a second लक्षणा cannot be admitted to indicate the purpose of the लक्षणा in 'गङ्गाया घोष'

Therefore since the words गङ्गाया घोष convey the प्रयोजन viz पावनत्वादि and since neither अभिधा nor लक्षणा can convey it, the third function व्यञ्जना must be admitted

न च गति

means the word गङ्गा is not powerless or unable to convey the प्रयोजन पावनत्वादि The indicative word viz गङ्गा is not स्वलक्ष्यद्रुति i e it does convey the purpose And the suggestion from this statement is that the purpose is conveyed by the function व्यञ्जना

वृत्ति नापि असमर्थे

explains the वृत्ति न च शब्दे स्वलक्ष्यद्रुति It means that we resort to लक्षणा because ordinarily the word गङ्गा is not able to convey the sense of तट But it does convey the प्रयोजन by means of व्यञ्जना and hence लक्षणा is not necessary

Commentators notice the reading समर्थे for असमर्थे What the vritti means with this reading is that the word गङ्गा is not able to i e does not convey the purpose in the manner in which it conveys the bank. It conveys the bank with the help of मुख्यार्थबाधादि But it conveys the purpose without such help Consequently, resort to लक्षणा is not necessary

The reading असमर्थे is better, because it directly brings out the idea that the word गङ्गा conveys the purpose and is an exact paraphrase of स्वलक्ष्यद्रुति

एवमभ्यनवस्था कारिणी

This Kārikā explains the undesirable result that would follow if inspite of what has been said above regarding the impossibility of admitting लक्षणा to indicate the purpose पावनत्वादि, we were to suppose that the purpose is indicated by a लक्षणा i e by a second लक्षणा एवमपि means, as the Vritti paraphrases, प्रयोजने चेत् लक्ष्यते

ल e पावनत्वादि प्रयोजने द्वितीयया लक्षणया लक्ष्यते चेत्

What the Kārikā and the Vritti on it means is that if for the sake of argument we admit that लक्षणा is possible to indicate the purpose, this will give rise to a fault of infinity For the second लक्षणा would need a

Page 274

ननु पावनत्वादि व्यजनन-

Now, regarding the manifestation of purity etc.

This embodies the view of the विशिष्टलक्षणावादिन्

He says that it is not necessary to resort to a second लक्षणा in order to understand the purpose of the first in ‘गङ्गाया घोष’ because this first लक्षणा indicates the bank as qualified by the properties, holiness etc.

Hence व्यञ्जना also is not needed. Thus, according to the विशिष्ट लक्षणावादिन् the लिङ्ग्यार्थ in ‘गङ्गाया घोष’ is पावनत्वादियुक्ततट.

But then the question is ‘What is the प्रयोजन in this लक्षणा ?’ पावनत्वादि, which up to now was regarded as the प्रयोजन is included in the लिङ्ग्यार्थ.

The answer is that the प्रयोजन of the लक्षणा in ‘गङ्गाया घोष’ is the apprehension (प्रतिपत्ति) of the sense which is additional (अधिकृ) to that which we obtain from ‘गङ्गायास्तटे घोष’.

This additional sense is पावनत्वादि.

The apprehension of that i e पावनत्वादिप्रतिपत्ति is thus the प्रयोजन of the लक्षणा in ‘गङ्गाया घोष’, according to the विशिष्टलक्षणावादिन्.

प्रयोजनेन युज्यते-

It is associated with a purpose.

This contains Mammata's reply to the view of the विशिष्टलक्षणावादिन्.

This contains Mammata's reply to the view of the विशिष्टलक्षणावादिन्. A लिङ्ग्यार्थ or an indicated sense (लक्षणीयम्), such as तट, qualified (सहित = विशिष्ट) by the purpose such as the properties, holiness and others (प्रयोजनेन = पावनत्वादिना), is not proper, that is, it is not proper to hold that a लक्षणा indicates a sense (लक्षणीयम्) qualified by the purpose.

This amounts to saying that it is not proper to regard पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतट as the लिङ्ग्यार्थ.

Hence, it follows that विशिष्टलक्षणा is not proper.

We must here note that the word प्रयोजन has been used in two senses.

In the passage ‘ननु विशिष्टे लक्षणा’, which explains the view

Page 275

of the विशिष्टलक्षणवादिन्, the purpose is declared to be अधिकस्य अर्थस्य [पावनत्वादि] प्रतिपत्ते i e पावनत्वादिप्रतिपत्ति

of the Vishishtalakshanavadin, the purpose is declared to be understanding of the additional meaning [such as purifying quality] i.e. understanding of purifying quality

On the other hand in Mammata's लक्षणीयम न गृह्यते, प्रयोजन means पावनत्वादि These two senses 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 ‘ज्ञातस्य विषयो ह्यान्य फलमन्यदुदाहतम्’ yields.

On the other hand, in Mammata's work, the term ' प्रयोजन ' (purpose) refers to ' पावनत्वादि ' (purifying quality, etc.). These two senses of ' प्रयोजन ' must be further explained in somewhat technical terms to enable the student to accurately grasp the two interpretations presented in Kārikā 11 ab, ' ज्ञातस्य विषयो ह्यान्य फलमन्यदुदाहतम् ' (the known subject has a different fruit, which is another example).

The प्रयोजन पावनत्वादिप्रतिपत्ति is लक्ष्यार्थज्ञानजन्य (लक्ष्यार्थस्य पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतत्स्य ज्ञानेज्जन्या) 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 लक्ष्यार्थ viz पावनत्वादिविशिष्ट, we obtain the cognition of पावनत्वादि Thus, the प्रयोजन पावनत्वादिप्रतिपत्ति is लक्ष्यार्थज्ञानजन्य, which is abbreviated into ज्ञानजन्य or जन्य

The purpose of understanding the purifying quality is derived from the knowledge of the indicated meaning (i.e., the bank qualified by properties such as holiness). When we know the indicated meaning, viz., the bank qualified by purifying quality, we obtain the cognition of purifying quality. Thus, the purpose of understanding the purifying quality is derived from the knowledge of the indicated meaning, which is abbreviated as 'knowledge-derived' or 'derived'.

On the other hand the प्रयोजन पावनत्वादि is लक्ष्यार्थज्ञानजन्यप्रतितिविषय (लक्ष्यार्थज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतितत्स्या विषय:, अर्थात् पावनत्वादिप्रतीति: तत्स्या विषय:, which is produced by the knowledge of the indicated sense (लक्ष्यार्थस्य पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतत्स्य ज्ञानेज्जन्या) When we know the लक्ष्यार्थ 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 लक्ष्यार्थज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय, which is shortened into ज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय or जन्यप्रतीतिविषय or ज्ञाप्य

On the other hand, the purpose ' पावनत्वादि ' (purifying quality, etc.) is the content of the cognition derived from the knowledge of the indicated meaning (i.e., the bank qualified by properties such as holiness). When we know the indicated meaning, viz., the bank qualified by these properties, we get the cognition of those properties. The object of this cognition is naturally those properties themselves. So, the purpose ' पावनत्वादि ' is the content of the cognition derived from the knowledge of the indicated meaning, which is abbreviated as 'content of knowledge-derived cognition' or 'object of derived cognition' or 'that which is to be known'.

This line contains Mammata's reason why विशिष्टलक्षणा cannot be admitted It enunciates a general rule or proposition and thereby it is suggested that if विशिष्टलक्षणा were accepted, this proposition would be violated Therefore, विशिष्टलक्षणा should not be admitted

This line contains Mammata's reason why विशिष्टलक्षणा (specific indication) cannot be accepted. It enunciates a general rule or proposition, and thereby it is suggested that if विशिष्टलक्षणा were accepted, this proposition would be violated. Therefore, विशिष्टलक्षणा should not be admitted.

Before we proceed to see what this general proposition is, certain other matters must be explained

Before we proceed to examine what this general proposition is, certain other matters must be explained.

ज्ञान in the Kārikā stands for प्रमाण So when ज्ञातस्य 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

The term ' ज्ञान ' in the Kārikā stands for ' प्रमाण ' (means of knowledge). So, when ' ज्ञातस्य ' is paraphrased by ' प्रत्यक्षादि ' (direct perception, etc.), ' आदि ' (etc.) refers to ' अनुमान ' (inference), ' उपमान ' (comparison), and ' शब्द ' (verbal testimony). We are not concerned here with ' प्रत्यक्ष ' (direct perception), ' अनुमान ' (inference), and ' उपमान ' (comparison), but only with ' शब्द ' (verbal testimony). However, Mammata illustrates the general proposition, which is applicable to all four ' प्रमाणs ' (means of knowledge), by citing an example of ' प्रत्यक्ष ' (direct perception).

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 ज्ञाता or प्रकटता, Which

When we cognize a blue thing, such as a ' नीलकमल ' (blue lotus), we obtain ' नीलवस्तुज्ञान ' (knowledge of a blue object). The fruit of this cognition can be viewed from two perspectives: objective and subjective. Objectively, the fruit of the cognition is that the blue thing that we have cognized has attained ' ज्ञातता ' (known-ness) or ' प्रकटता ' (manifestness). It now differs from other blue things because, while it is known, the others are not ' ज्ञाता ' (known) or ' प्रकटता ' (manifest).

Page 276

is thus produced in a thing, when it is known, is a वस्तुधर्मे This is the view of भामतीमास्करs or the followers of Kumārilabhatta

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 Mammata designates this consciousness by the term संवित्ति or self consciousness संवित्ति is an आत्मधर्मे This is the view of प्राभाकरमीमासकs or the followers of Prabhākarabhatta and of the Naiyāyikas

In ‘अहं नील जानामि’ ज्ञानविषय is नीलवस्तु and ज्ञानफल is either प्रकटता or संवित्ति Here it will be seen that ज्ञानविषय is different from ज्ञानफल Then again, it may also be said that here विषय and फल are both different from ज्ञान अथवा ज्ञानविषयोभयेंद ज्ञानफलयोरक्ष भेद प्रतियते। These are really the two senses which the line under explanation yields

We can now proceed to see what general propositions ‘ज्ञानस्य हेतुमत्’ 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 ज्ञानविषय =नीलवस्तु } In the example ज्ञानफलम् = प्रकटता (or ज्ञाता) or संवित्ति } नीलमह जानामि

As नीलवस्तु is different from प्रकटता or संवित्ति, the general proposition, which establishes ज्ञानविषय-ज्ञानफलयोभेद् , is found true in the case of ‘नीलमह जानामि’

Applying the general proposition to the present case of विशिष्टलक्षणा, where we first understand प्रयोजन in the sense in which it occurs in Kārikā ‘प्रयोजनेन सहितम्’ i e in the sense of जन्यप्रतीतिविषय or ज्ञाप्य viz पावनत्वादि, we get the following —

ज्ञानम्=पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतज्ज्ञानम् ज्ञानविषय =पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतट ज्ञानफलम्=पावनत्वादि

Here we find that ज्ञानविषय and ज्ञानफल are not different. For, ज्ञान विषय viz पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतट includes ज्ञानफल viz पावनत्वादि in accordance with the general rule that the विशिष्ट includes the विशेषण Thus as the general proposition ‘ज्ञानविषयात् ज्ञानफलमन्यत्’ 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

Page 277

पावनत्वादि

Pavanatvādi

e ज्ञानफल is understood to be ज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय or ज्ञाप्य In his Vṛtti on this line Mammata points out that the फल is प्रकटता or सवित्ति This फल is not ज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय, but ज्ञानजन्य For, both प्रकटता and सवित्ति are produced by नीलवस्तुज्ञान This means that फल in 'ज्ञानेस्य विषयो ह्यन्य फलमन्यदुदाहतम् ' is intended by Mammata to be taken as ज्ञाप्य and not as ज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय पावनत्वादि is not ज्ञाप्य because the properties are not produced by पावनत्वादिविशिष्टटज्ञान It is ज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय, because it is the object of प्रतीति viz पावनत्वादि प्रतीति, Which is produced by ज्ञान viz पावनत्वादिविशिष्टटज्ञान The ज्ञानजन्य प्रयोजन or फल in this case is पावनत्वा दि प्रतिपत्ति or पावनत्वादिज्ञानम्, because we obtain the knowledge पावनत्वादि from the ज्ञान i e, from पावनत्वादिविशिष्टटज्ञान प्रयोजन in this sense occurs in 'अधिकस्य अर्थस्य प्रतिपत्तौश् प्रयोजनम् ' With this ज्ञानजन्य फल we get the following —

ज्ञानम् = पावनत्वादिविशिष्टटज्ञानम्

Jñānam = Pāvanatvādi-viśiṣṭa-jñānam

ज्ञानविषय = पावनत्वादिविशिष्टटट

Jñāna-viṣaya = Pāvanatvādi-viśiṣṭa

Here we find that ज्ञानविषय and ज्ञानफल are different For, while ज्ञानविषय is a द्रव्य or substance, ज्ञानफल is ज्ञान, which is a गुण So the general proposition ज्ञानविषयात् ज्ञानफलमन्यत् is not violated and hence there is no objection to admit विशेषलक्षणा

The answer from Mammata —If taking your cue from the Vṛtti line in a different way

( 2 ) We now say that the general proposition which the line lays down is

(2) We now say that the general proposition which the line lays down is

ज्ञानात् विषय अन्य , ज्ञात् फलेँ च अन्यत्

Jñānāt viṣaya anya, jñāt falam ca anyat

What is thus established here is the distinction of विषय from ज्ञान (ज्ञानविषयोभेद ) and the distinction of फल from ज्ञान ( ज्ञानफलयोभेद ) This is the second interpretation of the line under discussion This double distinction is found true in the case of 'नीलम्ह ज्ञानामि ' thus—

ज्ञानम् = नीलज्ञानम्

Jñānam = Nīla-jñānam

विषय = नीलम्

Viṣaya = Nīlam

Here as नीलम् ( विषय ) and प्रकटता or सवित्ति (फलम् ) are different from नीलज्ञानम्, the general proposition which lays down ज्ञानविषयोभेद and ज्ञानफलयोभेद is satisfied

फलम् = प्रकटता or सवित्ति

Falam = Prakaṭatā or Savitti

Now according to the second interpretation of फल the present case yields the following —

Page 278

ज्ञानम् = पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतरतज्ञानम्

Knowledge is characterized by purity and other qualities.

विषय = पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतट

The subject is characterized by purity and other qualities.

फलम् = पावन ज्ञानादिज्ञानम्

The result is knowledge of purity and other qualities.

Here we note that while विषय is differnt from ज्ञान, फल is not For, फल ( पावनत्वादिज्ञानम् ) is really inciuded in ज्ञान (पावनत्वादिविशिष्टतरज्ञानम्), according to the rule which says tnat विशेषज्ञान (e g दण्डज्ञान ) Therefore, that part of the general propostion which says that there should be ज्ञानफलयोर्भेद is violated in विशिष्टलक्षणा Consequently, विशिष्टलक्षणा cannot be accepted

Here we note that while the subject is different from knowledge, the result is not. For, the result (knowledge of purity and other qualities) is really included in knowledge (knowledge characterized by purity and other qualities), according to the rule which says that specific knowledge (e.g. knowledge of a stick) includes knowledge of the general property. Therefore, that part of the general proposition which says that there should be a distinction between knowledge and its result is violated in the case of specific characterization. Consequently, specific characterization cannot be accepted.

It will thus be seen that the line ‘ ज्ञानस्य विषयो हान्य फलमन्यद्वदाहतम् ’ 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 Thus 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

It will thus be seen that the line 'Knowledge has a different subject and a different result' yields two interpretations, which have reference to the two senses in which Mammata uses the word 'purpose'. Both interpretations serve to show in their respective spheres that specific characterization 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 'purpose' in two different senses. That he should have thus used 'purpose' 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 लक्षणार्थज्ञानजन्य or ज्ञानजन्य or जन्य occurs in प्रयोजनाच्च’ p 16 (2) ‘अत्र गौणभेदयोभेदेऽपि तादृप्रतीति सर्वैैयभेदवाक्यम््श प्रयोजनम्’ p 21 (3) ‘अभिकस्य अर्थस्य प्रतिपलित्स्र प्रयोजनम्’ p 26 (4) ‘फल तु प्रकटतता सविचार्वा’ p 26

Such loose use of 'purpose' or 'result' is found in other places also. Thus, 'purpose' or 'result' in the sense of knowledge generated by the definition or knowledge generated or generated occurs in 'from the purpose' p. 16, (2) 'here, even if there is a distinction between the secondary and primary, the understanding is the same, hence the sentence is a distinction' p. 21, (3) 'the purpose of the desired meaning is to be understood' p. 26, (4) 'the result is either manifest or considered' p. 26.

प्रयोजन ur फल in the sense of ज्ञानजन्यप्रतीतिविषय or जन्यप्रतीतिविषय or ज्ञाप्य अन्यवैलक्षण्येन अव्यभिचारेण च कार्यकारित्वादि’ p 22 (4) ‘फले हि सक्केरागम्येऽन्ट p 24 (5) ‘प्रयोजनप्रतिपाद-विषया च न लक्षणया गम्येत्प्रतीति’ p 24 (6) ‘यत्र फलं न वा’ p 25 (7) ‘तदा प्रयोजन लक्ष्येत’ p 25 (8) ‘नापि प्रयोजने लक्ष्ये निश्चित्त प्रयोजनम् । नापि गतत्द्वार्द्धमिति’ p 25 (9) ‘एवम्प्रतीति प्रयोजनं चेल्लक्ष्यते’ p 26 (10) ‘प्रयोजनेन सहिते लक्षणीय न युज्यते’ p 26

Purpose or result in the sense of the object of knowledge-generated understanding or generated understanding or to be known occurs in (1) 'with distinction from others and without deviation, it is the cause of the effect' p. 22, (4) 'if the result is not understood through inference' p. 24, (5) 'the subject is not understood through characterization' p. 24, (6) 'where there is no result' p. 25, (7) 'then the purpose is characterized' p. 25, (8) 'nor is the purpose certain when the purpose is characterized' p. 25, (9) 'such understanding is the purpose, if it is characterized' p. 26, (10) 'it is not proper to characterize along with the purpose' p. 26.

विशेषा स्फुटु लक्षिते — सु = व्यपारान्तरेरण गम्या स्फुट लक्षिते = लक्षणया बोधिते अर्थे=लक्ष्यार्थे, parphrased in the Vrtti by तटादौ What is meant is that the properties, which are cognized in the लक्षणार्थ, should be understood by a separate function viz व्यञ्जना

When the special features are clearly understood - 'sphuṭa' means understood through the function of 'vyāpāra', 'lakṣite' means understood through characterization, 'arthe' means in the sense of 'lakṣyārtha', paraphrased in the Vrtti by 'taṭādau'. What is meant is that the properties, which are cognized in the 'lakṣyārtha', should be understood by a separate function, viz. 'vyञ्जना'.

Page 279

The वृत्ति only tells us that as the properties like पावनत्वादय cannot be understood by अभिधा and लक्षणा similarly they cannot be apprehended by तात्पर्ये also No separate proof is needed for this for तात्पर्ये merely connects together the senses conveyed by other वृत्तिस This mention of तात्पर्ये indicates that मम्मट admits it as a separate function. व्यञ्जना, ध्वननम् and धोतनम् are the terms by which व्यञ्जना is known The usual term by which व्यञ्जना is referred to by मम्मट is व्यञनम्

The vritti only tells us that as the properties like pāvanatvādaya cannot be understood by abhidhā and lakṣaṇā similarly they cannot be apprehended by tātparye also. No separate proof is needed for this, for tātparye merely connects together the senses conveyed by other vrittis. This mention of tātparye indicates that Mammata admits it as a separate function. Vyañjanā, dhvananam, and dhōtanam are the terms by which vyañjanā is known. The usual term by which vyañjanā is referred to by Mammata is vyañjanam.

लक्षणामूलं व्यञ्जकत्वम्

Lakṣaṇāmūlaṃ vyañjakatvam

means practically लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना or Suggestion based on Indication लक्षणा here means प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा For, only such लक्षणा has a purpose for understanding which व्यञ्जना is resorted to उद्योत points out that लक्षणामूलत्वम् means लक्षणान्वयव्यतिरेकानुविधायित्वम् 1 e लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना follows the presence and absence of [ प्रयोजनवती ] लक्षणा Wherever प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा is present, लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना is also present Wherever it is absent, लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना is also absent.

It should be noted that the expression अभिधामूल in अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना does not possess this particular sense i e अभिधामूल does not here mean अभिधान्वयव्यतिरेकानुविधायित्वम् For, we know that अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना is not present wherever अभिधा is present अभिधा is present in every वाचक word But every वाचक word is not व्यञ्जक अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना occurs under certain special circumstances which are mentioned in Kārika 14 This व्यञ्जना is, however, called अभिधामूल for two reasons (1) It comes into operation after अभिधा has expressed the meaning to which it is restricted by some such circumstance as सयोग (2) It suggests a meaning, which is really the अभिधेयार्थ or वाच्यार्थ of the word, but which the word cannot express by means of अभिधा on account of that अभिधा having been restricted

It should be noted that the expression abhidhāmūla in abhidhāmūla vyañjanā does not possess this particular sense, i.e., abhidhāmūla does not here mean abhidhānvayavyatirekānuvidhāyitvam. For, we know that abhidhāmūla vyañjanā is not present wherever abhidhā is present. Abhidhā is present in every vācaka word. But every vācaka word is not vyañjaka. Abhidhāmūla vyañjanā occurs under certain special circumstances which are mentioned in Kārika 14. This vyañjanā is, however, called abhidhāmūla for two reasons: (1) It comes into operation after abhidhā has expressed the meaning to which it is restricted by some such circumstance as saṃyoga. (2) It suggests a meaning, which is really the abhidheya artha or vācya artha of the word, but which the word cannot express by means of abhidhā on account of that abhidhā having been restricted.

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.

Out of the three functions of a word, viz., abhidhā, lakṣaṇā, and vyañjanā, abhidhā 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 vācaka without being lākṣaṇika or vyañjaka. But such is not the case with the functions lakṣaṇā and vyañjanā.

लक्षणा depends on its three causes viz मुख्यार्थबाध, तद्योग and हेतिप्रयोग-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 लाक्ष्यार्थ dislodges the वाच्यार्थ, which is incompatible, and takes its place in the sentence The लाक्ष्यार्थ is understood, not in addition to the वाच्यार्थ, but in substitution

Lakṣaṇā depends on its three causes, viz., mūkhyārthabādha, tadd yoga, and hetiprayōga-janānyatarat. It also depends on abhidhā because it cannot come into operation unless abhidhā has expressed its sense and that sense is found incompatible. A word cannot be merely lākṣaṇika. It has to be vācaka first, and only when the vācya artha is bādhita, it becomes lākṣaṇika. But a word cannot be vācaka and lākṣaṇika at the same time. The lākṣya artha dislodges the vācya artha, which is incompatible, and takes its place in the sentence. The lākṣya artha is understood, not in addition to the vācya artha, but in substitution.

Page 280

tution of it From this point of view a word may be regarded as capable of being merely लक्षणिक, because it is not वाचक at the time when it indicates the लक्ष्यार्थे

tution of it From this point of view a word may be regarded as capable of being merely indicative, because it is not denotative at the time when it indicates the indicated meaning

व्यञ्जना depends on both अभिधा and लक्षणा For, it does not come into operation unless अभिधा and लक्षणा have first conveyed their senses

The suggestive power depends on both the denotative and indicative powers. For, it does not come into operation unless the denotative and indicative powers have first conveyed their senses.

A word cannot be व्यञ्जक alone It has necessarily to be either वाचक or लक्षणिक first But there is a distinction between the वाच्यार्थे and the व्यङ्ग्यार्थे The व्यङ्ग्यार्थे is understood in addition to वाच्यार्थे or लक्ष्यार्थे not in place or in stead of it A word is thus वाचक and व्यञ्जक, or लक्षणिक and व्यञ्जक simultaneously

A word cannot be suggestive alone. It has necessarily to be either denotative or indicative first. But there is a distinction between the denoted meaning and the suggested meaning. The suggested meaning is understood in addition to the denoted meaning or the indicated meaning, not in place of or instead of it. A word is thus denotative and suggestive, or indicative and suggestive simultaneously.

Kārikā 14 — This Kārikā defines अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना Construe अनेकश्रेष्य शब्दस्य वाचकत्वे सयोगादै नियन्त्रिते [सति] अवाच्यार्थीभूत व्याप्ति व्यञ्जन [भवति]।

Kārikā 14 — This Kārikā defines the suggestive power rooted in the denotative power. Construe: When a word having multiple excellent meanings is restricted by some conjunction to be denotative of one of them, the suggestive power operates on the meaning that is not denoted.

Words like कर ( hand, elephant's trunk, tax ), वंश ( family, bamboo) and सैन्यवत् ( salt, horse ) possess more than one primary sense When such a word occurs in literature, circumstances like conjunction restrict it to only one of the many senses which it is capable of expressing

Words like कर (hand, elephant's trunk, tax), वंश (family, bamboo), and सैन्यवत् (salt, horse) possess more than one primary sense. When such a word occurs in literature, circumstances like conjunction restrict it to only one of the many senses which it is capable of expressing.

Then it can convey by means of अभिधा only this sense But it often happens that after this sense has been conveyed by that word by means of अभिधा, comprehension of another of its primary se'sses arises in us

Then it can convey by means of the denotative power only this sense. But it often happens that after this sense has been conveyed by that word by means of the denotative power, comprehension of another of its primary senses arises in us.

This other sense, though ordinarily a वाच्यार्थे of the word in question, cannot at this place be regarded as such because the word has been restricted to another वाच्यार्थे by some such cirumstance as conjunction

This other sense, though ordinarily a denoted meaning of the word in question, cannot at this place be regarded as such because the word has been restricted to another denoted meaning by some such circumstance as conjunction.

But we do get the comprehension of this other sense all right This comprehension cannot be had on account of अभिधा, because it is restricted to a different sense It cannot arise from लक्षणा also, because the three causes which are necessary for लक्षणा, are not present here

But we do get the comprehension of this other sense all right. This comprehension cannot be had on account of the denotative power, because it is restricted to a different sense. It cannot arise from the indicative power also, because the three causes which are necessary for the indicative power are not present here.

Therefore, it is held that the function which produces the comprehension of the other sense, which, though really वाच्यार्थे, is अवाच्यार्थे in the present context, is Suggestion This Suggestion is called अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना for reasons stated before

Therefore, it is held that the function which produces the comprehension of the other sense, which, though really a denoted meaning, is not denoted in the present context, is Suggestion. This Suggestion is called the suggestive power rooted in the denotative power for reasons stated before.

अनेकार्थस्य—Two views are held regarding अनेकार्थ or double-or multi meaningning 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 ( यावन्त अर्थोस्तावन्त शब्दा ) Thus, कर meaning the hand is a different word कर the trunk, or कर the tax According to this view an अनेकार्थी शब्द is impossible, because no word can have more than one sense

Regarding words with multiple meanings, two views are held. 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. Thus, कर meaning the hand is a different word from कर meaning the trunk, or कर meaning the tax. According to this view, a word with multiple meanings is impossible because no word can have more than one sense.

Page 281

सयोगादैः = सयोग आद्य येषां तैः [ विषयै वस्तुभिः ]

by means of [circumstances] beginning with conjunction

सयोगो विप्रयोगक्षः—These two couplets are quoted as from Bhartrhari.e. from his Vakyapadiya

These two couplets are quoted as from Bhartrhari, i.e. from his Vakyapadiya

The two couplets ‘सयोगो विप्रयोगक्षः’ are everywhere quoted as embodying Bhartrhari’s view But Punaraja says that they contain the view of ‘others ’ Bhartrhari’s own view is, according to him, expressed in the couplet preceding viz ll 316

The two couplets 'सयोगो विप्रयोगक्षः' are everywhere quoted as embodying Bhartrhari's view. But Punaraja says that they contain the view of 'others'. Bhartrhari's own view is, according to him, expressed in the couplet preceding, viz. II 316

शब्दार्थस्य = स्मृतिहेतुत्वात् Since a word has many senses and we do not know which are to accept, these circumstances produce the cognition of a particular meaning from among the many which the word is capable of expressing

Since a word has many senses and we do not know which are to accept, these circumstances produce the cognition of a particular meaning from among the many which the word is capable of expressing

इत्युक्तिदिशा=according to the direction shown in the couplets quoted above

according to the direction shown in the couplets quoted above

इत्युक्तिदिशाः सङ्केतचको हरेः, अश्वत्थचको हरिति भञ्च्यते [ हरिशब्दे नियत्पते ]

This word is to be thus construed

There are in all 14 circumstances enumerated in the two couplets and Mammata now proceeds to explain how they serve to make the meaning of अनेकार्थ words definite

( 1 ) सयोग or conjunction restricts the expressive power of the word हरि to the sense of Visnu (अच्युतेः=विष्णोः) in ‘सङ्केतचको हरिः’, because the conjunction of the conch and the discus is peculiar to only Visnu and to no other sense of हरिः हरिः is a very elastic word in Sanskrit. Its senses range from Visnu, Indra, Yama, the sun and the moon down to a lion, a horse, a monkey, a serpent and a frog

(1) सयोग or conjunction restricts the expressive power of the word हरि to the sense of Visnu (अच्युतेः=विष्णोः) in 'सङ्केतचको हरिः', because the conjunction of the conch and the discus is peculiar to only Visnu and to no other sense of हरिः. हरिः is a very elastic word in Sanskrit. Its senses range from Visnu, Indra, Yama, the sun and the moon down to a lion, a horse, a monkey, a serpent and a frog

( 2 ) विप्रयोग or disjunction or the loss of a well known connection restricts the अभिधा of हरि to Visnu in ‘अश्वत्थचको हरिः’ The loss of connection with the conch and the discus shows that हरिः must mean Visnu, who is known to possess these as his badges

(2) विप्रयोग or disjunction or the loss of a well-known connection restricts the अभिधा of हरि to Visnu in 'अश्वत्थचको हरिः'. The loss of connection with the conch and the discus shows that हरिः must mean Visnu, who is known to possess these as his badges

( 3 ) साहचर्यम् means association or companionship In ‘रामलक्ष्मणौ’ the association of लक्ष्मण restricts the अभिधा of राम to the son of दशरथ For, राम also means बलराम and परशुराम

(3) साहचर्यम् means association or companionship. In 'रामलक्ष्मणौ' the association of लक्ष्मण restricts the अभिधा of राम to the son of दशरथ. For, राम also means बलराम and परशुराम

साहचर्य must be distinguished from सयोग सयोग means a connection in general. When this connection is expressed by a special word such as स or सह or अन्वित, that expression becomes an example of सयोग e g सगणडूवोरूज्झन. साहचर्य means mutual co-operation in a common under

साहचर्य must be distinguished from सयोग. सयोग means a connection in general. When this connection is expressed by a special word such as स or सह or अन्वित, that expression becomes an example of सयोग, e.g. सगणडूवोरूज्झन. साहचर्य means mutual co-operation in a common undertaking

Page 282

taking When this is expressed by putting the two words in a द्वन्द्व compound, it becomes an example of साहचर्य e g गणेशवारुणौ

When this is expressed by putting the two words in a dvandva compound, it becomes an example of sahacarya e.g. ganesavarunau

( 4 ) विरोधित is hostility, antagonism In ‘रामार्जुनगतिस्थयोः’, said with reference to two people who are bitter enemies of each other, both the words राम and अर्जुन are अनेकार्थे The well known hostility (प्रसिद्ध वैरं ) between Parasurama, the son of Bhrgu (भार्गव ), and Sahasrarjuna, the son of Krtavirya (कार्तवीर्य ), restricts the words राम and अर्जुन to these two senses

(4) Virodhita is hostility, antagonism. In 'ramarjunagatishtayoh', said with reference to two people who are bitter enemies of each other, both the words ram and arjun are anekarthe. The well-known hostility (prasiddha vairam) between Parasurama, the son of Bhrgu (bhargava), and Sahasrarjuna, the son of Krtavirya (kartavirya), restricts the words ram and arjun to these two senses.

अनयोःवादयोःद्रुत objects to Mammata's illustration ‘रामार्जुनगतिस्थयोः’ on the ground that it involves अन्योन्याश्रय and cites रामरावणौ as a proper example

Anayorvadayordruta objects to Mammata's illustration 'ramarjunagatishtayoh' on the ground that it involves anyonyasraya and cites ramaravanau as a proper example.

He holds that in the illustrations of विरोधिता one of the words must be of a definite meaning It would then serve to remind us of a well known antagonist and determine the sense of the other uncertain word

He holds that in the illustrations of virodhita, one of the words must be of a definite meaning. It would then serve to remind us of a well-known antagonist and determine the sense of the other uncertain word.

We think Appaya's view is more reasonable

We think Appaya's view is more reasonable.

( 5 ) अर्थ means purpose or motive स्थानु is a word of many meanings It signifies inter alia Siva, a pillar, a peg or pin and a branchless trunk or stem In ‘स्थानु भज भवच्छिदे’ the purpose for which Sthanu is to be worshipped viz भवच्छिद् = संसारनाश = मोक्ष determines the sense of स्थानु as Sivā For, nobody would worship स्थानु in any other sense for the purpose of salvation, as Siva alone is capable of effecting this purpose

(5) Artha means purpose or motive. Sthan is a word of many meanings. It signifies, inter alia, Siva, a pillar, a peg or pin, and a branchless trunk or stem. In 'sthanu bhaja bhavacchhade', the purpose for which Sthanu is to be worshipped, viz. bhavacchhid = samsaranasa = moksha, determines the sense of sthanu as Siva. For, nobody would worship sthanu in any other sense for the purpose of salvation, as Siva alone is capable of effecting this purpose.

( 6 ) प्रकरणम् means context ‘सर्वे जानाति देवं’ is a sentence addressed to a king The context, therefore, shows that देव signifies the king viz you (युष्मदर्थे ) and not a god or a cloud, which are also its senses

(6) Prakaranam means context. 'Sarve janati devam' is a sentence addressed to a king. The context, therefore, shows that deva signifies the king, viz. you (yushmadarthe), and not a god or a cloud, which are also its senses.

प्रकरण should be distingulshed from अर्थ Context is not expressed by any word It has to be understood in a general manner But अर्थ is directly expressed by a word

Prakarana should be distinguished from artha. Context is not expressed by any word. It has to be understood in a general manner. But artha is directly expressed by a word.

( 7 ) लिङ्गम् means a special attribute or characteristic मकरध्वज is an अनेकार्थ word, expressing Cupid, a crocodile-shaped (मकराकारो ध्वज ) and the sea In ‘कुपितो मकरध्वज’ ‘लिङ्गम्’ or the special characteristic of being angry, which out of all the senses of that word belongs specially to Cupid, limits the अभिधा of मकरध्वज to Cupid

(7) Lingam means a special attribute or characteristic. Makardhvaja is an anekartha word, expressing Cupid, a crocodile-shaped (makarakaro dhvaja) and the sea. In 'kupito makardhvaja', 'lingam' or the special characteristic of being angry, which out of all the senses of that word belongs specially to Cupid, limits the abhidha of makardhvaja to Cupid.

The प्रदीप objects to लिङ्ग being explained as a special attribute or characteristic for two reasons (1) Anger is not a special attribute of Cupid, because it is found in others also such as human beings

The Pradipa objects to linga being explained as a special attribute or characteristic for two reasons: (1) Anger is not a special attribute of Cupid, because it is found in others also, such as human beings.

( 2 ) ‘सराजचको हरि’ would be an example of लिङ्ग, because the conch and the discus are the special attributes of Viṣṇu Read ‘यतु लिङ्गं चिह्नमिति, तत्र । कोपस्य कामचिह्नत्वात् । असाधारणधर्मैष्य चिह्नलात् । सशंखचक्रोद्यत्र अतिव्यासिप्रसक्ततां ।’ प्रदीप

(2) 'Sarajacakro hari' would be an example of linga, because the conch and the discus are the special attributes of Visnu. Read 'yat lingam cihnam iti, tatra. Kopasya kamacihnattvat. Asadharanadharmesya cihnalat. Sasankacakrodrayatra ativyasprasaktatam.' Pradipa.

Page 283

२३०

230

काव्यप्रकाश।

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 25

This view is incorrect Special attribute does not mean an attribute which is special to that individual to the exclusion of every body else in existence It means an attribute which is peculiar to that sense of the word to the exclusion of its other senses As regards अतिव्याप्ति॔ we have to urge that लिङ्ग is easily distinguished from सयोग, thus ( 1 ) In सयोग the predominent idea is the well known character of the association, while in लिङ्ग the main idea is to exclude other senses by showing that the attribute is peculiar to only one (2) In सयोग, as the name indicates, the attribute is connected by means of सयोगसबन्ध but in लिङ्ग, it is connected by means of समवायसबन्ध

This view is incorrect. Special attribute does not mean an attribute which is special to that individual to the exclusion of every other body in existence. It means an attribute which is peculiar to that sense of the word to the exclusion of its other senses. As regards अतिव्याप्ति॔, we have to urge that लिङ्ग is easily distinguished from सयोग, thus (1) In सयोग, the predominant idea is the well-known character of the association, while in लिङ्ग, the main idea is to exclude other senses by showing that the attribute is peculiar to only one. (2) In सयोग, as the name indicates, the attribute is connected by means of सयोगसबन्ध, but in लिङ्ग, it is connected by means of समवायसबन्ध.

( 8 ) शब्दस्य अन्यस्य सानिध्य 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 Siva, restricts the अभिधा of देव to Sambhu It should be noted that the word देव is here restricted to Sambhu, and not to mere god, as Mammata's words 'इति शमोः' show

(8) शब्दस्य अन्यस्य सानिध्य 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 Siva, restricts the अभिधा of देव to Sambhu. It should be noted that the word देव is here restricted to Sambhu, and not to mere god, as Mammata's words 'इति शमोः' show.

According to the Pradipa the word which restricts the sense of another by its proximity should be 'of definite meaning ' ( नियतार्थक ) and the two words should be in the same case ( समानाधिकरण्यम् ) Thus, in ‘देवस्य पुराराते ’ पुराराति is नियतार्थक meaning Sambhu and both the words are in the same case viz the genitive

According to the Pradipa, the word which restricts the sense of another by its proximity should be 'of definite meaning' (नियतार्थक) and the two words should be in the same case (समानाधिकरण्यम्). Thus, in 'देवस्य पुराराते', पुराराति is नियतार्थक meaning Sambhu and both the words are in the same case, viz., the genitive.

This view of the Pradipa is criticized by Appaya Diksita 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

This view of the Pradipa is criticized by Appaya Diksita 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.

( 9 ) सामर्थ्य॔ means power or capability, In ‘ मधुना मत कोकिल ’ मधु is an अनेकार्थ शब्द, signifying inter alia the spring, nectar, wine, honey and a demon Out of these only the spring is capable of intoxicating the cuckoo Therefore, owing to सामर्थ्य॔ the denotation of मधु is here restricted to spring

(9) सामर्थ्य॔ means power or capability. In 'मधुना मत कोकिल', मधु is an अनेकार्थ शब्द, signifying inter alia the spring, nectar, wine, honey, and a demon. Out of these, only the spring is capable of intoxicating the cuckoo. Therefore, owing to सामर्थ्य॔, the denotation of मधु is here restricted to spring.

सामर्थ्य॑ must be distinguished from अर्थ॑ and लिङ्ग॑ Siva has the power of destroying transmigratory existence and Cupid is capable of becoming angry So अर्थ॑ and लिङ्ग॑ appear to be the same as सामर्थ्य॑ The distinction between them is, however, this अर्थ॑ refers to a fruit which is to be obtained in the future on account of the power which it presupposes समथ्य॑ refers to a power, which has already manifested its result in some one else लिङ्ग॑ refers to a characteristic which belongs to oneself

सामर्थ्य॑ must be distinguished from अर्थ॑ and लिङ्ग॑. Siva has the power of destroying transmigratory existence and Cupid is capable of becoming angry. So अर्थ॑ and लिङ्ग॑ appear to be the same as सामर्थ्य॑. The distinction between them is, however, this: अर्थ॑ refers to a fruit which is to be obtained in the future on account of the power which it presupposes. समथ्य॑ refers to a power which has already manifested its result in some one else. लिङ्ग॑ refers to a characteristic which belongs to oneself.

Page 284

( 10 ) औचिती ( उचितस्य भाव ) means propriety or fitness In ‘ पातु वो दयितामुखम् ’ मुखम् is a multi-meaning word, expressing inter alia favourableness, an opening, the mouth, commencement and a means

( 10 ) औचिती (the state of being proper) means propriety or fitness In ‘पातु वो दयितामुखम्’ मुखम् is a multi-meaning word, expressing inter alia favourableness, an opening, the mouth, commencement and a means

The line rèfers to those who are smitten with love Only the favourableness of their beloveds is fit to protect them The faces of their beloveds are not likely to give them any solace, if those faces show signs of anger Therefore, औचिती restricts the expressive power of मुखम् to favourableness

We have here to point out that the example ‘ दयितामुखम् ’ appears to us to be entirely wrong We are discussing the circumstances that restrict the अभिधा or expressive power of words Now, we urge that सामुख्यम् or आनुकूल्यम् is not a वाच्यार्थ of मुखम् No Kosa or dictionary gives मुख in that sense Favourableness is its लक्ष्यार्थ So दयितामुखम् cannot be regarded as an example where the अभिधा of मुख is restricted by औचिती

We have here to point out that the example ‘दयितामुखम्’ appears to us to be entirely wrong. We are discussing the circumstances that restrict the अभिधा or expressive power of words. Now, we urge that सामुख्यम् or आनुकूल्यम् is not a वाच्यार्थ of मुखम्. No Kosa or dictionary gives मुख in that sense. Favourableness is its लक्ष्यार्थ. So दयितामुखम् cannot be regarded as an example where the अभिधा of मुख is restricted by औचिती.

Appaya Dīksita and Jagannātha point out that अर्थ , सामर्थ्य and औचिती practıcally mean the same thing, as all three are based on कार्यकारणभाव The distinction between them lies in the way in which this कार्यकारणभाव is conveyed Thus, in अर्थ the कार्य is expressed by the dative, in सामर्थ्य the कारण is denoted by the instrumental and in औचिती the कार्यकारणभाव is known from the juxtaposition of the words themselves owing to the capability they possess

Appaya Dīksita and Jagannātha point out that अर्थ, सामर्थ्य and औचिती practically mean the same thing, as all three are based on कार्यकारणभाव. The distinction between them lies in the way in which this कार्यकारणभाव is conveyed. Thus, in अर्थ the कार्य is expressed by the dative, in सामर्थ्य the कारण is denoted by the instrumental and in औचिती the कार्यकारणभाव is known from the juxtaposition of the words themselves owing to the capability they possess.

( 11 ) देश means the place or region, परमेश्वर means either the highest Lord ( Visnu or Siva ), or some great king In ‘ भाति छत्र परमेश्वर ’ छत्र refers to a particular place viz the capital So this place restricts the expressive power of अभिधा to the king, who shines in the capital

( 11 ) देश means the place or region, परमेश्वर means either the highest Lord (Visnu or Siva), or some great king. In ‘भाति छत्र परमेश्वर’ छत्र refers to a particular place viz the capital. So this place restricts the expressive power of अभिधा to the king, who shines in the capital.

(12) काल means the time चित्रभानु signifies the sun and fire When the sentence ‘ चित्रभानुर्विभाति ’ is uttered by day, the time restricts its अभिधा to the sun, because the sun shines by day But when the same sentence is uttered at night, the time once more limits its expressive power to fire, because fire shines at night and the sun does not.

(12) काल means the time. चित्रभानु signifies the sun and fire. When the sentence ‘चित्रभानुर्विभाति’ is uttered by day, the time restricts its अभिधा to the sun, because the sun shines by day. But when the same sentence is uttered at night, the time once more limits its expressive power to fire, because fire shines at night and the sun does not.

( 13 ) वयक्ति means gender Sometimes the gender of a word serves to determine its meaning Thus, मित्रम् means a friend and मित्र the sun In the sentences ‘ मित्र भाति ’ and ‘ मित्रो भाति ’ the gender restricts the अभिधा of the word मित्र to a friend and the sun respectively

( 13 ) वयक्ति means gender. Sometimes the gender of a word serves to determine its meaning. Thus, मित्रम् means a friend and मित्र the sun. In the sentences ‘मित्र भाति’ and ‘मित्रो भाति’ the gender restricts the अभिधा of the word मित्र to a friend and the sun respectively.

( 14 ) स्वर means accent Accent produces the apprehension of a special sense ( अर्थविशेषप्रतीतिलकृत् ) 1 e. serves to determine the mean-

( 14 ) स्वर means accent. Accent produces the apprehension of a special sense (अर्थविशेषप्रतीतिलकृत्) i.e. serves to determine the meaning.

Page 285

स्वर उदात्तादि रसगणाधार

Svara is defined as 'Svara udāttaādi' rasaganādhāra

( 15 ) आभिप्रायाण्ड अभिनयादयः -In the second couplet above occ urs 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 न्मात्रस्तनिष्कषo’ Here the word एतावत् is अनेकार्थ, because being of general signification it can express any sense that we can convey by a gest ure So by appropriate gestures एतावत् is here restricted to four differ ent 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 ' अपदे शोऽभिमतानिर्देशो ' प्रदीप,1 e pointing out An example of अपदेश is इतः स देवलः प्रापश्रोंनंत एवंहिंति क्षतम्‌ । विशिष्ट्रक्ष्योडपि संवदध्वी स्वय छेएनुमांस्रतम्‌ ॥' कुमारसंभव 2 55, Here as the speaker, Brahma utters the word इतः , he points to hims elf by placing his hand on his chest Thus the अनेकार्थ word इतः is made definite by the gesture

इत्यं व्यञ्जनमेव व्यापार —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 circ- umstance as सयोग, 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 मुख्यार्थबाध and the other two causes necessary for लक्षणा, are not present Therefore,

Page 286

Suggestion itself (व্যজ्ञानमेव) must be the function that conveys this other primary sense It must be noted that Suggestion in such cases is usually helped by श्लेष or paronomosia,

Suggestion itself (vyajñanameva) must be the function that conveys this other primary sense. It must be noted that Suggestion in such cases is usually helped by śleṣa or paronomosia,

Stanza 7—This stanza is an example of शाब्दी अभिधामूल व्यंजना sometimes otherwise called शब्दशक्तिमूलव्यञ्जना It describes how a certain king was continuously practising charity It contains अनेकार्थ or doublemeaning words But on account of context ( प्रकरण ) their अभिधा is restricted to that sense which is applicable to the king For, the stanza is addressed to the king After the various words have conveyed the senses to which thay are restricted by context, they also suggest by means of अभिधामूल व्यंजना other primary senses, which are applicable to an elephant The ultimate suggestion from the stanza is that the king is comparable to an elephant ( व्याघ्रया उपमा )

Stanza 7—This stanza is an example of śābdī abhidhāmūla vyañjanā sometimes otherwise called śabdashaktimūlavyañjanā. It describes how a certain king was continuously practising charity. It contains anekārtha or double-meaning words. But on account of context (prakaraṇa) their abhidhā is restricted to that sense which is applicable to the king. For, the stanza is addressed to the king. After the various words have conveyed the senses to which they are restricted by context, they also suggest by means of abhidhāmūla vyañjanā other primary senses, which are applicable to an elephant. The ultimate suggestion from the stanza is that the king is comparable to an elephant (vāghrāyā upamā).

The principal sentence is यस्य कर (इस्त hand) सततं दानाम्बुसेचकुभ (दानस्य धनवितरणस्य तत्त्वबन्ध इत्यर्थ यदू-अम्भु जलं तस्य सेकेँ सेवन्ते सुभग शोभन ) अभूत् With the elephant, the sentence means यस्य कर (खण्डादण्ड the trunk सतत दानाम्बुसेककुभ ( दानस्य मदस्य यद् अम्भु रस इत्यर्थ तस्य सेकै सुभग ) अभूत् The six double meaning adjectives are thus explained The first explanation refers to the king and the second to the elephant.

The principal sentence is yasya kara (hand) satataṃ dānāmbusecakubha (dānasya dhanavitaranasya tattvabandha ityartha yad-ambhu jalaṃ tasya sekaiḥ sevante subhaga śobhana) abhūt. With the elephant, the sentence means yasya kara (trunk) satataṃ dānāmbusekakubha (dānasya madasya yad ambhu rasa ityartha tasya sekai subhaga) abhūt. The six double-meaning adjectives are thus explained. The first explanation refers to the king and the second to the elephant.

भद्रात्मन (1) भद्र आत्मा यस्य of noble soul (2) भद्र विशिष्ट जातीय आत्मा यस्य belonging to a special species called Bhadra। दुर्धिरोहतनो (1) दुरधिरोहा परै अनभिभवनीया तनु यस्य of unassailable body owing to its great lustre ( 2 ) Whose body is difficult to mount upon owing to his height विशालशोभते (1) विशाला वंशस्य कुलस्य उन्नति यस्य the eminence of whose family is great ( 2 ) विशालवशत्-दीर्घबेणीवत् उन्नति उन्नता यस्य whose height is like a long bamboo Or विशाला वंशस्य पुष्टताश्रित उन्नति यस्य the height of whose back-bone is great i e who is very high कृत शिलीमुख संग्रहस्य (1) कृत शिलोर्मुखानां बाणानां सग्रहो येन who has made a collection of arrows In ancient times arrows were the common weapons of war So every warrior had to make a goodly store thereof ( 2 ) कृत शिलीमुखानि अस्मराणि आकर्षण येन Bees are attracted towards an elephant by its fragrant rut अनूपच्छतगति (1) अनूपच्छता अप्रतिहता गति प्राणि ( march ) ज्ञानं वा यस्य (2) अनूपच्छता अनुदता घीरा ( steady or majestic ) गति यस्य परवरणस्य (1) परान् शत्रून् वारयति असौ शत्रुनिवारक इत्यर्थे (2) पर महान् वारण गज गजेन्द्र इत्यर्थे

Bhadrātman (1) bhadra ātmā yasya of noble soul (2) bhadra viśiṣṭa jātīya ātmā yasya belonging to a special species called Bhadra. Durdhirōhatano (1) duradhirōhā parai anabhibhavanīyā tanu yasya of unassailable body owing to its great lustre (2) Whose body is difficult to mount upon owing to his height. Viśālaśobhate (1) viśālā vaṃśasya kulasya unnati yasya the eminence of whose family is great (2) viśālavashāt-dīrghabheṇīvat unnati unnată yasya whose height is like a long bamboo. Or viśālā vaṃśasya puṣṭatāśrita unnati yasya the height of whose back-bone is great i.e., who is very high. Kṛta śilīmukha saṃgrahasya (1) kṛta śilīrmukhānāṃ bāṇānāṃ sagrahō yena who has made a collection of arrows. In ancient times arrows were the common weapons of war. So every warrior had to make a goodly store thereof (2) kṛta śilīmukhāni asmarāṇi ākarṣaṇa yena Bees are attracted towards an elephant by its fragrant rut. Anūpachhatagati (1) anūpachhatā apratihata gati prāṇi (march) jñānaṃ vā yasya (2) anūpachhatā anudatā ghīrā (steady or majestic) gati yasya. Paravaraṇasya (1) parān śatrūn vārayati asau śatrunivāraka ityarthe (2) para mahān vāraṇa gaja gajendra ityarthe

Page 27

तयुफो व्यञ्जक शब्द —Mammata here defines a suggestive word A suggestive word is that which is possessed of suggestion ( तयुफ तेन व्यञनेन युक्त ) As we have already seen, Mammata does not give a

Tayukpho vyañjaka śabda —Mammata here defines a suggestive word. A suggestive word is that which is possessed of suggestion (tayukpha tena vyañjanena yukta). As we have already seen, Mammata does not give a

Page 287

यत् सोऽर्थोऽन्तरयुक् मत -व्यंजना is divided into शाब्दी and आर्थी

Since that meaning is included in the definition - vyajana is divided into sabdi and arthi

But one may urge This division is not reasonable शब्द and अर्थ are inseparably connected together ( ‘वागर्थाविव सम्पृक्तौ’ रघुवंश 1 1 )

But one may object that this division is not reasonable as word and meaning are inseparably connected

Therefore it is not proper to separate them and make them the basis of two divisions of व्यंजना

Therefore, it is not appropriate to separate them and make them the basis of two divisions of vyajana

The stanza ‘भद्रातमनो’ which illustrates अभिधामूल व्यंजना,

The stanza 'Bhadratmano' which illustrates abhidhamula vyajana

is an example of ध्वनिकाव्य A काव्य consists of शब्दार्थ If the words in ‘भद्रातमनो’ are regarded as व्यंजक, what about the senses therein ?

is an example of dhvani-kavya. A kavya consists of sabda and artha. If the words in 'Bhadratmano' are regarded as vyanjaka, what about the senses therein?

Are they not व्यंजक also ? If so, what is the point in dividing व्यंजना into शाब्दी and आर्थी ?

Are they not vyanjaka as well? If so, what is the point in dividing vyajana into sabdi and arthi?

Then again, in ‘गङ्गायां घोष’, which is an example of लक्षणामूल व्यंजना, the word गङ्गा is suggestive

Then again, in 'Gangayam ghosa', which is an example of lakshanmula vyajana, the word 'Ganga' is suggestive

But what about its लक्षणार्थ ? Is it also not suggestive ? If so, why again is व्यंजना divided into शाब्दी and आर्थी ?

But what about its lakshanartha? Is it also not suggestive? If so, why again is vyajana divided into sabdi and arthi?

Such objections are answered by Mammata in this Kārikā A word ( स -शब्द ) is said to be suggestive ( तथोक्त-व्यंजक ), when it is अर्थोत्तरयुक्त

Such objections are answered by Mammata in this Karika. A word is said to be suggestive when it is arthottarayukta

The expression अर्थोत्तरयुक्त possesses two senses according as it refers to the व्यंजक word in अभिधामूल व्यंजना and in लक्षणामूल व्यंजना

The expression 'Arthottarayukta' possesses two senses according as it refers to the vyanjaka word in abhidhamula vyajana and in lakshanmula vyajana

In sense of वाच्यार्थयुक्त ( अन्य व्यञ्ज्यार्थाद अन्य अर्थ अर्थान्तरं वाच्यार्थ इत्यर्थं तेन युक्त )

In the sense of vachyarthayukta (any other meaning other than the vyajyartha, that other meaning being the vachyartha)

For example, in ‘भद्रातमनो’ कर is suggestive of the trunk

For example, in 'Bhadratmano', 'kara' is suggestive of the trunk

But it is so suggestive, when joined with the वाच्यार्थ hand

But it is so suggestive when joined with the vachyartha 'hand'

What is meant is that कर suggests the trunk only after it has expressed the hand

What is meant is that 'kara' suggests the trunk only after it has expressed the hand

Thus, here the वाच्यार्थ hand is also suggestive

Thus, here the vachyartha 'hand' is also suggestive

Similarly, in लक्षणामूल व्यंजना a word is suggestive, when it is अर्थोत्तरयुक्त in the sense of लक्षणार्थयुक्त

Similarly, in lakshanmula vyajana, a word is suggestive when it is arthottarayukta in the sense of lakshanarthayukta

For example, in ‘गङ्गायां घोष’ गङ्गा is suggestive of पावनत्वादि

For example, in 'Gangayam ghosa', 'Ganga' is suggestive of 'pavanatvadi'

But this suggestion is made only after the लक्षणार्थ viz तट is indicated

But this suggestion is made only after the lakshanartha, viz., 'tata' is indicated

So the लक्षणार्थ तट is also suggestive

So the lakshanartha 'tata' is also suggestive

Thus, in अभिधामूल व्यंजना अर्थोत्तर means वाच्यार्थ and in लक्षणामूल व्यंजना it signifies लक्षणार्थ

Thus, in abhidhamula vyajana, 'arthottara' means 'vachyartha', and in lakshanmula vyajana, it signifies 'lakshanartha'

Read ‘अर्थोत्तरयुक्त अभिधेयेन लक्षणेन वा यथोचितेन केनचिदर्थेन युक्तो भवति’ साहित्यचूडामणि p 79

Read 'Arthottarayukta abhidheyena lakshanena va yathochitena kenachidarthena yukto bhavati' Sahityachudamani p. 79

It has been shown above that when शब्द is व्यंजक, its अर्थ viz its वाच्यार्थ in अभिधामूल व्यंजना and its लक्षणार्थ in लक्षणामूल व्यंजना is also व्यंजक

It has been shown above that when a word is vyanjaka, its artha, viz., its vachyartha in abhidhamula vyajana and its lakshanartha in lakshanmula vyajana is also vyanjaka

But the suggestiveness of अर्थ is by way of cooperation ( सहकारितया )

But the suggestiveness of artha is by way of cooperation

What is principally suggestive is शब्द

What is principally suggestive is 'shabda'

Page 288

of लक्षणा are known as शाब्दी, according to the maxim ‘प्राधान्येन व्यपदेशा भवन्ति’ Later on in iii 3 p 36 Mammata will tell us that when अर्थ is principally suggestive as in अर्थी व्यंजना, शब्द is also suggestive in a subordinate manner, because अर्थ, only when conveyed by शब्दप्रमाण becomes so suggestive

of lakṣaṇā are known as śābdī, according to the maxim ‘prādhānyena vyapadeśā bhavanti’ Later on in iii 3 p 36 Mammata will tell us that when artha is principally suggestive as in arthī vyañjanā, śabda is also suggestive in a subordinate manner, because artha, only when conveyed by śabdapramāṇa becomes so suggestive

अभिधामूल व्यंजना and लक्षणामूल व्यंजना are included under शाब्दी व्यंजना The reason for this is that both अभिधा and लक्षणा are powers of शब्द Therefore, the two varieties of व्यंजना that are based on these powers are regarded as शाब्दी

abhidhāmūla vyañjanā and lakṣaṇāmūla vyañjanā are included under śābdī vyañjanā The reason for this is that both abhidhā and lakṣaṇā are powers of śabda Therefore, the two varieties of vyañjanā that are based on these powers are regarded as śābdī

The second Ullāsa is called शब्दार्थस्वरूपनिर्णय So here Mammata has dealt with three kinds of words viz वाचक, लाक्षणिक and व्यंजक and three kinds of senses viz वाच्य, लक्ष्य and व्यंग्य, as also with the three functions viz अभिधा, लक्षणा and (शाब्दी) व्यंजना that are responsible for the three fold division of शब्द and अर्थ

The second Ullāsa is called śabdārthasvarūpanirṇaya So here Mammata has dealt with three kinds of words viz vācaka, lākṣaṇika and vyañjaka and three kinds of senses viz vācya, lakṣya and vyaṅgya, as also with the three functions viz abhidhā, lakṣaṇā and (śābdī) vyañjanā that are responsible for the three fold division of śabda and artha

Page 28 THIRD FLASH

अर्था प्रोक्ता पुरा तेऽमु—This part of the Kārikā is intended to show the logical connection (संगति) between the second and the third Ullāsa.

arthā proktā purā te'mu—This part of the Kārikā is intended to show the logical connection (saṅgati) between the second and the third Ullāsa.

अर्थव्यञ्जकता उच्यते—Mammata wants to deal with अर्थव्यञ्जकता 1 e with अर्थी व्यंजना or Suggestion based on sense This topic of अर्थव्यञ्जकता has already been referred to in सर्वेषां प्रायोशोध्यानां व्यञ्जकत्वमपीयते’ P 10, where Mammata has told us that all senses, वाच्य, लक्ष्य and व्यंग्य are generally suggestive In this Ullāsa Mammata treats of the same subject viz अर्थव्यञ्जकता and especially of वाच्यार्थव्यञ्जकता

arthavyañjakatā ucyate—Mammata wants to deal with arthavyañjakatā 1 e with arthī vyañjanā or Suggestion based on sense This topic of arthavyañjakatā has already been referred to in 'sarveṣāṃ prāyośoṣhyānāṃ vyañjakatvamapīyate' P 10, where Mammata has told us that all senses, vācya, lakṣya and vyaṅgya are generally suggestive In this Ullāsa Mammata treats of the same subject viz arthavyañjakatā and especially of vācyārthavyañjakatā

It should be noted that अर्थी व्यंजना occurs in all those cases of suggestion where the peculiar conditions, which form the foundations of the two varieties of शाब्दी व्यंजना, are not present Thus, लक्षणामूल व्यंजना is found in all cases of प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा and अभिधामूल व्यंजना requires the basis of an अनेकार्थ word So wherever there is a suggestion, but there is neither प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा nor अनेकार्थी शब्द, there we have अर्थी व्यंजना For example, the stanza ‘नि शेषच्युतचन्दनो’ contains a suggestion, with no प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा nor अनेकार्थ words in it That stanza, therefore, is an example of अर्थी व्यंजना inspite of the fact that Mammata’s Vṛttu on it says ‘अत्र अधरमपदेन (= अधरशब्देन) व्यज्यते’

It should be noted that arthī vyañjanā occurs in all those cases of suggestion where the peculiar conditions, which form the foundations of the two varieties of śābdī vyañjanā, are not present Thus, lakṣaṇāmūla vyañjanā is found in all cases of prayojanavatī lakṣaṇā and abhidhāmūla vyañjanā requires the basis of an anekārtha word So wherever there is a suggestion, but there is neither prayojanavatī lakṣaṇā nor anekārthī śabda, there we have arthī vyañjanā For example, the stanza ‘ni śeṣacyutacandano’ contains a suggestion, with no prayojanavatī lakṣaṇā nor anekārtha words in it That stanza, therefore, is an example of arthī vyañjanā inspite of the fact that Mammata’s Vṛttu on it says 'atra adharamapadena (= adharśabdena) vyajyate'

वक्तुबोधकैककुलाम व्यक्तिरेव सा—We have seen above that the word प्रायशा in ‘सर्वेषां प्रायोशोध्यानां व्यञ्जकत्वमपीयते’ suggests that in the absence of

vaktubodhakāikakulām vyaktireva sā—We have seen above that the word prāyashā in 'sarveṣāṃ prāyośoṣhyānāṃ vyañjakatvamapīyate' suggests that in the absence of

Page 289

वैशिष्ट्याद् य अर्थस्य व्यापार प्रतिभाजुषाम् अन्यार्थीहेतौ [ मवौत ] सा व्यक्तिर एवं [ न वक्ति ]

Construe वक्तृबोद्धव्याकारूनां वैशिष्ट्याद् य अर्थस्य व्यापार प्रतिभाजुषाम् अन्यार्थीहेतौ [ मवौत ], सा व्यक्तिर एवं [ न वक्ति ]. This means that the function of sense, which owing to the speciality of the speaker etc causes to persons of poetic genius the apprehension of another sense, is nothing but ( एव ) Suggestion

वाक्यं च वाच्यं च वाक्यवाच्ये ( द्वन्द्व ) वाक्यवाच्याभ्या सहैत अन्यसनिधि ( मध्यम पदलोपी समास ) तस्य The वाच्यार्थ is understood by all But for the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ of प्रतिभा is necessary It is interesting to note that the Pradīpa poetry Read प्रदीप PP 57-58, अर्थस्य in अर्थस्य व्यापार means वाच्यलक्ष्यव्यङ्ग्यच-रुपस्य त्रिविधस्य अर्थस्य अर्थस्य व्यापार = आर्थी व्यापार व्यञ्जनारूप आर्थी व्यञ्जना इत्यर्थे अन्यार्थीहेतु = अन्य वाच्यलक्ष्यव्यङ्ग्यचेम्य अपर व्यङ्ग्यरूप य अर्थ तस्य धी प्रतीति ज्ञान तस्या हेतु अर्थी व्यञ्जना creates the apprehension of another sense viz a व्यङ्ग्यार्थ, which is different from the original वाच्यार्थ, लक्ष्यार्थ and व्यङ्ग्यार्थ Thus when a व्यङ्ग्यार्थ is व्यङ्गक, a second or even a third व्यङ्ग्यार्थ is apprehended Vide stanza 3 on p 11 and the Notes thereon व्यज्यते अनया इति व्यञ्जना आर्थी व्यञ्जना इत्यर्थ व्यक्तिरेव-एव shows that the necessity of proving व्यञ्जना as an independent function is still haunting Mammata Otherwise there is no propriety for एव य व्यापार सा व्यक्तिः - Note that सा stands for व्यापार and not for व्यक्तिः

The above Kārikās define आर्थी व्यञ्जना But Mammata does not definitely say so Similarly when he defined लक्षणामूल व्यञ्जना p 24 and अभिधामूल व्यञ्जना p 27, he did not put the names of these varieties of व्यञ्जना in his definitions

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 वैशिष्ट्य or speciality actually belongs to them in the case of others the circumstances themselves form the वैशिष्ट्य or speciality Thus, in the case of वक्तृ and बोद्धव्य some speciality viz असतीत्व or स्त्रैणनील belongs to the two girls concerned But in the case of काकु and अन्यसनिधि they themselves form the speciality Thus, काकोवैशिष्ट्यम् and अन्यसनिधिवैशिष्ट्यम् become examples of अभेद वृत्ती or the genitive of identity, exemplified in expressions like ‘राहो शिरः’ and ‘ब्रह्मण आनन्द’

Page 290

बोद्धव्य प्रकरणम्

The section on what is to be understood

Mammata here paraphrases three of the circumstances mentioned above which he thinks require some explanation बोद्धव्य is really equal to बोध्यितव्य i e one who is to be informed i e the person addressed मम्मट paraphrases it as प्रतिपाद्य काकु is explained as श्वनोच्चार modification or modulation of voice प्रस्ताव means प्रकरणम् or context

कथंयोगादर्शयिष्यति

How will it be illustrated?

It may be noted that Mammata quotes examples to illustrate the suggestiveness of the expressed sense only (वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता) Towards the end he remarks that the suggestiveness of the लक्ष्यार्थ and the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ should be similarly illustrated

(1) Stanza 1—This stanza is quoted to illustrate the suggestive ness of the expressed sense owing to the speciality of the speaker (वक्तृवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता)

(1) Stanza 1—This stanza is quoted to illustrate the suggestive ness of the expressed sense owing to the speciality of the speaker

अत्र चौर्यरतगोपनं व्यज्यते — In this stanza the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ is the concealment of the stealthy or stolen dalliance This व्यङ्ग्यार्थ is understood by the friend owing to वक्तृवैशिष्ट्य i e owing to her knowledge of speciality of the speaker, which consists in her being a woman of disreputable character

अत्र चौर्यरतगोपनं व्यज्यते

Here the concealment of the clandestine love affair is suggested

As the stanza does not contain प्रयोजनवती लक्षणा, nor any अनेकार्थ आर्थी व्यञ्जना, because the stanza is capable of शब्दपरिक्रयति

(2) Stanza 2—This stanza illustrates बोद्धव्यवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता The context is the same as that of ‘नि शेपश्युतचन्दनं’ p 6, and of ‘साङ्गयन्ति सखि॰’ p 11 A lady sent a maid to fetch her lover The maid went and dallied with him When she came back she showed effects of dalliance The lady then addressed this stanza to her maid, pointedly referring to the effects of the dalliance Here the suggested sense is दूया तत्कामुकोपशमोग This suggested sense is conveyed to the reader by the वाच्यार्थ of the stanza, because the reader knows the speciality of the person addressed (viz the maid) That is why the stanza becomes an example of बोद्धव्यवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता

(2) Stanza 2—This stanza illustrates the suggestiveness of the expressed sense due to the speciality of what is to be understood The context is the same as that of ‘नि शेपश्युतचन्दनं’ p 6, and of ‘साङ्गयन्ति सखि॰’ p 11 A lady sent a maid to fetch her lover The maid went and dallied with him When she came back she showed effects of dalliance The lady then addressed this stanza to her maid, pointedly referring to the effects of the dalliance Here the suggested sense is that the lover's anger has been pacified This suggested sense is conveyed to the reader by the expressed meaning of the stanza, because the reader knows the speciality of the person addressed (viz the maid) That is why the stanza becomes an example of the suggestiveness of the expressed sense due to the speciality of what is to be understood

Here also we must note that the primary sense is not बाधित and there is no possibility of लक्षणा

त्वामपि

You also

The force of अपि is this I am myself suffering from all these viz औत्सुक्यम् दौर्बल्यम् etc owing to separation from my lover But now they are overpowering you also on account of your efforts to propitiate the lover on my behalf

Page 291

(3) Stanza 3-This stanza is an example of काकुवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता Here काकुवैशिष्ट्याद् means owing to the speciality viz काकु or the change in voice

The stanza is वेणीसंहार 1 11 It is said by Bhīmasena in answer to Sahadeva's remark that if Bhīmasena were to be exceedingly enraged, Yudhiṣthira might perhaps get angry with him Bhīmasena replies by saying that occasions had arisen in the past, when anger on the part of Yudhiṣthira would have been most proper But he entertained no anger then Would he now entertain anger and that too towards Bhīmasena and not towards the Kurus ?

The काकु or modulation is present in the last line If we read ‘गुरु खेदं खिदते मथि भजति नान्यापि कुरुषु’ in an ordinary voice, the line would mean ‘ Yudhiṣthira 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 खिदते मथि खेदं भजति (खिदते भजति किम्), अनन्यापि कुरुषु न (खेदं भजति किम्) And the suggestion from these questions of appeal, which are the results of काकु, is that anger towards Bhīmasena (मथि = भीमसेन) is improper and that it is proper towards the Kurus Thus, owing to the presence of काकु or the change in voice, with which Bhīmasena recites the last line, the वाच्यार्थस्य becomes व्यञ्जक Hence the stanza is an example of काकुवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता

न च वाच्यसिद्धयर्थं विश्रान्ते — These sentences are intended to show that the stanza ‘तथाभूतां दश्वा’, which has been quoted as an illustration of काकुवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता, is not an example of that variety of गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य काव्य, which is known as काकाक्षिप्त

All examples of अर्थी व्यञ्जना, which are given in this Ullāsa, are instances of ध्वनि or उत्तमकाव्य, where the suggested sense is more prominent than the expressed sense

Mammata deals with मध्यम or गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य काव्य in the fifth Ullāsa There he divides गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य into 8 varieties Two of the these varieties are called वाच्यसिद्धयङ्ग and काकाक्षिप्त वाच्यसिद्धयङ्ग is that variety, where the suggested sense is subordinate to the establishment of the expressed sense of a word काकाक्षिप्त 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.

Now somebody may here object that the stanza तथाभूतां दश्वा० ’ is also an example of काकाक्षिप्त गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य The sentences under discussion

Page 292

Page 30 ] NOTES Thırd Flash २३९

Page 30 ] NOTES Third Flash 239

are intended to refute thus objection. The objector may argue that the expressed sense of ‘गुरु खिद्यते मयि खेदं भजति अयापि कुरुः न [ भजति ]’ is incompatible with the present mood of Bhimasena Therefore, here the suggested sense (काकू काकाक्षि व्यङ्ग्य अर्थे इत्यर्थः ) viz मयि न योग्यः खेदः कुरुः तु योग्यः is subordinate to the expressed sense because it makes the otherwise incompatible expressed sense understandable Consequently,

are intended to refute this objection. The objector may argue that the expressed sense of 'गुरु खिद्यते मयि खेदं भजति अयापि कुरुः न [ भजति ]' is incompatible with the present mood of Bhimasena. Therefore, here the suggested sense (काकू काकाक्षि व्यङ्ग्य अर्थे इत्यर्थः) viz मयि न योग्यः खेदः कुरुः तु योग्यः is subordinate to the expressed sense because it makes the otherwise incompatible expressed sense understandable. Consequently,

‘तथाभूतां दृष्ट्वा’ is an example of काकादिषु गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य

'तथाभूतां दृष्ट्वा' is an example of काकादिषु गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य

Mammata’s answer to this objection is contained in प्रश्नमात्रेणापि काकोरिशान्ते He points out that modulation in this case could stop ( विश्रान्ति ) by suggesting a mere query and need not suggest anything further A simple query would be enough for the establishment or completion of the expressed sense (अत्र वाच्य प्रश्नमात्रोऽपि सिद्धं भवति । अतः प्रश्नमात्रं व्यङ्ग्य काकू विश्रान्ता स्यात्। काक्वा अतः परं कस्यापि अर्थेऽस्य व्यञ्जन वाच्यपयवसानार्थे नावश्यकम्)

Mammata's answer to this objection is contained in प्रश्नमात्रेणापि काकोरिशान्ते. He points out that modulation in this case could stop (विश्रान्ति) by suggesting a mere query and need not suggest anything further. A simple query would be enough for the establishment or completion of the expressed sense (अत्र वाच्य प्रश्नमात्रोऽपि सिद्धं भवति । अतः प्रश्नमात्रं व्यङ्ग्य काकू विश्रान्ता स्यात्। काक्वा अतः परं कस्यापि अर्थेऽस्य व्यञ्जन वाच्यपयवसानार्थे नावश्यकम्)

viz ‘Does our eldest brother bear anger towards me?’, the expressed sense would cease to be incompatible For, the query would mean Bhimasena wants to make sure of the possibility of Yudhisthira’s growing angry with him by asking Sahadeva a question about it This would not be incompatible with Bhimasena’s mood then It will thus be seen that the suggestion ‘मयि न योग्यः खेदः कुरुः तु योग्यः’ is by no means necessary to establish i e to complete or make compatible the expressed sense And as this suggested sense is not वाच्यसिद्धयर्थ, the stanza cannot be regarded as an example of काकादिषु गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य, but must be considered to be an instance of ध्वनि, like all other stanzas quoted in this Ullâsa

viz 'Does our eldest brother bear anger towards me?', the expressed sense would cease to be incompatible. For, the query would mean Bhimasena wants to make sure of the possibility of Yudhisthira's growing angry with him by asking Sahadeva a question about it. This would not be incompatible with Bhimasena's mood then. It will thus be seen that the suggestion 'मयि न योग्यः खेदः कुरुः तु योग्यः' is by no means necessary to establish i.e. to complete or make compatible the expressed sense. And as this suggested sense is not वाच्यसिद्धयर्थ, the stanza cannot be regarded as an example of काकादिषु गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य, but must be considered to be an instance of ध्वनि, like all other stanzas quoted in this Ullâsa

As has already been pointed out Mammata wants to tell us in these two sentences that the stanza ‘तथाभूतां दृष्ट्वा’ is not an example of the काकादिषु variety of गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य But he does not mention काकादिषु at all. On the contrary in stating the objection he uses the expression वाच्यसिद्धपक्षम् in its general sense. वाच्यसिद्धपक्षम् is the name of another variety of गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य

As has already been pointed out, Mammata wants to tell us in these two sentences that the stanza 'तथाभूतां दृष्ट्वा' is not an example of the काकादिषु variety of गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य. But he does not mention काकादिषु at all. On the contrary, in stating the objection he uses the expression वाच्यसिद्धपक्षम् in its general sense. वाच्यसिद्धपक्षम् is the name of another variety of गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य

with that variety Thus, the non-mention of काकादिषु, which is pertinent here, and the use of वाच्यसिद्धपक्ष, with which we have nothing to do, are further indications of Mammata’s careless writing

with that variety. Thus, the non-mention of काकादिषु, which is pertinent here, and the use of वाच्यसिद्धपक्ष, with which we have nothing to do, are further indications of Mammata's careless writing

This stanza is भामह iii 28 It illustrates आचिन्त्यानिमित्ता विशेषोक्ति, आचिन्त्यत्वम्

This stanza is भामह iii 28. It illustrates आचिन्त्यानिमित्ता विशेषोक्ति, आचिन्त्यत्वम्

he did not rob him of his strength

( 4 ) Stanza 4— This stanza illustrates वाक्यवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्ग्यता

(4) Stanza 4— This stanza illustrates वाक्यवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्ग्यता

A young man was sitting in the company of his beloved and a girl

Page 293

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 and suggested this fact as well as her surprise at it by addressing him the present stanza, wherein she used the significant words तदा, इदानोम् and सा (in 'न सा हस्ते') Therefore, this stanza illustrates

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, इदानोम् and सा (in 'न सा हस्ते') Therefore, this stanza illustrates वाच्याद्वैशिष्ट्याद्वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्गयता

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

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

(5) Stanza 5—This stanza illustrates वाच्यवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्गयता 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

(5) Stanza 5—This stanza illustrates 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

उद्देश region This is to be construed with नर्मदाया: = नर्मदातटस्य कुञ्चाना लतामण्डपानाम् उत्कर्षेण श्रेष्ठतया उत्कृष्टकुजे इत्यर्थे अर्थित उद्दूत रमणीषु विलासनीषु विश्रम चित्तास्थिथ्यं यत्स्मिन् There were such excellent bowers in this region that mental uneasiness or perturbation due to love sprouted up in the minds of women सुरतसुहृद् friends of amorous enjoyment The breezes ar, so called, because they were capable of removing the exhaustion caused by love-sport owing to their coolness and fragrance येषामग्रे मनोभू—The idea in this line is that the breezes, which blew in this region, were so excessively exciting that that seemed Cupid was moving in front of them and influencing all people that came within his reach

region This is to be construed with = of the bowers of the creeper-houses excellent in the sense of the highest There were such excellent bowers in this region that mental uneasiness or perturbation due to love sprouted up in the minds of women friends of amorous enjoyment The breezes ar, so called, because they were capable of removing the exhaustion caused by love-sport owing to their coolness and fragrance —The idea in this line is that the breezes, which blew in this region, were so excessively exciting that that 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, विश्रमोत्पादकोत्कृष्टकुजा and सुरतश्रमपरिहारकवाता are features that are supposed to excite in the lady a desire for enjoyment. So उद्दीपकविशेषणैर्युज्यत्ललम् is the वैशिष्ट्य of वाच्य that makes the वाच्यार्थ suggest that the lady should enter the place for enjoyment

Here we find that the is brought out by adjectives which pointedly refer to such features as are exciting Thus, , , and are features that are supposed to excite in the lady a desire for enjoyment. So is the of that makes the suggest that the lady should enter the place for enjoyment

Page 294

वाच्यवैशिष्ट्य must be distingulshed 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, इदानोम् 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

The distinction between vācyaviśiṣṭya and vākya-viśiṣṭya must be made. For vācya is expressed by the vākya-s and whatever specialty the sentences may have would be the specialty of the expressed sense as well and vice versa. But it is possible to make a distinction between the two. Vākya-viśiṣṭya consists in the use of words of general signification such as tada, idānīm, and sā, which suggest their proper sense when we take the whole situation into consideration. Vācya-viśiṣṭya, on the other hand, means the use of adjectives which express ideas useful for the purpose in hand.

(6) Stanza 6—This stanza illustrates अन्यसनिधौवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता Here अन्यसनिधौवैशिष्ट्याद् 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

(6) Stanza 6—This stanza illustrates 'anyasanidhau-vaiśiṣṭyād vācyārthasya vyañjakatā'. Here 'anyasanidhau-vaiśiṣṭyād' means owing to the presence of another. A girl was in love with someone. 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 (सकेत ) 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 अन्यसनिधौवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता

The stanza suggests to the lover, who stood near, apparently unconcerned or indifferent (taṭastha), that evening is the time of appointment (sanketa). 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 'anyasanidhau-vaiśiṣṭyād vācyārthasya vyañjakatā'.

(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 प्रस्तावरूप 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 उपपति प्रति अभिसरण सिद्धता, which throws out the suggestion 'न युक्तम् [ अभिसरणमस्मिन् समये ]'

(7) Stanza 7—This stanza illustrates 'prastāva-vaiśiṣṭyād vācyārthasya vyañjakatā'. 'Prastāva' means occasion or context. The occasion itself is the specialty. So that 'prastāvasya vaiśiṣṭyam' means 'prastāva-rūpa vaiśiṣṭyam'. 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 'prastāva' here is 'upapatti prati abhisaṇa siddhatā', which throws out the suggestion 'na yuktam [abhisaṇam asmin samaye]'.

एवमेव just thus, idly Or एवमेव may mean just in this अभितारिकावेश

'Evameva' just thus, idly. Or 'evameva' may mean just in this 'abhittārikā-veśa'.

(8) Stanza 8—This stanza illustrates देशवैशिष्ट्याद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता

(8) Stanza 8—This stanza illustrates 'deśa-vaiśiṣṭyād vācyārthasya vyañjakatā'.

(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

(9) Stanza 9—This stanza illustrates 'kāla-vaiśiṣṭyād vācyārthasya vyañjakatā'. 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

Page 295

वसन्तकाले वपैशिष्ठधमिलयर्थ तेन वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्कता ।

In the spring season, the speciality of the time makes the literal meaning suggestive.

अत्र काल वसन्त इत्येक वैशिष्ठ्यम् । वसन्तकाले रूपे वैशिष्ठधमिलयर्थ तेन वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्कता ।

आदिग्रहणात् चेष्टादे —The word आदि in प्रस्तावदशेकादे includes चेष्टा or gesture and others This means वाच्यार्थ sometimes becomes व्यङ्क owing to the speciality of gesture and other things

चेष्टया वैचिष्ठधाद् वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्कता

The speciality of gesture makes the literal meaning suggestive.

Here a man is describing to a friend five different gestures which his beloved went through when he approached the neighbourhood of her door The man remained concealed (प्रच्छन्न ) from the view of others, but was able to observe her movements all right The lady's gestures suggested some special feeling or meaning ( आकृतविशेष ) with reference to her concealed lover

उत्सङ्गलस्य प्रथमक प्रेङ्खनसेन प्रसारणेन तदनन्तरं परस्परमाससादनेन शुरतामिलिलष व्यजते ।

The meaning which the lady suggested by means of her different gestures will be clear from the following

The first gesture was the stretching out of her lap, then she spread out her hands, and then she embraced him tightly.

तथा पूरणार्थ तया आगन्तव्य-मित्यपि ध्वन्यते । शिरोज्चुकस्य पुरत आनयनेन तया स्वशिर आचचाष गूढ समागन्तव्यमिति धोत्यते ।

Thus she expressed her eagerness to meet him.

By bringing her hair ornament to the front, she indicated that she wanted to meet him secretly.

आगमनवेलायाम् इतस्ततो यत्र कुतापि न प्रक्षेपव्या हृदि इति लोचनयो आङ्क्षेपण सूच्यते ।

At the time of his arrival, she indicated that she was not to be distracted by anything else.

By the movement of her eyes, she suggested that her heart was not to be diverted by anything else.

वाक्यप्रसरनिवारणेन मनागपि कोलाहलमकृत्वा आयातव्यमिति प्रदश्यते ।

By not speaking, she indicated that she wanted him to come quietly.

By not making any noise, she showed that she wanted him to be silent.

दोलेतयो सकेचनन निमेषालिक्नस्य इहा प्रकटकिर्त्यते ।

By the movement of her eyes, she indicated that she was happy to see him.

By the twinkling of her eyes, she showed that she was delighted.

वक्त्रादानो मिथ सयोग द्विकादर्शन —Here supply व्यङ्ककत्वमुदाहार्यम् to complete the sentence

The idea is We have seen above that two or more of these circumstances may combine and make वाच्यार्थ suggestive

अनेन कमेण लस्यव्यजकगोक्ष व्यङ्ककत्वमुदाहार्यम्—This Ullāsa deals with अर्थी व्यजना i e the व्यङ्कता of वाच्यार्थ, लस्यार्थ and व्यङ्क्यार्थ

Mammata has so far illustrated वाच्यार्थस्य व्यङ्कता in the order of the circumstances mentioned in the Kārikās In the same order the suggestiveness of the लस्यार्थ and

Page 296

the व्यञ्ज्यार्थ 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 व्यञ्ज्यार्थ is respectively illustrated by stanza 2 and 3 of the second Ullāsa Stanza 2 illustrates बोधव्यवचछेदघाद लक्ष्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता and stanza 3 is an example of वक्तृबोध्यव्ययो वैरिष्टघाद वा व्यञ्ज्यार्थस्य व्यञ्जकता

the suggested sense should be illustrated, he now tells us in this sentence. He gives us no illustrations himself. We have already pointed out that the suggestiveness of the indicated sense and the suggested sense is respectively illustrated by stanza 2 and 3 of the second Ullāsa. Stanza 2 illustrates the suggestiveness of the indicated sense due to the exclusion of the primary sense, and stanza 3 is an example of the suggestiveness of the suggested sense due to the speciality of the speaker or the listener.

Page 33 Kārikā 3 — This Kārikā refers to the same matter as has been dealt with in Kārikā 15bcd of the second Ullāsa In आर्थी व्यञजना it is the अर्थ which is व्यञ्जक or suggestive But अर्थ must first be conveyed by शब्द ( शब्दबोध्य ) 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

Page 33 Kārikā 3 — This Kārikā refers to the same matter as has been dealt with in Kārikā 15bcd of the second Ullāsa. In आर्थी व्यञजना, it is the meaning which is suggestive. But the meaning must first be conveyed by the word before it can become suggestive and suggest another sense. Thus, the word helps the meaning to become suggestive by conveying it. Therefore, Mammata tells us here that when the meaning is suggestive, it is so with the cooperation of the word.

Though both अर्थ and शब्द are in this manner व्यञ्जक, the व्यञजना is termed आर्थी owing to the greater importance that here belongs to अर्थ Similarly, शाब्दी व्यञजना is so called because there greater importance belongs to शब्द The Kārikā is intended to account for the division of व्यञजना 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 व्यञजना greater importance belongs to शब्द and in आर्थी to अर्थ

Though both the meaning and the word are in this manner suggestive, the suggestion is termed आर्थी owing to the greater importance that here belongs to the meaning. Similarly, शाब्दी व्यञजना is so called because there is greater importance belonging to the word. The Kārikā is intended to account for the division of suggestion into शाब्दी and आर्थी, though in both these divisions the word and the meaning are both suggestive. The division is explained on the ground that in शाब्दी व्यञजना, greater importance belongs to the word and in आर्थी to the meaning.

According to the Pradipa this Kārikā is intended to remove the following objection काव्य is defined as शब्दार्थौ 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 'न्यभावितवाच्यगण्यस्य यथाऽर्थस्यनकस्माद् शब्दार्थयुगलस्य' ) Therefore, if in the stanzas illustrating आर्थी व्यञजना only the अर्थ is regarded as व्यञ्जक, how can they be examples of उत्तम काव्य ?

According to the Pradipa, this Kārikā is intended to remove the following objection: Poetry is defined as the combination of word and meaning. All the ten preceding stanzas are poetry and what is more, they are 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 suggestive (Vide p. 6 where Mammata says 'न्यभावितवाच्यगण्यस्य यथाऽर्थस्यनकस्माद् शब्दार्थयुगलस्य'). Therefore, if in the stanzas illustrating आर्थी व्यञजना, only the meaning is regarded as suggestive, how can they be examples of उत्तम काव्य?

शब्देति व्यञ्जक — This Vrtti means that अर्थ, which is शब्दप्रमाणक, is alone व्यञ्जक and that अर्थ understood from any other प्रमाण such as प्रत्यक्ष, अनुमान or उपमान is not व्यञ्जक The reason for this is plain व्यञजना 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

शब्देति व्यञ्जक — This Vrtti means that the meaning, which is dependent on the word as its प्रमाण, is alone suggestive and that the meaning understood from any other प्रमाण such as direct perception, inference, or analogy is not suggestive. The reason for this is plain: suggestion is a function which belongs to the word and the meaning conveyed by it. Therefore, it follows that it cannot belong to the meaning which may be conveyed by any other प्रमाण.

We have noted before ( p 234 ) the view of the Udyota that शाब्दी व्यञजना is so called, because it is शब्दपरिकर्यासह This means that the distinction between शाब्दी व्यञजना and आर्थी व्यञजना is based on शब्दपरिकर्यासहत्व While शाब्दी व्यञजना is शब्दपरिकृत्यसह, आर्थी is शब्दपरिकृतिसह Jagannātha also holds the same view Read रसगङ्गाधर p 138

We have noted before (p. 234) the view of the Udyota that शाब्दी व्यञजना is so called because it is accompanied by the embellishment of the word. This means that the distinction between शाब्दी व्यञजना and आर्थी व्यञजना is based on whether it is accompanied by the embellishment of the word. While शाब्दी व्यञजना is accompanied by the embellishment of the word, आर्थी is not. Jagannātha also holds the same view. Read रसगङ्गाधर p. 138.

Page 297

२४४

काव्यप्रकाराः

[ Page 34

Page 34

TENTH FLASH

Having defined and illustrated शब्दालङ्कारs 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 साधर्म्ये 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 साधर्म्ये 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 उपमानोपमेययोः साधर्म्यम्

Some interpret मम्मट's words समानेन धर्मेण सबन्ध in the sense of connection between उपमान and उपमेय on the one hand and समानधर्म on the other This is manifestly wrong समानेन धर्मेण in the षष्ठी is a करणे तृतीया and not सह Also the relation between उपमानोपमेयौ and समानधर्म will not be साधर्म्ये 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 साधृश्य or साम्य ( similarity, resemblance ) and the two words are often used as synonyms Psychologically the two can, however, be distinguished साधर्म्ये is the cause and साधृश्य 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 अनन्वय 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 'रामरावण्ययोर्हि रामरावण्योरिव', though साधर्म्ये has formally been shown between the उपमान ( रामरावण्ययोर्हि ) and the उपमेय ( रामरावण्योरिव ). the उपमान and उपमेय are not distinct They are really one Therefore भेदे

Page 298

Page 34 ]

NOTES : Tenth Flash

२४९

excludes अतनन्यय from being उपमा. There is another point of distinction between the two. In उपमा साधर्म्ये is striking, while in अतनन्यय what strikes us is उपमानतरण्यवच्छेदः. This means that while उपमा ultimately conveys the idea of similarity between the उपमेय and the उपमान,

अतनन्यय 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 ‘ कमलेभ्यः मतिरीव रिव 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 सदृशव्यवच्छेद 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, while 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 प्रतीप, 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 साधर्म्येम् 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 साधर्म्येम् 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 पटो द्रव्यम्’ घट इव पटो जातिमान्’ and ‘अस्ति वत् दरिद्रचैव पिश्ववत् कुष्ठवतथा । राजन् तव यशो भाति ( शरच्चन्द्रमरीचिवत् ) does not constitute उपमा. We think that such a qualification is by no means necessary.

Whenever a figure is defined, it is presumed that it is a figure. And a figure means strikingness (‘वैचित्र्ये चात्कारः: 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.

Page 299

अपञ्या दीक्षित in चित्रमीमासा shows how उपमा with only slight changes assumes the form of other figures Read चित्रमीमासा

Apanya Dikshit in Chitra Meemasa shows how Upama with only slight changes assumes the form of other figures. Read Chitra Meemasa.

Jagannātha finds fault with Mammata's definition of उपमा on the ground that it is applicable to व्यतिरेक, where साधस्य is conveyed with a view to deny it-ultimately If it be said that the word साम्ये, which suggests that the ultimate idea in उपमा is resemblance, distinguishes it from व्यतिरेक, where the ultimate idea is the denial of such resemblance, it is pointed out that in that case the word साधस्ये, would also exclude अनन्वयI, where the ultimate idea is द्वितीयसहशववच्छेद and that भेदे is, therefore, not necessary in the definition It must be admitted that Jagannātha's criticism is correct. Mammata should either have dropped the word भेदे from his definition or should have included in it some additional words to distinguish it not only from व्यतिरेक, but also from रूपक and उपमेयोपमा, as Viśvanātha has done Read रसगङाधर pp 162-163

Jagannatha finds fault with Mammata's definition of Upama on the ground that it is applicable to Vyatireka, where similarity is conveyed with a view to deny it ultimately. If it be said that the word Samye, which suggests that the ultimate idea in Upama is resemblance, distinguishes it from Vyatireka, where the ultimate idea is the denial of such resemblance, it is pointed out that in that case the word Sadrsye would also exclude Ananvaya, where the ultimate idea is the exclusion of something similar to the second, and that Bhede is, therefore, not necessary in the definition. It must be admitted that Jagannatha's criticism is correct. Mammata should either have dropped the word Bhede from his definition or should have included in it some additional words to distinguish it not only from Vyatireka, but also from Rupaka and Upameyopama, as Visvanatha has done. Read Rasagangadhar pp 162-163.

The name उपमा is derived from उप + मा माति मीमते मीयते to measure It is thus explained उप समीपे मीयते तत्त्वतया परिच्छिद्यते उपमानेन कत्र्रा उपमेयं करी अस्याम् in which the उपमेय is measured by the उपमान in its vicinity i e is defined or determined as being similar to it

The name Upama is derived from Upa + Ma, where 'Ma' means to measure. It is thus explained: 'Upa Samipe Miyate Tattvataya Paricchidyate Upamanena Kartra Upameyam Kari Asyam', in which the Upameya is measured by the Upamana in its vicinity, i.e., is defined or determined as being similar to it.

पूर्णा लुत्ता—Mammata now commences the treatment of the divisions of उपमा उपमा is first divided into पूर्णा and लुत्ता उपमा requires four elements or ingredients viz उपमान, उपमेय, साधारणधर्म and उपमाप्रतिपादक When all these four elements are mentioned ( उपादाने प्रहणे शब्दानुर्देशे ) the Comparison is पूर्णा or complete When one, two or three of these elements are omitted, it becomes लुत्ता or Elliptical

Purna Lutta—Mammata now commences the treatment of the divisions of Upama. Upama is first divided into Purna and Lutta. Upama requires four elements or ingredients, viz., Upamana, Upameya, Sadharandharma, and Upamapratipadaka. When all these four elements are mentioned (the mention being explicit or implicit), the Comparison is Purna or complete. When one, two, or three of these elements are omitted, it becomes Lutta or Elliptical.

उपमान means that to which something is compared i e the standard of comparison उपमेय is that which is compared i e object of comparison

Upamana means that to which something is compared, i.e., the standard of comparison. Upameya is that which is compared, i.e., the object of comparison.

साधारणधर्म, referred to hereafter as धर्म, is the common property possessed by both उपमान and उपमेय, which brings about the connection between the two

Sadharandharma, referred to hereafter as Dharma, is the common property possessed by both Upamana and Upameya, which brings about the connection between the two.

उपमाप्रतिपादक means a word like यथा, इव and वा, or a word like तुल्य, सम and समान, which conveys the idea of comparison उपमाप्रतिपादका उपमाबोधका उपमावाचका यथादय तुल्यादयो वा शब्दा। This element of उपमा is hereafter referred to as वाचक i e an उपमाप्रतिपादक word such as वा Other writers call it वाचक

Upamapratipadaka means a word like Yatha, Iva, and Va, or a word like Tulya, Sama, and Saman, which conveys the idea of comparison. Upamapratipadakas are Upamabodhakas or Upamavachakas, such as Yathadi or Tulyadi words. This element of Upama is hereafter referred to as Vachaka, i.e., an Upamapratipadaka word such as Va. Other writers call it Vachaka.

Mammata first divides उपमा into two broad classes viz पूर्णा and लुत्ता पूर्णा is further divided into श्रौती and आर्थी, each of which has three varieties पूर्णा is thus of six kinds लुत्ता is then further divided into seven

Mammata first divides Upama into two broad classes, viz., Purna and Lutta. Purna is further divided into Srauti and Arthi, each of which has three varieties. Purna is thus of six kinds. Lutta is then further divided into seven.

Page 300

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

kinds, which along with the sub-divisions of five of them make a total of nineteen Thus, Mammata's upama has in all twenty five varieties

Thse divisions will be clear from the following -

These divisions will be clear from the following -

उपमा ( 25 varieties )

upama ( 25 varieties )

पूर्णा ( 6 varieties )

purna ( 6 varieties )

लुप्ता ( 19 varieties )

lupta ( 19 varieties )

श्रौती ( 3 kinds )

shrauti ( 3 kinds )

आर्थी ( 3 kinds )

arthi ( 3 kinds )

(1) वाक्यगा( 2 ) समासगा (3) तद्धितगा (4) वाक्यगा (5) समासगा (6) तद्धितगा

(1) vakyaga( 2 ) samasaga (3) taddhitaga (4) vakyaga (5) samasaga (6) taddhitaga

स्वनेऽपि अत्यायतेऽ गाभीर्यगरिमा चक्रिहरण अवितथ दुरालोक

svane'pi atyayate' gabhiryagarima chakriharaṇa avitatha duraloka

Stanza 1 Stanza 3 Stanza 5ab Stanza 2 Stanza 4 Stanza 5cd

(1) धर्मलुप्ता (2) उपमानलुप्ता (3) वादिलुप्ता (4) धर्मवादिलुप्ता (5) धर्मोपमानलुप्ता (6) वाक्युपमेय (7) वादिधर्मो‌प-

(1) dharmalupta (2) upamanalupta (3) vadilupta (4) dharmavadilupta (5) dharmopamanalupta (6) vakyupameya (7) vadidharme'pa-

(5 kinds ) लुप्ता लुप्ता लुप्ता लुप्ता लुप्ता

(5 kinds ) lupta lupta lupta lupta lupta

(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 -

The sub-divisions of these seven varieties of lupta can be thus shown -

(1) धर्मलुप्ता— (7) वाक्यगा श्रौती e g न्यायस्थानन्य Stanza 6 (8) वाक्यगा

(1) dharmalupta— (7) vakyaga shrauti e g nyayasthananya Stanza 6 (8) vakyaga

(5 kinds) आर्थी e g आकारकरवालो Stanza 7 (9) समासगा श्रौती e g करवाल इवाचार Stanza 8 (10) समासगा आर्थी e g वाग्मृतोपमा Stanza 8 (11) तद्धितगा आर्थी e g विषकल्प मन

(5 kinds) arthi e g akarakarvalo Stanza 7 (9) samasaga shrauti e g karvala ivacara Stanza 8 (10) samasaga arthi e g vagmrtopama Stanza 8 (11) taddhitaga arthi e g vishkalpa mana

Stanza 8

(2) उपमानलुप्ता— (12) वाक्यगा आर्थी e g सकलकरण Stanza 9 (13)

(2) upamanalupta— (12) vakyaga arthi e g sakalakaraṇa Stanza 9 (13)

(2 kinds) समासगा आर्थी e g सकलकरण Stanza 9

(2 kinds) samasaga arthi e g sakalakaraṇa Stanza 9

(3) वादिलुप्ता— (14) समासगा ( त्रिपदसमासगा) e g तत कुसुमनाथेन Stanza

(3) vadilupta— (14) samasaga ( tripadasamasaga) e g tata kusumanathena Stanza

(6 kinds) 10, (त्रिपदसमासगा) e g असितभुजग Stagza 11 (15)

(6 kinds) 10, (tripadasamasaga) e g asitabhuja Stanza 11 (15)

क्रियेति e g पौर सुतियति Stanza 12 (16) आधारक्रियेति

kriyeti e g paur sutiyati Stanza 12 (16) adharakriyeti

e g समानान्तरे हेतु प्रतीति Stanza 12 (17) क्रियगा e g

e g samanantere hetu pratiiti Stanza 12 (17) kriyaga e g

रूपसेना नारीयते Stanza 12 (18) कर्मणसुलुप्ता e g

rupasena nariyate Stanza 12 (18) karmaṇasulupta e g

निदाघघर्ममुद्रारम्Stanza 13 (19) कर्तृणसुलुप्ता e g पाथ्संचार

nidaghagharmamudraram Stanza 13 (19) kartr̥ṇasulupta e g pathasancara

स्वरति Stanza 13

svarati Stanza 13

(4) धर्मवादिलुप्ता— (20) क्रिया e g सविता विधवति Stanza 14 (21) समासगा

(4) dharmavadilupta— (20) kriya e g savita vidhavati Stanza 14 (21) samasaga

(2 kinds) e g परिपन्थिमनोरारुः Stanza 15

(2 kinds) e g paripanthimanoraruḥ Stanza 15

(5) धर्मोपमानलुप्ता— (22) समासगा (आर्थी) e g डिण्डिणायमालो Stanza 16 (23)

(5) dharmopamanalupta— (22) samasaga (arthi) e g dindinayamalo Stanza 16 (23)

(2 kinds) वाक्यगा (आर्थी) e g डिण्डिणायमालो Stanza 16

(2 kinds) vakyaga (arthi) e g dindinayamalO Stanza 16

Page 301

(6) वाध्युपमेयड्युस्—(24) कयजै e g स सहस्रायुधीति Stanza 17

(6) vādhyupameyāḍyas—(24) kayajai e g sa sahasrāyudhīti Stanza 17

(7) वादिधर्मोपमानड्युस्—(25) समासगा e g मृगनयना Stanza 18

(7) vādidharmopamānāḍyas—(25) samāsagā e g mrganayanā Stanza 18

साभ्रमा तद्धिते तथा — This part of Kārikā I tells us that the first ( अध्रिमा ) of the two varieties mentioned above viz पूर्णा is श्रौती and आर्थी and that these two kinds occur each in a sentence, in a compound and in a nominal affix

sābhramā taddhite tathā — This part of Kārikā I tells us that the first ( adhrimā ) of the two varieties mentioned above viz pūrṇā is śrautī and ārthī 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 compound of उपमान and उपमाप्रतिपादक alone is possible e g चन्द्र इव सुन्दरं मुखम् ( श्रौती ) or चन्द्रतुल्यं सुन्दरं मुखम् ( 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 इवसुन्दरं मुखम् etc or चन्द्रेण तुल्यं सुन्दरमुखम्, चन्द्रेण तुल्यं सुन्दरं मुखम् 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

When all the four words expressive of the four ingredients of an upamā viz upamān, upameya, sādhāraṇa dharma and upamāpratipādaka occur in an independent uncompounded form, the upamā is vākyagā When any of these four are compounded, the upamā is samāsagā It is to be noted here that in a pūrṇopamā compound of upamān and upamāpratipādaka alone is possible e g candra iva sundaraṃ mukham ( śrautī ) or candratulyaṃ sundaraṃ mukham ( ārthī ) 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 candra iva sundaramukham, candra ivasundaraṃ mukham etc or candreṇa tulyaṃ sundaramukham, candreṇa tulyaṃ sundaraṃ mukham etc When a taddhita affix is added to a word, the resulting formation, such as candravat, is not a compound For, taddhita is different from samāsa Nor is candravat a sentence For, in a sentence words occur in different cases Hence, taddhitagā upamā is a variety distinct from vākyagā and samāsagā

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.

In Pāṇini's system of grammar taddhita 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 taddhita For example, vat is a taddhita termination and candravat is formed by adding it to candra. Here both vat and candravat are known as taddhita.

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 कुदन्त. For example, अक is a Kṛt termination and पाचक, derived from the root पच् by its addition, is also known as कृत् or कुदन्त.

Taddhita is often contrasted with kṛt. Kṛt 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 kṛt or kudantr. For example, aka is a Kṛt termination and pācaka, derived from the root pac by its addition, is also known as kṛt or kudantr.

The paragraphs beginning with ‘यथैववादिशब्दा:’ and ‘तेन तुल्यं मुखम्’ explain the basis of the division of उपमा into श्रौती and आर्थी उपमा is defined as साधर्म्ये or the connection between the उपमान and the उपमेय brought about by a common property possessed by both. When this

The paragraphs beginning with ‘yathaivavādiśabdāḥ’ and ‘ten tulyaṃ mukham’ explain the basis of the division of upamā into śrautī and ārthī upamā is defined as sādharmye or the connection between the upamān and the upameya brought about by a common property possessed by both. When this

Page 302

Page 35 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash २४९

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

When the connection is conveyed directly ( श्रुत्या = श्रवणेन = शब्देन ), 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) यथादि and (2) तुल्यादि The यथादि group consists of यथा, इव, वा, व (' व वा यथा तथैव साम्ये' अमर ) and वत्, in the sense of इव

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) यथादि and (2) तुल्यादि. The यथादि group consists of यथा, इव, वा, व (' व वा यथा तथैव साम्ये' अमर ) 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

The तुल्यादि group is made up 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 connec tion between the उपमान and the उपमेय founded on a common property, even as they are heard ( श्रुत्येक श्रवणमात्रेण ) i e by their very presence ( साक्षात् ) 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

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 ( श्रुत्येक श्रवणमात्रेण ), i.e., by their very presence ( साक्षात् ) 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, primarly or directly convey resemblance or similarity (तुल्यता, साध्य 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 directly, but indirectly through साहश्य That is why when words like तुल्य, सदृश and सम are used as उपमाप्रतिपादक, the उपमा is आर्थी or Indirect or Implied

But words like तुल्य, सदृश, सम, etc., which mean resembling or similar, primarily or directly convey resemblance or similarity (तुल्यता, साध्य, 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 directly, but indirectly through साहश्य. That is 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 साहश्य or साम्य that we pointed out before becomes pertinent in आर्थी उपमा though, as noted there the two words are often treated as synonyms.

It will thus be seen that the distinction between साधर्म्य and साहश्य 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.

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

यथेववादिशब्दा०—This paragraph explains how उपमाप्रतिपादक words like यथा, इव and वा express साधर्म्य Mammata is here answering a

Page 303

२५०

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 35

possible objection, which may be stated thus यथा, इव and वा show that the word after which they are used ( यत्परा ) is alone an उपमान They are thus the attributes or distinguishing characteristics (विशेषणानि ) of the उपमान It should be noted that the word विशेषणम् does not mean a grammatical adjective, but a distinguishing attribute generally An attribute shows the connection of something with that which it distinguishes Thus, नीलम् in ‘नीलमुत्पलम्’ shows the connection of blueness with the lotus Similarly, यथा, इव and वा may bring out the connection of a certain property, with the उपमान But, as they are the attributes of the उपमान, they have apparently no power to convey that the उपमेय also possesses the property which is possessed by the उपमान How can they then be said to express साधर्म्य, which means the connection between the उपमान and the उपमेय based on a common property ?

A possible objection, which may be stated thus: 'yatha, iva, and va' indicate that the word following them is alone the standard of comparison. Thus, they are the attributes or distinguishing characteristics of the standard of comparison. It should be noted that the term 'viseshanam' does not refer to a grammatical adjective but to a distinguishing attribute in general. An attribute shows the connection of something with that which it distinguishes. For instance, 'nilam' in 'nilam utpalamm' shows the connection of blueness with the lotus. Similarly, 'yatha, iva,' and 'va' may bring out the connection of a certain property with the standard of comparison. However, as they are attributes of the standard of comparison, they apparently lack the power to convey that the object of comparison also possesses the property that is possessed by the standard of comparison. How, then, can they be said to express similarity, which means the connection between the standard of comparison and the object of comparison based on a common property?

Mammata's answer to this objection is It is true that यथा, इव and वा are the attributes of the उपमान, because they show that the word after which they are used is alone the उपमान Yet they possess some glorious power as word by which they convey at the same time and even as they are heard ( श्रुता एव ) i e directly the connection of common property existing between the उपमान and the उपमेय ( सादृश्यरूपं सम्बन्धम् ) That is why when these words are used, the उपमा is श्रोत्री० i e ग्राह्यगम्या or वाच्या

Mammata's answer to this objection is: It is true that 'yatha, iva,' and 'va' are attributes of the standard of comparison because they indicate that the word following them is alone the standard of comparison. Yet, they possess a glorious power as words by which they convey, at the same time and even as they are heard, the connection of a common property existing between the standard of comparison and the object of comparison. That is why, when these words are used, the comparison is understood directly through hearing.

षष्ठीवान्—This expression embodies an illustration for the double achievement of the words यथा, इव and वा The illustration is drawn from grammar षष्ठीवान् stands for षष्ठीप्रत्ययवत् In ‘राज्ञो राज्यम्’ the genitive termination अस् is affixed to राजन् It shows that the king is स्वामिन् or the possessor, or that स्वामित्व or possessiveness belongs to the king As such the षष्ठी or the genitive termination is an attribute or adjunct ( विशेषणम् ) of राजन् But the genitive at the same time and directly conveys स्वस्वामिभाव or the relation of the possessor and the possessed existing between the king and the kingdom Similarly, words like यथा, इव and वा, though attributes of उपमान, because they show that the word after which they come is alone an उपमान convey at the same time and directly the relation of साधर्म्ये existing between the उपमान and the उपमेय

The expression 'sasthivan' embodies an illustration for the double achievement of the words 'yatha, iva,' and 'va.' The illustration is drawn from grammar. 'Sasthivan' stands for 'sasthiprayayavat.' In the phrase 'rajño rajyamm,' the genitive termination 'as' is affixed to 'rajan.' It shows that the king is the possessor, or that possessiveness belongs to the king. As such, the genitive termination is an attribute or adjunct of 'rajan.' However, the genitive, at the same time and directly, conveys the relation of the possessor and the possessed existing between the king and the kingdom. Similarly, words like 'yatha, iva,' and 'va,' though attributes of the standard of comparison, convey, at the same time and directly, the relation of similarity existing between the standard of comparison and the object of comparison.

यथैववादिशब्दा — The words यथा and इव are well known as particles of comparison वा is generally known as an alternative conjunction in the sense of 'or' But it signifies comparison as well By the word आदि the particle च may be understood Note ‘च प्रचेतसि जानियादिवाये तु तद्वद्य्यम्’ मेदिनी Of रघुवंश 4 42,

The words 'yatha' and 'iva' are well-known as particles of comparison. 'Va' is generally known as an alternative conjunction in the sense of 'or,' but it also signifies comparison. By the word 'adi,' the particle 'ca' may be understood. Note: 'ca pracetasijaniadivaye tu tadvadvyam' Medini, Raghuvaṃśa 4.42.

Page 304

तथैव तत्र वतेत्पादाने

In the same way, in the context of 'vati' (वति), the expression 'वतेत्पादाने' (vate-tpadane) is used.

This sentence tells us that the comparison becomes श्रौती (śrāutī) when वत् (vat), which is laid down (विहित) by Pāṇini in the sense of इत् (it) by means of the sūtra 'तत्र तस्येव' (tatra tasyeva) 5.1.116 is used. This refers to तद्धिता श्रौती पूर्णा variety of उपमा (upamā). For, वत् (vat) is a तद्धित (taddhita) termination and the form which results from its addition to a word is also known as तद्धित (taddhita).

तत्र तस्येव

Tatra tasyeva

'तत्र तस्येव' (tatra tasyeva) means that the termination वत् (vat) is added in the sense of इत् (it) to nouns in the locative (तत्र) and the genitive (तस्य) i.e. to nouns which otherwise would be in the locative and the genitive e.g. मधुरावत् (madhurāvat) लुब्धे प्रकार (lubdhe prākāra), where मधुरावत् (madhurāvat) means मधुरायामिव (madhurāyāmiva) and चैत्रवत् (caitravat) चैत्रस्य इव (caitrasya iva).

तेन तुल्यं मुखं स्यिातै

Tena tulyaṃ mukhaṃ syātai

This paragraph explains how the idea of साधर्म्य (sādharmya) is obtained from उपमा-प्रतिपादक (upamā-pratipādaka) words of the तुल्यादि (tulyādi) class. In the expressions 'तेन (कमलेन) तुल्यं मुखम्' (tena kamalena tulyaṃ mukham), 'तत् (कमले) तुल्यम् अस्य (मुखस्य)' (tat kamale tulyam asya mukhasya), and 'इदं (मुखं) च तत् (कमलं) च तुल्यम्' (idaṃ mukhaṃ ca tat kamalaṃ ca tulyam), the comparison-conveying word तुल्य (tulya) is an adjective of the उपमेय (upameya) (मुख), the उपमान (upamāna) (कमल), and both the उपमेय (upameya) and the उपमान (upamāna) respectively. This word, therefore, stops (विर्रान्ति) i.e. has its power exhausted, when it respectively expresses the ideas that the face is similar to the lotus, that the lotus is similar to the face, and that both of them are similar to each other. तुल्य (tulya) thus expresses the idea of साम्य (sāmya) and stops there.

साम्यपयालोचनया तुल्यताप्रतीति

Sāmyaparyālocanayā tulyatāpratīti

This expression furnishes another and a very glaring example of Mammata's careless diction. साम्य (sāmya) and तुल्यता (tulyatā) mean exactly the same thing. So the expression as it stands makes no sense. We must, therefore, suppose that तुल्यता (tulyatā) has been used for साधर्म्य (sādharmya). This is clearly shown by the following clause viz. इति साधर्म्यस्य आर्थीभावात् (iti sādharmyasya ārthībhāvāt).

तद्वत् तेन स्थितौ

Tadvat tena sthitau

This sentence adds that the Comparison is आर्थी (ārthī) or Indirect, when वत् (vat) is used. Supply आर्थी उपमा (ārthī upamā) to complete the sentence.

Page 305

तद्वितगा आर्थी पूर्णो

The secondary derivative is complete in meaning

For, this वतु is again a तद्धित termination and the resulting form is also known as तद्धित

‘ तेन तुल्ये क्रिया चेद् वति ’ पा ५ १ ११५

By the rule 'तेन तुल्ये क्रिया चेद् वति' (Pāṇini 5.1.115)

means that the termination वत् is added to words in the instrumental in the sense of तुल्य, provided the common property is an action e g ब्राझणवद्गोली क्षत्रिय

The property of ‘ क्रिया चेत् ’ is that this वत् is not available when the common property is not an action, but a quality e g पुत्रेण तुल्य स्थूल पिता, not पुत्रवत् स्थूल

The property of 'क्रिया चेत्' is that this वत् is not available when the common property is not an action, but a quality e.g. पुत्रेण तुल्य स्थूल पिता, not पुत्रवत् स्थूल

It may be noted that the special power possessed by the यथादि group is nothing but अभिधा with reference to साधर्म्य

It may be noted that the special power possessed by the यथादि group is nothing but the power of expression (अभिधा) with reference to similarity (साधर्म्य)

Thus, it is clear that the distinction between श्रौती and आर्थी उपमा depends on whether साधर्म्य is expressed directly or conveyed indirectly

Thus, it is clear that the distinction between श्रौती and आर्थी उपमा (simile) depends on whether साधर्म्य (similarity) is expressed directly or conveyed indirectly

If साधर्म्य is directly expressed, the उपमा is श्रौती

If साधर्म्य is directly expressed, the उपमा is श्रौती (explicit)

If it is indirectly conveyed the उपमा is आर्थी

If it is indirectly conveyed, the उपमा is आर्थी (implicit)

From the practical point of view the distinction is

From the practical point of view, the distinction is

If a तुल्यादि is उपमाप्रतिपादक, the comparison is श्रौती

If a तुल्यादि is उपमाप्रतिपादक (indicating comparison), the comparison is श्रौती (explicit)

If a तुल्यादि conveys the comparison, the उपमा is आर्थी

If a तुल्यादि conveys the comparison, the उपमा is आर्थी (implicit)

इवेन नित्यसमास समासगा

इवेन नित्यसमास समासगा (The compound with इव is always compounded)

—This passage explains how समासगा is possible in श्रौती पूर्णो

We have seen before that in a पूर्णोपमा the two words that can possibly be compounded are उपमान and उपमाप्रतिपादक

We have seen before that in a पूर्णोपमा (complete simile), the two words that can possibly be compounded are उपमान (the object compared) and उपमाप्रतिपादक (the word indicating comparison)

A compound of उपमान and उपमाप्रतिपादक words of the तुल्यादि class e g कमलतुल्याम्, कमलसदृगम् etc can be easily understood

A compound of उपमान and उपमाप्रतिपादक words of the तुल्यादि class, e.g. कमलतुल्याम्, कमलसदृगम् etc., can be easily understood

This gives us समासगा आर्थी

This gives us समासगा आर्थी (the compound is implicit)

But how can we have a compound of an उपमान with a यथादि उपमाप्रतिपादक word ?

But how can we have a compound of an उपमान with a यथादि उपमाप्रतिपादक word?

This question is answered by Mammata in the line under discussion

He tells us that out of the words comprising the यथादि class इव forms a compound with the उपमान after which it comes

He tells us that out of the words comprising the यथादि class, इव forms a compound with the उपमान after which it comes

Hence, when the word इव is used, we get समासगा श्रौती

Hence, when the word इव is used, we get समासगा श्रौती (the compound is explicit)

इवेन नित्यसमास विभक्त्यलोप पूर्वपदप्रकृतिस्वरत्वं च

इवेन नित्यसमास विभक्त्यलोप पूर्वपदप्रकृतिस्वरत्वं च (With इव, there is always a compound, elision of the case ending, and the retention of the original accent on the first member)

—This is a vartika of Kātyāyana

and means that इव forms a necessary or permanent compound with a noun, that that noun does not lose its case-termination

and means that इव forms a necessary or permanent compound with a noun, and that that noun does not lose its case-termination

and that the same noun which forms the first member of the compound retains its natural or original accent e g जीवमूतस्येव ( ऋग्वेद ६ ७५ १ )

and that the same noun which forms the first member of the compound retains its natural or original accent, e.g. जीवमूतस्येव (ऋग्वेद ६.७५.१)

Here जीवमूतस्य is compounded with इव

But जीवमूतस्य does not lose its case termination, as it would ordinarily do, if it were compounded with any other word, say, वर्णे

But जीवमूतस्य does not lose its case termination, as it would ordinarily do if it were compounded with any other word, say, वर्णे

जीवमूतस्य वर्णे would be जीवमूतवर्णे

Then again, the rule is that compounds are generally accented on the last syllable

Page 306

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 जीमूत

This इव compound does not fall under any of the well known classes It is known as a गष्ठ 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 वartika 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 Padapatha, but have an avagraha inserted between them as in the case of regular compounds Thus, जीमूतस्येव yields the Padapatha 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 वartika is quoted Where Mammata gets his नित्य from cannot be known Perhaps he was influenced by what he found in the Rgveda, where इव forms a compound with the words preceding it in ali cases of its occurrence without an exception

In classical Sanskrit the statement नित्यसमास is 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 'प्राङ्कुलभ्यो फलेभ्यो मेधाविद्रार्धुरिव वामन्' ऋग्वेद 1 3

The grammarians therefore, regard इव compounds as optional Consequently, Mammata'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

Page 307

२५८

काव्यप्रकाश:

[Page 36

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 पूर्णों 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 स्वप्रेयसि—This naturally goes with विजयश्री

This stanza is an illustration of वाक्यगत श्रौती पूर्णों 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 वाक्यगत आर्थी पूर्णों Here आनन is the उपमेय, सरसिज the उपमान, तरुणारुणातहारकान्तित्व the साधारणधर्मे 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 चकितहरिणल्लोचनाया is also an example of समासगा वादिल्लुप्ता For, here three elements of उपमा viz. उपमेय (लोचन), उपमान (चकितहरिण) and साधारणधर्म (लोल) are mentioned. Only the उपमाप्रतिपादक इव is dropped

Stanza 3—This stanza describes a certain king, who protected the world with four expedients (उपायै ), as Kṛṣṇa did with his four arms The adjectives in the instrumental plural go with both उपायै and भुजै In the following the first explanation refers to उपायै and the second to भुजै, अत्यायतै (1) far-extended 1 e or far-reaching in their consequences (2) extremely long उद्दतानां नियमकारिभि (1) that frame rules of conduct for arrogant people from among the subjects (2) which accomplish restraint or control of the impudent demons दिव्यै (1) excellent (2) divine, because they belong to Lord Kṛṣṇa प्रभाभि—This is an उपलक्षणे तृतीया (1) characterized by prowess (2) endowed with

Page 308

splendour or lustre अनपायिन्यै (1) which never fail in achieving their ends, (2) न अपाय नाश, तल्लक्षणैः अविनाशिभिः eternal उपायै -This means the four expedients or means of success against an enemy viz सामन, दान, भेद and दण्ड

splendour or lustre which never fail in achieving their ends, (2) not destruction, eternal means -This means the four expedients or means of success against an enemy viz conciliation, gift, division and punishment

शौरिः is Lord Kṛṣṇa अत्र = एतत् लक्ष्मीविलासमवनै (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

Śauri is Lord Kṛṣṇa here, meaning that which 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 पूर्णों The उपमा is पूर्णों, because the four elements viz उपमेय (उपायै), उपमान (अञ्जैः) साधारणधर्मे (अत्यायतादि ) and उपमाप्रतिपादक ( इव ) are mentioned It is श्रौती, because the उपमाप्रतिपादक इव is समासगा, because अञ्जैरिव is a compound, according to ‘इवेन नित्यसमासो विमक्त्यलोपे पूर्वपदप्‍रकृतिस्वरत्वं च’

This stanza illustrates the complete simile. The simile is complete because the four elements viz the object of comparison, the standard of comparison, the common property, and the indicator of comparison are mentioned. It is based on the scripture because the indicator of comparison 'like' is compounded, according to the rule that 'इवेन नित्यसमासो विमक्त्यलोपे 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 पूर्णों The उपमा here is पूर्णों, because the four elements viz उपमेय (भवान्), उपमान (कल्पतरु), साधारण धर्मे (अभिलषितप्रदाननिपुणौः स्त्रिभ्याम्) and उपमाप्रतिपादक (सहसा ) are mentioned It is अर्थी, because the उपमाप्रतिपादक सहसा belongs to तुल्यादि group It is समासगा, because the वाचक सहसा is compounded with the उपमान कल्पतरु

This stanza is quoted as an illustration of a complete simile with the meaning. The simile here is complete because the four elements viz the object of comparison, the standard of comparison, the common property, and the indicator of comparison are mentioned. It is based on the meaning because the indicator of comparison 'सहसा' belongs to the group of words indicating similarity. It is compounded because the indicative word 'सहसा' is compounded with the standard of comparison 'कल्पतरु'

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 गगाभुजग means the ocean भुजगः also means a paramour The ocean is called a paramour of गंगा because the husband of गंगा was शेतद्रु

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 'गगाभुजग' means the ocean. 'भुजगः' also means a paramour. The ocean is called a paramour of गंगा because the husband of गंगा was शेतद्रु

The first line of this stanza illustrates तब्‍िगतगा श्रौती पूर्णों उपमा The Comparison is पूर्णों, because all the four ingredients viz. उपमेय (स तस्मात्), उपमान (गगाभुजग) साधारण धर्मे (गाग्मीर्यगरिमा) and उपमाप्रतिपादक (वत् ) are mentioned It is श्रौती, because the उपमाप्रतिपादक वत् belongs to यथादि class, having been used in the sense of इव ( गगाभुजगवत् = गगाभुजगस्य इव ) And it is तब्‍िगतगा, because वत् is a तद्धित termination affixed to गगाभुजग in the sense of इव, according to ‘तत्र तस्यैव’ and the formation गगाभुजगवत् is known as a तद्धित

The first line of this stanza illustrates a complete simile based on scripture. The Comparison is complete because all the four ingredients viz. the object of comparison, the standard of comparison, the common property, and the indicator of comparison are mentioned. It is based on scripture because the indicator of comparison 'वत्' belongs to the class of words indicating similarity, having been used in the sense of 'like'. And it is a secondary derivative, because 'वत्' is a secondary derivative suffix affixed to 'गगाभुजग' in the sense of 'like', according to the rule 'तत्र तस्यैव', and the formation 'गगाभुजगवत्' is known as a secondary derivative

The second line exemplifies तद्धितगा अर्थी पूर्णों उपमा The Simile is पूर्णों, because all the four constituents viz उपमेय ( स ), उपमान (निदाघाम्बररत्नम् ), साधारण धर्मे (दुरोलोकत्वम् ) 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 = निदाघाम्बररलेन तुल्यः ) And it is तद्धितगा

The second line exemplifies a complete simile based on meaning and secondary derivation. The Simile is complete because all the four constituents viz the object of comparison, the standard of comparison, the common property, and the indicator of comparison are mentioned. It is based on meaning because the indicator of comparison 'वत्' belongs to the group of words indicating similarity, having been used in the sense of 'similar to'. And it is a secondary derivative

Page 309

२५६

256

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 36

तद्धितगा, because वत् is a termination affixed to निदाघाम्बररत्न in the sense of तुल्य according to ' तेन तुल्य किया चेद्वति ' The common property दूरालोक त्वम् represents an action Therefore, वत् is properly applied here in the sense of तुल्य

Taddhitaga, because vat is a termination affixed to nidhaambararatna in the sense of tulya according to 'tena tulya kṛiyā cedvati' The common property dūrāloka tvam represents an action Therefore, vat is properly applied here in the sense of tulya

स्वाधीनपतिका46—The problem here is this In the first Ullāsa Mammata divides काव्य into three kinds viz उत्तम, मध्यम and अवर अवर काव्य is defined as शब्दचित्र or शब्दगुण शब्दालंकार-युक्त and वाच्यचित्र or अर्थचित्र or अर्थगुणालंकार युक्त It is otherwise called अव्यङ्गच Mammata treats of अवर काव्य or चित्रकाव्य in the sixth Ullāsa, where he says ' अत्र च शब्दार्थालङ्कारभेदा बहवो भेदा । ते च अलङ्कारनिर्णये निर्णय्यन्ते ।' काव्यप्रकाश उल्लास vi p 261 ( वामनाचार्य ) This means शब्दचित्र and अर्थचित्र have many varieties, as many in fact as there are शब्दालङ्कारs and अर्थालङ्कारs respectively and that these varieties will be determined at the time of determining the figures From this it will be seen that the illustrations which are given in the tenth Ullāsa are all examples of the अर्थचित्र variety of अवर or चित्रकाव्य, because the tenth Ullāsa deals with अर्थालङ्कारs

Swādhinapatikā46—The problem here is this In the first Ullāsa Mammata divides kāvya into three kinds viz uttama, madhyama and avara avara kāvya is defined as śabdacitra or śabdaguna śabdalankāra-yukta and vācyacitra or arthacitra or arthagunaalankāra yukta It is otherwise called avyanga Mammata treats of avara kāvya or citrakāvya in the sixth Ullāsa, where he says 'atra ca śabdārthālaṅkārabhedā bahavo bhedāḥ । te ca alaṅkāranirṇaye nirṇīyante ।' kāvyaprakāśa ullāsa vi p 261 (vāmanācārya) This means śabdacitra and arthacitra have many varieties, as many in fact as there are śabdalankāras and arthalaṅkāras respectively and that these varieties will be determined at the time of determining the figures From this it will be seen that the illustrations which are given in the tenth Ullāsa are all examples of the arthacitra variety of avara or citrakāvya, because the tenth Ullāsa deals with arthalaṅkāras

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

Now arthacitra kāvya means a poem in which arthaguna and arthālaṅkāra are striking or prominent Here we are not concerned with arthaguna, but with arthālaṅkāra We must, therefore, see whether in the examples quoted by Mammata arthālaṅkāra is prominent

In this connection some one objects as follows Strikingness or charm is the very essence of a figure (वैचित्र्य च अलंकार ) In stanza I ' स्वनेपि० ' the strikingness or charm of the statement (उक्तिवैचित्र्यम् ) lies in the suggested sense प्रतीममानम् = प्रतीमानाथो = व्यङ्ग्य्यार्थ ) 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 ( व्यनहार ) either ध्वनि or गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य

In this connection some one objects as follows Strikingness or charm is the very essence of a figure (vaicitrya ca alaṅkāra) In stanza I 'svane pi°' the strikingness or charm of the statement (uktivaicitryam) lies in the suggested sense pratīmamānam = pratīmānātho = vyaṅgyyārtha) 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 dhvani or uttama kāvya If it is regarded as less striking than the expressed sense, the stanza would be an illustration of guṇībhūtavyaṅgya or madhyama kāvya 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 arthacitra kāvya It must be designated (vyanahāra) either dhvani or guṇībhūtavyaṅgya

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

Page 310

Page 37] NOTES Tenth Flash 249

is present therein but on account of our realization of the strikingness of the expressed sense What Mammata means is this The stanza appears striking on account of its वाच्यार्थ i e on account of the उपमा which is expressed by it. That is why it must properly be regarded as an example of अत्यन्तचित्र The presence of some such suggested sense as the objector points out is not denied. But it is contended that this suggested sense is by no means distinct And it has already been pointed out that अव्ययदृश्य does not mean void of all suggested sense, but only void of a distinct suggested sense (‘अव्ययदृश्यमिति सुप्रतिप्रीयमानाङ्गरहितम्’ p.7) Therefore, the stanza is not designated ध्वनि or गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य, but is appropriately quoted as an example of अत्यन्तचित्र In other words, strikingness is developed by वाच्यार्थ and hence it is properly a चित्रकाव्य And it is easy to see that मेम्बर is quite right here

is present therein but on account of our realization of the strikingness of the expressed sense. What Mammata means is this. The stanza appears striking on account of its literal meaning, i.e., on account of the simile which is expressed by it. That is why it must properly be regarded as an example of अत्यन्तचित्र. The presence of some such suggested sense as the objector points out is not denied. But it is contended that this suggested sense is by no means distinct. And it has already been pointed out that अव्ययदृश्य does not mean void of all suggested sense, but only void of a distinct suggested sense (‘अव्ययदृश्यमिति सुप्रतिप्रीयमानाङ्गरहितम्’ p.7). Therefore, the stanza is not designated as ध्वनि or गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य, but is appropriately quoted as an example of अत्यन्तचित्र. In other words, strikingness is developed by the literal meaning, and hence it is properly a चित्रकाव्य. And it is easy to see that मेम्बर is quite right here.

रसादित्य०—This passage is intended to answer the following tacit objections : (1) The stanza ‘स्वनेऽपि .’ breathes the spirit of devotion towards the king It thus contains भाव (‘रसादि ’ इत्यादि रसादिरादिशब्देन भाव ग्रुप्यते ) which forms the suggested sense So the stanza cannot be regarded as चित्रकाव्य, which is अलव्यङ्ग्य (2) The stanza contains another figure (अलङ्कारान्तरम्) viz. the शब्दालङ्कार अनुप्रास in ‘प्रभवप्रभवम्’ So the proper figure in the stanza is शब्दालङ्कारानुप्रास—अस्यो—लङ्कारोऽप्यस्ति: सहृद्यः (For सहृद्यः vide below Kārikā 53 cd.) It cannot, therefore, be regarded as an example of उपमा

This passage is intended to answer the following tacit objections: (1) The stanza ‘स्वनेऽपि .’ breathes the spirit of devotion towards the king. It thus contains भाव (‘रसादि ’ इत्यादि रसादिरादिशब्देन भाव ग्रुप्यते) which forms the suggested sense. So, the stanza cannot be regarded as चित्रकाव्य, which is अलव्यङ्ग्य. (2) The stanza contains another figure (अलङ्कारान्तरम्), viz., the शब्दालङ्कार अनुप्रास in ‘प्रभवप्रभवम्’. So, the proper figure in the stanza is शब्दालङ्कारानुप्रास—अस्यो—लङ्कारोऽप्यस्ति: सहृद्यः (For सहृद्यः, vide below Kārikā 53 cd.). It cannot, therefore, be regarded as an example of उपमा.

Mammata's answer is that some such suggested sense and some other figure are invariably present (अवभिचारि अवभिचारण नियमेन हि सदसत्कम्) everywhere. When, therefore, he quotes illustrations for various figures, he does not take into account that suggested sense and that other figure If he were to quote illustrations, which contain no suggested sense whatsoever, or no other figure of any kind, they would be inspid (विरस ) and would not interest the reader at all. In fact they would not be figures properly so called For, a figure means strikingness Therefore, it should not be urged against him, that there is contradiction between what he said before and what he says now

Mammata's answer is that some such suggested sense and some other figure are invariably present (अवभिचारि अवभिचारण नियमेन हि सदसत्कम्) everywhere. When, therefore, he quotes illustrations for various figures, he does not take into account that suggested sense and that other figure. If he were to quote illustrations, which contain no suggested sense whatsoever, or no other figure of any kind, they would be inspid (विरस) and would not interest the reader at all. In fact, they would not be figures properly so called. For, a figure means strikingness. Therefore, it should not be urged against him that there is a contradiction between what he said before and what he says now.

Mammata does not state definitely why he neglects रसादि व्यङ्ग्यार्थ and अलङ्कारान्तर in giving illustrations But we know that the reason is that this रसादि व्यङ्ग्यार्थ, and this अलङ्कारान्तर are not intended by the poet and are, therefore, not striking

Mammata does not state definitely why he neglects रसादि व्यङ्ग्यार्थ and अलङ्कारान्तर in giving illustrations. But we know that the reason is that this रसादि व्यङ्ग्यार्थ and this अलङ्कारान्तर are not intended by the poet and are, therefore, not striking.

विरसतामावहन्ति—The reason why stanzas, which do not contain any रसादि व्यङ्ग्यार्थ, are inspid is this An अलङ्कार is that which heightens an existing रस through word and sense

The reason why stanzas, which do not contain any रसादि व्यङ्ग्यार्थ, are inspid is this. An अलङ्कार is that which heightens an existing रस through word and sense.

का. १०

Page 311

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

Therefore if rasa 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 वैचित्र्य or चारुता i e strıkingness

Moreover a mere statement of the ingredients of a figure does not constitute a figure It must contain vaicitrya or carutā i e strikingness

In पूर्वोपरिरूद्धाभिधानम् पूर्वाभिधान refers to the definition of अवरकान्य as 'शब्दचित्रं वाच्यचित्रम्' and its designation अव्यङ्ग्यम् अपराभिधान refers to illustrations such as 'स्वप्नेऽपि' which are supposed to be व्यक्त्यङ्ग्य or possessed of a distinct suggested sense.

In pūrvopariruddhaabhidhānam pūrvābhidhāna refers to the definition of avarakaanya as 'śabdacitraṁ vācyacitram' and its designation avyaṅgyam aparābhidhāna refers to illustrations such as 'svapne'pi' which are supposed to be vyaktayanga or possessed of a distinct suggested sense.

This finishes the treatment of पूर्णोपमा

This finishes the treatment of pūrṇopamā

तद्वत् धर्मस्य . पुनः --From here Mammata starts the treatment of लुप्ता उपमा This Kārikā gives us the varieties of धर्मैक्यसा तद्वत् = पूर्णावत् = लुप्तविधा Mammata first says that धर्मैक्यसा is like पूर्णा i e of six kinds and then adds that in तद्वत्, such as कल्प, धर्मैक्यसा is आर्थी only Thus, धर्मैक्यसा is of five kinds viz. वाक्यगा श्रौती, वाक्यगा आर्थी, समासगा श्रौती, समासगा आर्थी and तदितगा आर्थी

tad-vat dharmasya punaḥ --From here Mammata starts the treatment of luptā upamā This Kārikā gives us the varieties of dharmaikyasā tad-vat = pūrṇāvat = luptavidhā Mammata first says that dharmaikyasā is like pūrṇā i e of six kinds and then adds that in tad-vat, such as kalpa, dharmaikyasā is arthī only Thus, dharmaikyasā is of five kinds viz. vākyagā śrautī, vākyagā arthī, samāsagā śrautī, samāsagā arthī and taditaga arthī

तदितगा आर्थी धर्मैक्यसा 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, तदितगा धर्मैक्यसा, 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 तदितगा आर्थी धर्मैक्यसा becomes available. But इवार्थ taddhita terminations, not requiring the mention of the common property, do not exist in grammar Hence तदितगा श्रौती धर्मैक्यसा is not possible

taditaga arthī dharmaikyasā is not possible because taddhita termination vat, whether used in the sense of iva or tulya, necessarily requires the mention of the common property Therefore, taditaga dharmaikyasā, whether śrautī or arthī, would at first appear impossible But there are some taddhita terminations such as kalpa, deśya, deśīya and bahu, which possess the sense of tulya, but which do not require the mention of the common property When such terminations are used taditaga arthī dharmaikyasā becomes available. But ivārtha taddhita terminations, not requiring the mention of the common property, do not exist in grammar Hence taditaga śrautī dharmaikyasā is not possible

कल्पादौ--This refers to two sūtras of Pāṇini, which lay down the addition of the taddhita terminations कल्प, देश्य, देशीय and बहु in the sense of ऐक्यसमाप्ति or a little less than, almost equal to These termini nations primarily convey the idea of सार्धक्य 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

kalpādau--This refers to two sūtras of Pāṇini, which lay down the addition of the taddhita terminations kalpa, deśya, deśīya and bahu in the sense of aikyasamāpti or a little less than, almost equal to These termini nations primarily convey the idea of sārdhakyam and not of sādharmye That is why they are said to be tulyārthī Out of these kalpa, deśya and deśīya are affixed while bahu 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

Page 312

illustrates वाक्यगा श्रौती धर्मैकता yathā is upamāpatipādak The common property between वच and अमृतम् viz माधुर्येम् or परिणामाहितावहत्वम् (being beneficial in the end) is not mentioned Hence, the Comparison is धर्मैकता The presence of यथा makes it श्रौती As yathā is not compounded with अमृतम् the उपमा is वाक्यगा

illustrates vakyaga śrāutī dharmaikta yathā is upamāpatipādak The common property between vaca and amṛtam viz mādhuryem or pariṇāmahitāvahattvam (being beneficial in the end) is not mentioned Hence, the Comparison is dharmaikta The presence of yathā makes it śrāutī As yathā is not compounded with amṛtam the upamā is vakya gā

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

Stanza 7—This stanza illustrates वाक्यगा आर्थी धर्मैकता Here प्रभु is उपमेय, ऋतान्त ( यम ) is उपमान and सम is उपमाप्रतिपादक The common property between the king and Death viz कूरत्वम् is not mentioned Hence, the उपमा is धर्मैकता It is आर्थी because सम is not compounded with the उपमान ऋतान्त वाक्यगा, because सम is not compounded with the उपमान ऋतान्त

Stanza 7—This stanza illustrates vakya gā ārthī dharmaikta Here prabhu is upameya, ṛtānta (yam) is upamāna and sama is upamāpatipādaka The common property between the king and Death viz kūrattvam is not mentioned Hence, the upamā is dharmaikta It is ārthī because sama is not compounded with the upamāna ṛtānta vakya gā, because sama is not compounded with the upamāna ṛtānta

It may be noted that आक्रुष्टकरवालत्वम् 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 ‘दण्डधर’) and not a sword Similarly, सेपरायपरित्राण 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

Stanza 8— This stanza contains a warning against a certain man Construe तस्य आचार करवाल इव [इति] यदि वेत्सि, तत् (=तर्हि) जीवसि (=जीविष्यसि)

This stanza illustrates the remaining three varieties of धर्मैकता viz समासगा श्रौती, समासगा आर्थी and तद्धितगा आर्थी ‘आचार करवाल इव’ is समासगा श्रौती धर्मैकता, the common property that is dropped being तृष्ण्य or घातुकत्वम् ‘वाग् अमृतोपमा’ is समासगा आर्थी धर्मैकता Here the common property that is not mentioned is माधुर्यम् is omitted Note that the उपमाप्रतिपादक word उपम is तुल्यार्थ and pri marly conveys साधर्म्य, not साम्यम् Vide काव्यादर्शे I 59 quoted above on p 252 Hence, the उपमा is आर्थी, ‘विषकल्मष मन’ is तद्धितगा आर्थी धर्मैकता Here the common property that is not mentioned is नाशकत्वम् विषकल्मष is a तद्धित formation and कल्मष has the sense of तुल्य Hence the उपमा is तद्धितगा आर्थी उपमानुपादाने०— This Kārikā tells us that when उपमान is not mentioned, छेदोपमा 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 इत 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 उपमानलुक्ता Then again,

It may here be noted that taddhita terminations like vat, whether possessing the sense of ita or tulya, are always affixed to words denoting upamāna Therefore, when upamāna is dropped, such terminations cannot be applied. Hence, taddhitagā is not possible in upamānalukta Then again,

Page 313

२६०

260

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 39

upamāpratipādak words like इव are also affixed to उपमानs Consequently, they cannot occur in उपमानलक्षण Hence, उपमानलक्षण cannot be श्रौती So the two varieties of उपमानलक्षण that are mentioned in the Kārikā are आर्थी

Upamāpratipādak words like 'iva' are also affixed to upamānas. Consequently, they cannot occur in upamānalakṣaṇa. Hence, upamānalakṣaṇa cannot be śrautī. So the two varieties of upamānalakṣaṇa that are mentioned in the Kārikā are ārthī.

Page 39

This stanza contains praise of काव्य as a supreme source of joy

This stanza contains praise of kāvya as a supreme source of joy

Here सरसकाव्य is the उपमेय, because it is the matter under descrip tion सकलकरण वितरणम् represents the common property सहृश is the उपमा प्रतिपादक word and it is not compounded with सरसकाव्य उपमान is not mentioned Therefore, this stanza is an example of वाक्यगा आर्थी उपमानलक्षणा

Here 'sarasakāvya' is the upameya, because it is the matter under description. 'Saklakaraṇa vitaraṇam' represents the common property. 'Sahṛśa' is the upamā pratipādaka word and it is not compounded with 'sarasakāvya'. Upamāna is not mentioned. Therefore, this stanza is an example of vākyagā ārthī upamānalakṣaṇā.

If in the above stanza we read काव्यसमम् (काव्यसमम्) instead of कवस्स (वस्तु) and णुणम् (जूनम्) instead of सरसि (सदृशम्), the same stanza would be an illustration of समासगा आर्थी उपमानलक्षणा For, सम is now compounded with काव्य

If in the above stanza we read 'kāvyasamam' (kāvyasamam) instead of 'kavassa' (vastu) and 'ṇuṇam' (jūnam) instead of 'sarasī' (sadṛśam), the same stanza would be an illustration of samāsagā ārthī upamānalakṣaṇā. For, 'sam' is now compounded with 'kāvya'.

It seems that according to Viśvanāthā उपमानलक्षणा can also be श्रौती वाक्यगा and श्रौती समासगा But this view of Visvanātha is entirely wrong उपमा प्रतिपादक words like यथा and इव cannot be used after उपमेयs As far as the commonly accepted usage in the language goes they come after उपमानs only That is why श्रौती is impossible in उपमानलक्षणा

It seems that according to Viśvanāthā, upamānalakṣaṇā can also be śrautī vākyagā and śrautī samāsagā. But this view of Viśvanātha is entirely wrong. Upamā pratipādaka words like 'yathā' and 'iva' cannot be used after upameyas. As far as the commonly accepted usage in the language goes, they come after upamānas only. That is why śrautī is impossible in upamānalakṣaṇā.

According to अलंकाररत्नाकर, the उपमानलुप्ता variety contains असम अलंकार, उdyोत, प्रभा and रसमञ्जरी 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 साम्य्यं which requires the existence of उपमान The distinc-tion of जगत्राथ between शाब्दिक and 'तात्कालिक सादृश्येध' though ingenious is unconvincing

According to Alaṅkāraratnākara, the upamānaluptā variety contains 'asam' alaṅkāra. Udyota, Prabhā, and Rasamañjarī stoutly oppose this because according to them, in the upamānaluptā variety, the non-existence of upamāna is realized by one person only, while in 'asam', the upamāna is absolutely non-existing. As a matter of fact, we believe that 'luptopamā' where upamāna is absent is not possible at all. If there is no upamāna, there can be no upamā. Upamā consists in sāmyyaṁ, which requires the existence of upamāna. The distinction of Jagannātha between 'śābdika' and 'tātkālika sādrśyedha' 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

Secondly, 'luptopamā' occurs when one of the constituents is dropped, but we are well aware of it. If we are not aware, upamā is not possible.

The logical corollary of this view of ours is that धर्मोपमानलुप्ता and वादिषमौपमान लुप्ता are also impossible in our opinion

The logical corollary of this view of ours is that 'dharmaupamānaluptā' and 'vādiṣamaupamāna lupta' are also impossible in our opinion.

वादेलोऽपे णमुलि-This portion of Kārikā 3 tells us that वादिघुसा, other wise called वाचकलुप्ता,1 e the Elliptical Comparison in which उपमा प्रतिपादक word is dropped, occurs in (1) a compound, (2) कर्मण्यच्, (3) आाधारक्यच्, (4) क्यच्, (5) कर्मणसुल् and कर्तृणसुल वादिघुसा is thus of six kinds.

Vādelo'pe ṇamuli - This portion of Kārikā 3 tells us that 'vādiṣusā', otherwise called 'vācakaluptā', i.e., the Elliptical Comparison in which upamā pratipādaka word is dropped, occurs in (1) a compound, (2) 'karmaṇyac', (3) 'ādhārakyañc', (4) 'kyañc', (5) 'karmaṇasul' and 'kartṛṇasul'. 'Vādiṣusā' is thus of six kinds.

Page 314

It may be noted that वादिलष्टा is not possible in a sentence. For when उपमाप्रतिपादक is dropped, the remaining words, when uncompounded, do not develop उपमा e g सुरवचनद्र आह्लादकम् Similarly, तद्धितगा वादिलष्टा 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 शौती and आर्थी is not possible in वादिलष्टा For, this distinction depends on what kind of उपमाप्रतिपादक is used And when no उपमाप्रतिपादक is used, this distinction cannot arise Read ‘योतक्रमादयैर श्रोतार्थविशेषा । तस्य च लोके क श्रोतोल्सवभव । सुहासागरं, इह च यथादितुल्यादिविरहात् श्रोतादिविशेषचिन्ता नास्ति ।’ साहित्यदर्पण

It may be noted that वादिलष्टा is not possible in a sentence. For when उपमाप्रतिपादक is dropped, the remaining words, when uncompounded, do not develop उपमा e.g सुरवचनद्र आह्लादकम्. Similarly, तद्धितगा वादिलष्टा 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 शौती and आर्थी is not possible in वादिलष्टा. For, this distinction depends on what kind of उपमाप्रतिपादक is used. And when no उपमाप्रतिपादक is used, this distinction cannot arise. Read ‘योतक्रमादयैर श्रोतार्थविशेषा । तस्य च लोके क श्रोतोल्सवभव । सुहासागरं, इह च यथादितुल्यादिविरहात् श्रोतादिविशेषचिन्ता नास्ति ।’ साहित्यदर्पण

It will be noticed that Mammata uses same technical terms from Panini’s grammar in stating the varieties of वादिलष्टा Those terms must now be first explained

It will be noticed that Mammata uses same technical terms from Panini’s grammar in stating the varieties of वादिलष्टा. 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

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 कर्म-क्यच् e g पुत्रीयति छान्रम् Here क्यच् is applied to पुत्र उपमान in the accusative case (पुन्रमिव 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 प्रासाद्योति कुञ्जा मिक्षु or अन्त पुरीयति रणेपु राजा

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 कर्म-क्यच् e.g पुत्रीयति छान्रम्. Here क्यच् is applied to पुत्र उपमान in the accusative case (पुन्रमिव 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 प्रासाद्योति कुञ्जा मिक्षु or अन्त पुरीयति 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

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 आम्-इस applied to a verb to form gerunds when repetition of action is suggested e g स्मारं स्मारं नमति शिवम्

णमुल् i.e the termination आम्-इस 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 कर्मणमुल e g निदाघघर्मोंचुदडोम is a कर्मणमुल for it is equal to निदाघघर्मम्-उभयमिव हृष्टवा

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 कर्मणमुल e.g निदाघघर्मोंचुदडोम is a कर्मणमुल for it is equal to निदाघघर्मम्-उभयमिव हृष्टवा

If compounded with an उपमान in the nominative, it is कर्तृणमुल पार्थस्चार is करणमुल because लुमुल् i e the form सचारं if applied to पार्थे which is an agent (पार्थे इव सचाद्र)

If compounded with an उपमान in the nominative, it is कर्तृणमुल पार्थस्चार is करणमुल because लुमुल् i.e the form सचारं if applied to पार्थे which is an agent (पार्थे इव सचाद्र)

वाराब्द्र लोपे — Mammata here explains वादेलोपे of the Kārikā वा is उपमाद्योतक or expressive of comparison Therefore, वादेलोपे means when the उपमाप्रतिपादक word is dropped उपपद means the preceding word

वाराब्द्र लोपे — Mammata here explains वादेलोपे of the Kārikā. वा is उपमाद्योतक or expressive of comparison. Therefore, वादेलोपे means when the उपमाप्रतिपादक word is dropped. उपपद means the preceding word

Page 315

२६२

काव्यप्रकाशः

[ Page 40

With reference to समासगा वादिळ्ठा we have to note that it is really of two kinds viz (1) when two words i e those that express उपमान and साधारणधर्मे are compounded (द्विपदसमासगा) and (2) when all the three words expressive of उपमान, साधारणधर्मे and उपमेय are cumpounded (त्रिपदसमासगा)

Stanza 10—This stanza exemplifies द्विपदसमासगा वादिळ्ठा Here चन्द्र is उपमेय, कामिनीगण्ड is उपमान and पाण्डु represerts the common property The उपमाप्रतिपादक word इव or वत् is dropped on account of the उपमान and the साधारणधर्मे being compounded कामिनीगण्डपाण्डुना=कामिनीगण्ड इव कामिनीगण्डवद् वा पाण्डु तेन This compound is formed, according to ‘उपमानानि सामान्यवचनै’ पा २ १ ५५ (उपमानबोधकानि युबन्तानि सामान्यवचनेै साधारणधर्मवाचकेै युबन्तै सह समस्यान्ते । कर्मेधारयश्र समासो भवति । घन इव श्याम घनश्याम ।)

Page 40

Stanza 11—This stanza describes a warrior who becomes terrible when confronted with enemies

This stanza is an example of त्रिपदसमासगा वादिळ्ठा, which is contained in असितमुजगभीषणासिपत्र Here असितमुजग is उपमान, भीषण is साधारण धर्मे and असिपत्र is उपमेय The उपमाप्रतिपादक इव is dropped As all the three remaining constituents of उपमा are compounded, this expression becomes an example of त्रिपदसमासगा वादिळ्ठा

This stanza describes the love of a king for his subjects, his bravery and its effect on his enemies The terminations चु चु and चण are applied to words in the instrumental in the same sense of 'renowned or famous for’

Stanza 12—This stanza illustrates कर्मेधरयजगा, आधारकयजगा and कयच् वादिळ्ठा ‘पौर जने शुतिोयाति (शुतिमिव = आचरति) is कर्मेधरयजगा वादिळ्ठा Here पौर जन is उपमेय, शुत is उपमान and कयच् 1 e य, which expresses आचार, denotes the common property The special आचार that is here intended is स्नेहपालनादि कयच् is applied to शुत, which is a कर्म and no उपमाप्रतिपादक is used Hence, the sentence is an example of कयजगा वादिळ्ठा.

अन्त पुरीयति is an example of आधारकयजगा वादिळ्ठा Here समरान्तर is उपमेय, अन्त पुर is उपमान and कयच् 1 e य, which expresses आचार, represents साधारण धर्मे, which in this case is स्वच्छन्दे विहृध च वलनमू कयच् is affixed to अन्त पुर, which is an अधिकरण and no उपमाप्रतिपादक is used Therefore, this sentence is an illustration of आधारकयजगा वादिळ्ठा.

सप्तसेना नारीयते’ illustrates कयजगा वादिळ्ठा Here सप्तसेना is उपमेय, नारी is उपमान and कयच् 1 e य, which expresses आचार, stands for साधारण धर्मे, which in this case is सौन्दर्ययुक्ते . नारीयते is formed by the addition of

Page 316

क्यद् to नारी and no उपमाप्रतिपादक is used Therefore, the sentence is an illustration of आधारक्यदृगा वादिघसा

When क्यद् is used with नारी and no उपमाप्रतिपादक is used, therefore, the sentence is an illustration of आधारक्यदृगा वादिघसा

Stānza 13 - This stanza describes perhaps the same king

ते निद्राघमां शुंदरीं ( = निद्राघर्मोंछुमिव दृष्ट्वा ) पश्यन्ति

They see the beautiful woman as if she is drenched in sweat due to the heat of sleep

The stanza illustrates कर्मैणमूलगा and कर्तृणमूलगा वादिघसा. 'ते निद्राघमां शुंदरीं ( = निद्राघर्मोंछुमिव दृष्ट्वा ) पश्यन्ति' is an example of कर्मैणमूलगा

स पार्थेसचारं ( पाथे इव स्वच्चये ) सचारति

He moves like an arrow in the path

'स पार्थेसचारं ( पाथे इव स्वच्चये ) सचारति' is an example of कर्तृणमूलगा वादिघसा

एतद्विलोपे कृपूसमासगा

When these two viz साधारणधर्म and वादि are dropped, लुप्तोपमा occurs in a कृप् affix and in a compound

This tells us that when these two viz साधारणधर्म and वादि are dropped, लुप्तोपमा occurs in a कृप् affix and in a compound

Page 317

२६४

264

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 41

एतयो धर्मवाच्यो -Note that एतत् standing for धर्मे and वाचि once more shows Mammata's careless writing Ordınarly एतदद्रि would point to उपमान and वादि which ımmediately precede this expression in the kārıkās

किप्-The termınation किप् is optionally affixed to all nouns expressive of उपमान and denoting an agent, in the sense of आचार in order to form denomınatıve verbs therefrom, accordıng to the Vārtıka 'सर्वप्रातिपदिकेभ्य किप् वा वक्तव्य ' (उपमानवाचकेभ्य कर्तृवाचिभ्य सर्वेभ्य प्रातिपदिकेभ्य आचारे अर्थे किप्-प्रत्ययो विकल्पेन वक्तव्य । यथा कृष्ण इव आचरति कृष्णाति । अ इव आचरति अति ।) किप् denomınatıves take the Parasmaipada

The peculıarıty of the affix किप् in contradistınction from क्यच्, क्यद् and णमुल्, is that it completely disappears from the resultıng denomınatıve We have seen before that according to Mammata क्यच्, क्यद् and णमुल् stand for साधारण धर्मे किप् belonging to the same class, is also expressive of common property A किप्, formation wherein किप्, leaves no trace of ıtself, becomes, therefore, an example of धर्मलुप्ता In all these formations उपमानप्रतिपादक word is not present. Hence किप् represents धर्मवाचिलुप्ता

When धर्मे and वाचक are dropped, लुप्तोपमा is not possıble in वाक्य or in तद्धित The distınction of श्रौती and आर्थी is also ımpossıble here

Stanza 14—This stanza descrıbes how the conditıon of one's mınd seems to work a change in the external world around If the mınd is happy, even the sun is cool and even nights are bright The

सविता विधवति (= विधुरिव आचरति) in an example of किनुगा धर्मवाचिलुप्ता Here only two constituents of उपमा viz उपमेय (सविता) and उपमान (विधु) are mentıoned साधारण धर्मे (आह्लादकत्वम्) and वाचक i, e उपमाप्रतिपादक or वाचक (इव) are not stated Hence, the उपमा is धर्मवाचिलुप्ता As विधवति is a नामधातु or denomınatıve formed from विधु (the moon) by the addıtıon of the affix किप् the उपमा is किनुगा धर्मवाचिलुप्ता 'विधु सवितरति (=सविता इव आचरति)', 'यामिन्य दिनान्ति (यामिन्य इव आचरन्ति) and 'दिनानि यामिन्यन्ति (यामिन्य इव आचरन्ति) are also examples for किनुगा धर्मवाचिलुप्ता The common propertıes in these three cases are तापदायकत्वम्, आनन्दोल्लासजनकत्वम् and दौर्मनस्योत्पादकत्वम् respectıvely

Page 41

Stanza 15—This stanza descrıbes how a certaın kıng is dıfficult to be overpowered in battle by the enemıes even in theır fondest desıres

Page 318

The stanza exemplifies समासग धर्मावद्योतकता and the illustrative expression is राजकुजर

The stanza exemplifies the highlighting of a characteristic through a compound word, and the illustrative expression is 'rajakuñjara' (king-elephant).

This compound is dissolved as राजा कुजर इव an elephant-like king ('मतद्रजो गजो नाग कुजरौ वारण करी' अमर )

This compound is dissolved as 'rājā kuñjara iva' meaning an elephant-like king.

Here उपमेय (राजा) and उपमान (कुजर ) are mentioned and साधारणधर्म (दुरार्षष्ठ परसेनाविध्वावकत्वम् वा) and वाचक (इव) are not stated Therefore, उपमा in this stanza is धर्मावद्योतकता

Here, the object of comparison (upameya, राजा) and the standard of comparison (upamāna, कुजर) are mentioned, but the common property (sādhāraṇa-dharma) and the indicative word (vācaka, इव) are not stated. Therefore, the simile in this stanza highlights the characteristic.

The compound राजकुजर is 'उपमानोत्तरपद-कर्मधारय and is formed according to 'उपमिते व्याघ्रादिभि सामान्या प्रयोयते' 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

The compound 'rājakuñjara' is an 'upamānottarapada-karmadhāraya' and is formed according to the rule 'upamite vyāghrādibhiḥ samānyāprayoyate' (Pāṇini 2.1.56), which means that an object of comparison (upameya) is compounded with a standard of comparison (upamāna) like 'vyāghra' to form a Karmadhāraya compound, when the common property between the object of comparison and the

उपमान is not mentioned Expressions like पुरुषसिंह, मुखचन्द्र and चरणकमलम् are compounds of this type

standard of comparison is not mentioned. Expressions like 'puruṣasiṃha', 'mukhacandra', and 'caraṇakamalam' are compounds of this type.

It may be noted that neither 'परिपन्थि दुराक्रम् ' nor 'सपर्यप्रकृत् ' nor 'राजते' can here be regarded as the common property For, the sūtra according to which the compound राजकुजर is formed definitely lays down that the common property must not be mentioned Be-sides 'परिपन्थि दुराक्रम् ' and 'सपर्यप्रकृत् ' are not applicable to the उपमान कुजर

It may be noted that neither 'paripanthi durākram' nor 'saparyaprakṛt' nor 'rājate' can be considered as the common property here. For, the sūtra according to which the compound 'rājakuñjara' is formed explicitly states that the common property must not be mentioned. Besides, 'paripanthi durākram' and 'saparyaprakṛt' are not applicable to the standard of comparison 'kuñjara'.

Another point to be noted here is this राजकुजर is capable of two dissolutions viz (1) राजा कुजर इव and (2) राजा एव कुजर In both cases the compound is formed according to the same sūtra But 'राजा कुजर इव' is known as उपमानोत्तरपद-कर्मधारय and 'राजा एव कुजर ' is अवधारणापूर्वपद-कर्मधारय Then again, in 'राजा कुजर इव' the figure is उपमा and prominence, therefore, belongs to the उपमेय viz राजा, while in 'राजा एव कुजर ' the figure is रूपक or metaphor (Vide p 51 below) and prominence, therefore belongs to the उपमान viz कुजर

Another point to be noted here is that 'rājakuñjara' is capable of two interpretations: (1) 'rājā kuñjara iva' and (2) 'rājā eva kuñjara'. In both cases, the compound is formed according to the same sūtra. But 'rājā kuñjara iva' is known as 'upamānottarapada-karmadhāraya', and 'rājā eva kuñjara' is 'avadhāraṇapūrvapada-karmadhāraya'. Then again, in 'rājā kuñjara iva', the figure is 'upama' (simile) and prominence, therefore, belongs to the object of comparison (upameya), viz., 'rājā', while in 'rājā eva kuñjara', the figure is 'rūpaka' or metaphor (see p. 51 below), and prominence, therefore, belongs to the standard of comparison (upamāna), viz., 'kuñjara'.

The question now is In the present stanza is राजकुजर to be dissolved as राजा कुजर इव or राजा एव कुजर ? In such cases the rule is, that the dissolution is determined by the other word in the sentence

The question now is: In the present stanza, is 'rājakuñjara' to be interpreted as 'rājā kuñjara iva' or 'rājā eva kuñjara'? In such cases, the rule is that the interpretation 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

If the other word is such that it primarily goes with the object of comparison (upameya), the compound should be interpreted in a way that brings out a simile (upama), wherein prominence belongs to the object of comparison. If, on the other hand, the other word is primarily applicable to the standard of comparison (upamāna), the compound should be interpreted in such a manner as to manifest a metaphor (rūpaka), wherein the standard of comparison is prominent.

In the present stanza the expressions 'परिपन्थि दुराक्रम् ' and 'सपर्यप्रकृत् ' are primarily applicable to राजा Therefore, the compound राजकुजर must be dissolved as 'राजा कुजर इव' so that prominence is given to राजा, the उपमेय, and the figure is उपमा It is true that राजते

In the present stanza, the expressions 'paripanthi durākram' and 'saparyaprakṛt' are primarily applicable to 'rājā'. Therefore, the compound 'rājakuñjara' must be interpreted as 'rājā kuñjara iva' so that prominence is given to 'rājā', the object of comparison (upameya), and the figure is 'upama' (simile). It is true that 'rājate'

Page 319

२५५

255

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ Page 41

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

can primarily go with both rājā and kuñjara But we cannot regard it as the determining word, because of the presence of the two expressions, which definitely go with the upameya rājā

The above rule can be easily remembered by the familiar example of मुखचन्द्र In 'मुखचन्द्र हसति' मुखचन्द्र must be dissolved as मुखमेव चन्द्र, because हसति or हास primarily goes with the उपमेय मुखम्.

The above rule can be easily remembered by the familiar example of mukhachandra In 'mukhachandra hasati' mukhachandra must be dissolved as mukhameva chandra, because hasati or hāsa primarily goes with the upameya mukham.

'मुखचन्द्र हसति' is thus an example of उपमा In 'मुखचन्द्र उदेति' मुखचन्द्र must be dissolved as मुखेव चन्द्र, because उदेति or उदयन is primarily applicable to the उपमान चन्द्र The figure here, therefore, is रूपक

'Mukhachandra hasati' is thus an example of upamā In 'mukhachandra udeti' mukhachandra must be dissolved as mukheva chandra, because udeti or udayan is primarily applicable to the upamāna chandra The figure here, therefore, is rūpaka

धर्मोंपमानयोः ह्रयते—This Kārikā tells us that when the common property and the उपमान are dropped, हृत्तुपमा is seen in a compound ( वृत्तौ = समासे ) and in a sentence Thus धर्मोपमानलुक्षा is tow fold viz (1) वृत्तिगा or समासगा and (2) वाक्यगा

Dharmopamānayoḥ hriyate—This Kārikā tells us that when the common property and the upamāna are dropped, hṛttupamā is seen in a compound (vṛttau = samāse) and in a sentence Thus dharmopamānalakṣā is twofold viz (1) vṛttigā or samāsagā and (2) vākyagā

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 समास

Vṛtti is a general term meaning a complex formation but here vṛtti is used in the limited sense of one of the five proper vṛttis viz samāsa

because when धर्म and उपमान are dropped, उपमा is possible only in समासवृत्ति तद्धितवृत्ति cannot have scope in धर्मोपमानलुक्षा, 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 धर्मोपमानलुक्षा to be श्रोत्री, because उपमाप्रतिपादक words of the यथादि class, which make an उपमा श्रोत्री, cannot be used here, as they are affixed to उपमान and उपमान is here dropped

because when dharma and upamāna are dropped, upamā is possible only in samāsavṛtti taddhitavṛtti cannot have scope in dharmopamānalakṣā, because taddhita affixes are applied to words expressive of upamāna and when upamāna is dropped, there is nothing after which they can be applied Similarly, it is not possible for dharmopamānalakṣā to be śrautī, because upamāpratipādaka words of the yathādi class, which make an upamā śrautī, cannot be used here, as they are affixed to upamāna and upamāna is here dropped

Stanza 16—This stanza tells the bee not to hover round the केतकि leaving मालती blossom

Stanza 16—This stanza tells the bee not to hover round the ketaki leaving mālati blossom

This stanza is an example of वृत्तिगा or समासगा धर्मोपमानलुक्षा Here मालतीकुसुम is उपमेय and केतकि is उपमाप्रतिपादक These two are compounded. उपमान and साधारण धर्म viz कोमलत्व are not mentioned Hence, this becomes an illustration of समासगा धर्मोपमानलुक्षा

This stanza is an example of vṛttigā or samāsagā dharmopamānalakṣā Here mālatīkusuma is upameya and ketaki is upamāpratipādaka These two are compounded. Upamāna and sādhāraṇa dharma viz komalatva are not mentioned Hence, this becomes an illustration of samāsagā dharmopamānalakṣā

In the same stanza if we read 'मालतीकुसुमेन सम ( मालतीकुसुमेनसमम् )' instead of मालतीकुसुमसरिच्छे ( मालतीकुसुमसदृक्षम् ), it will be an example of वाक्यगा धर्मोपमानलुक्षा

In the same stanza if we read 'mālatīkusumen sama (mālatīkusumenasamam)' instead of mālatīkusumasaricche (mālatīkusumasadṛkṣam), it will be an example of vākyagā dharmopamānalakṣā

Both these varieties are आर्थी, because the उपमाप्रतिपादक सम belongs to तुल्यादि class

Both these varieties are ārthī, because the upamāpratipādaka sama belongs to tulyādi 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

It should be noted that upamā is developed here only if we believe that there does exist somewhere some flower which is superior to mālati Our own view in this case, as stated earlier, is that as there is no

Page 320

उपमान, the उपमा अलंकार is not developed here Incidentally the stanza is a good example of अप्रस्तुत प्रशंसा

कयचि वाद्युपमेयासे— This tells us that when वादि and उपमेय are dropped हृसोपमा oceurs in the affix कयच् . e in a denominative formed by the addition of कयच् वाद्युपमेयड्ढुसा has thus one variety viz कयजगा

When वादि and उपमेय are dropped, उपमान and साधारण्ये remain With these two, उपमा is possible only in कयच् , as explained below चन्द्र (उपमानम्) आल्हादकम् (साधारणधर्मे ) ’ cannot form a sentence There fore, वाक्यगा वाद्युपमेयड्ढुसा is not possible उपमान and साधारणधर्मे can form a समास such as चन्द्राल्हादकम् or धनञ्जयम्* but these compounds cannot convey any complete sense, unless उपमेय is mentioned along with them, as in चन्द्राल्हादक मुखम्’ or धनञ्जयाम् कृष्ण ’ Hence, समासगा वाद्युपमेयड्ढुसा is also not possible

Stanza 17—This stanza descrbes the bravery of a king in the battle

Kārtavīrya Arjuna had thousand arms with which he used to carry a thousand weapons That is why he is known as सहस्रायुध Or सहस्रायुध may mean some one who is armed with a thousand weapons

In this stanza कयजगा वाद्युपमेयड्ढुसा is found in सहस्रायुधीयाति, which is equal to सहस्रायुधमिव आत्मानमाचरति Here सहस्रायुधम् is the उपमान and आचार , consisting of दुर्जयमानित्वम्, expressed by क्यच् . e य, is the common property But the उपमेय (आात्मानम्) and the वादि (इव) are dropped सहस्रा-युधीयाति is a क्यच् formation, obtained according to ‘उपमानादाचारेः’ (Vide pp. 387-388 above) Therefore, the उपमा is कयजगा वाद्युपमेयड्ढुसा

In ‘ स सहस्रायुधीयाति’ स refers to the same king as is expressed by the उपमेय ‘आत्मानम्’ So one may think that the उपमेय is mentioned here How can this sentence then be an example of वादि-उपमेय-छता ? The answer is that though स refers to the same king स cannot be regarded as an उपमेय, because Pāṇini’s sutra lays down क्यच् for an उपमान which is an object e g सहस्रायुधम् The उपमेय also must, therefore, be an object i e. in the accusative case according to the rule that the उपमान and the उपमेय are in the same case. Hence स cannot represent the उपमेय.

Some try to get rid of the supposed उपमेय स in ‘ स सहस्रायुधीयाति’ by regarding the expression as one word viz ससहस्रायुधीति and explaining it as ‘सहस्रेण आयुधैः सह वर्तते इति ससहस्रायुध कार्तवीर्ये तमिव आत्मानमाचरति’ All this effort is really in vain, because the करन् would still be mentioned in ‘अराति विलोचन.’ and ‘कुपाणो दण्ड ’

Page 321

त्रिलोे च समासगा—

And in the case of three-membered compounds—

With this Mammata commences the treatment of त्रिलुप्ता viz that लुप्तोपमा in which वाचि, धर्म and उपमान are dropped

This वादिधर्मोपमानलुप्ता has only one variety viz समासगा

In त्रिलोप वादिधर्मोपमानलुप्ता alone is possible Other possible varieties viz उपमेयोपमानधर्मलुप्ता (e g इव) and उपमेयधर्मवावधर्मलुप्ता (e g चन्द्र ) 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 184—This stanza describes a lovely damsel, who attracts the mind of a sage

Here त्रिलुप्ता or वादिधर्मोपमानलुप्ता 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 वादिधर्मोपमानलुप्ता।

The compound मृगनयना with its dissolution ‘मृगनयने इव ( चञ्चले ) नयने यस्या सा’ is formed according to the vārtika ‘सप्तम्युपमानपूर्वपदस्य उत्तरपदलोपेऽक्ष’ or ‘धनेनन्यपदार्थे’ पा २ २ २४

The vārtika means A compound word, which possesses for its first member a word in the locative ( सप्तमी सप्तम्यन्तं पूर्वपदे यस्य ईदृशं पदम् ), or a word expressive of उपमान ( उपमानम् उपमानवाचकं पूर्वपदे यस्य ईदृश पदम् ), forms a बहुव्रीहि compound with another word and then the latter member of the first compound word, which is सप्तमीपूर्वपद or उपमानपूर्वपद, is dropped For example, उरसिस्थानि लोमानि यस्य स उरसिलोम

Page 322

उरसि स्थ लोमन्

one having profuse hair on his chest

Here उरसिस्थ is a compound word, which is सप्तमीपूर्वपद, because it possesses the locative उरसि as its first word It forms a बहुव्रीहि compound with another word viz लोमन् and loses its own latter member viz स्थ Thus, we get the बहुव्रीहि compound उरसिलोमन् Similarly, कण्टेश्य काल ( कृष्णवर्णी ) यस्य स कण्टेकाल नीलकण्ठ शिव इत्यर्थे

मृगनयने इव नयने यस्या सा मृगनयनना

Here मृगनयने is a compound word, which is supposed to be उपमानपूर्वपद

In this case it is to be noted that strictly speaking मृगनयने is not उपमानपूर्वपद For, the पूर्वपद is मृग and मृग is not the उपमान The उपमान is मृगनयने or नयने meaning thereby the eyes of the deer But मृग is to be metaphorically regarded as the उपमान for the purpose of forming this compound according to the rule which says that the property of a part ( अवयवस्य ) is attributed to the whole ( समुदायस्य )

समुदायेऽवयविनो धर्मः उपमानत्वम् ।

The property of a part is attributed to the whole

अवयवस्य मृगवयवस्य नयनत्वम् ।

The property of being the eyes is attributed to the deer

समुदायैकवचनं नयनयोरित्थम् ।

The dual number 'nayane' is used to refer to the whole

धर्मी उपमानलम् ।

The whole is regarded as the उपमान

इत्यर्थे व्यपदिश्यते ।

is metaphorically regarded as the उपमान

अवयवधर्मेण समुदायस्य व्यपदेशात् ।

Because the whole is referred to by the property of a part

उदाहृतम् उपमानता इति उपमानपूर्व उद्भसुखशब्दः ।

Thus, मृगनयने being regarded as उपमानपूर्वपद, it forms a बहुव्रीहि compound with another word viz नयने and loses its own latter member viz नयने from मृगनयने

मृगनयनने इव नयने यस्या सा मृगनयनना ।

So we get the बहुव्रीहि compound मृगनयनना

उपमानप्रतिपादक ( इव ) और साधारण धर्म ( चञ्चल ) are dropped

Here उपमान ( नयने from मृगनयने )

मृगनयनना becomes an example of वादिदर्शोऽपमानलङ्क्षता

Consequently, मृगनयनना becomes an example of वादिदर्शोऽपमानलङ्क्षता

मृगनयनना is also dissolved as मृग इव ( चञ्चल ) नयने यस्या सा'

The compound मृगनयनना is also dissolved as 'मृग इव ( चञ्चल ) नयने यस्या सा'

मृग stands by लक्षणा or Indication for मृगनयने

where मृग stands by लक्षणा or Indication for मृगनयने

Thus is according to कातन्त्रव्याकरण, as distinguished from पाणिनीय व्याकरण

Thus is according to 'kaatantravyakarana', as distinguished from 'paaninIya vyaakarana'

In this case मृगनयनना would not be an example of वादिदर्शोऽपमानलङ्क्षता, because उपमान ( मृग metaphorically standing for मृगनयन ) is present, but only of वादिदर्शलङ्क्षता

In this case 'mrgayanana' would not be an example of 'vaadidarshompaanaalankṣta', because 'upamaan' ( 'mrga' metaphorically standing for 'mrgayana' ) is present, but only of 'vaadidarshalan்kṣta'

माम्मट expresses this idea in 'अत्र सप्तम्युपमानने तदा इदमुदाहरणम् ।'

Mammata expresses this idea in 'atra saptamyupamaanane tada idamudaharanam'

The suggestion here is यदा कातन्त्रव्याकरणानुसारेण मृगशब्दे 'मृगनयने' इत्यर्थे लक्षणा स्वीक्रियते तदा 'मृगनयना' इति वादिदर्शनोल्लक्षितत्वात् नोदाहरणम्, किन्तु वादिदर्शलङ्क्षताया एव ।

The suggestion here is 'yada kaatantravyakaranaanusarena mrgaśabde 'mrgayanane' ityarthe lakṣaṇa sveekriyate tada 'mrgayanana' iti vaadidarshollakṣitatvaat nodaharanam, kintu vaadidarshalan்kṣtayaa eva'

In connection with मृगनयनना as an example of वादिदर्शोऽपमानलङ्क्षता the position is this

In connection with 'mrgayanana' as an example of 'vaadidarshompaanaalankṣta' the position is this

In forming the compound according to 'सप्तम्युपमानपूर्वपदस्य०' one has to look upon मृग as an उपमान, standing for मृगनयन, in order to make 'मृगनयने उपमानपूर्वपद'

In forming the compound according to 'saptamyupamaanpoorvapadasya' one has to look upon 'mrga' as an 'upamaan', standing for 'mrgayana', in order to make 'mrgayanane upamaanpoorvapada'

But when one quotes मृगनयनना as an example of वादिदर्शोऽपमानलङ्क्षता, one does not regard मृग as an उपमान

But when one quotes 'mrgayanana' as an example of 'vaadidarshompaanaalankṣta', one does not regard 'mrga' as an 'upamaan'

This involves a sort of अधिकरणन्याय and is, therefore, objectionable

This involves a sort of 'adhikarananyaaya' and is, therefore, objectionable

Page 323

२७०

270

काव्यप्रकाशा.

Kavyaprakasha

[Page 42

If you regard मृग as उपमान, you must consider it as such all thro1gh Then, मृगनयना would not be an example of वादिम्योपमानलक्ष्मा

If you regard deer as the standard of comparison, you must consider it as such throughout. Then, 'deer-eyed' would not be an example of Vādimṛgopamānalakṣmā.

This confirms our view statea before that no लुप्तोपमा is possıble, when उपमान is dropped We, therefore, hold that मृगनयना is an example of वादिर्मैलक्ष्मा only.

This confirms our view stated before that no Luptopamā is possible when the standard of comparison is dropped. We, therefore, hold that 'deer-eyed' is an example of Vādirmeṣlakṣmā only.

कूरस्य आचारस्य °—It was pointed out above that no other variety except वादिम्योपमानलक्ष्मा is possıble in त्रिलोP But प्रतिहारेनुराज, author of the काव्यालंकारसग्रह thinks that तद्धितगा उपमेयधर्मवादिलता is also possıble Mammata is here controvertıng this view of प्रतीहारेनुराज

It was pointed out above that no other variety except Vādimṛgopamānalakṣmā is possible in Trilopa. But Pratīhārendurāja, author of Kāvyālankārasaṃgraha, thinks that Taddhitagā Upameyadharmavādilakṣmā is also possible. Mammata is here controverting this view of Pratīhārendurāja.

Pratīhārendurāja's example of तद्धितगा उपमेयधर्मवादिलता is आय शूलिक and means one who deals with an ıron rod ı e one who is cruel in his conduct It is pointed out that these तद्धित affixes are avaılable only when the words आय शूल and डण्डाजिन are used in their metaphorıcal senses

Pratīhārendurāja's example of Taddhitagā Upameyadharmavādilakṣmā is 'Āya Śūlika' and means one who deals with an iron rod, i.e., one who is cruel in his conduct. It is pointed out that these Taddhita affixes are available only when the words 'Āya Śūla' and 'Daṇḍājina' are used in their metaphorical senses.

Thus, in the case of the तद्धित formation आय शूलिक the उपमेय is क्रूराचार ( cruel conduct ), the साधारण धर्म is तैक्ष्ण्यमू ( sharpness ) and the उपमाप्रतिपादक is इव Out of these उपमेय, साधारण धर्म and उपमाप्रतिपादक are dropped Therefore, आय शूलिक is an example of तद्धितगा उपमेयधर्मवादिलक्ष्मा. This is the opinion of Pratīhārendurāja

Thus, in the case of the Taddhita formation 'Āya Śūlika', the object of comparison is cruel conduct, the common property is sharpness, and the indicator of comparison is 'like'. Out of these, the object of comparison, common property, and indicator of comparison are dropped. Therefore, 'Āya Śūlika' is an example of Taddhitagā Upameyadharmavādilakṣmā. This is the opinion of Pratīhārendurāja.

Mammata's view in this matter is that cruel conduct ( क्रूर आचार ) is here ascertained to be ıdentıcal with an ıron lance or rod ( आय शूल ) Thus, there is अध्यवसाय the swallowing of the उपमेय ( क्रूराचार ) by the उपमान ( आय शूल्म ) in the expression आय शूलिक Consequently, the figure here is अतिगयौक्त and not उपमेयधर्मववादिलक्ष्मा It is अतिदायौक्ति that is founded on अध्यवसान, not उपमा See below Kārikā 14ab p 68

Mammata's view in this matter is that cruel conduct is here ascertained to be identical with an iron lance or rod. Thus, there is Adhyavasāya, the swallowing of the object of comparison by the standard of comparison in the expression 'Āya Śūlika'. Consequently, the figure here is Atigayoktī and not Upameyadharmavādilakṣmā. It is Atīdayoktī that is founded on Adhyavasāna, not Upamā. See below Kārikā 14ab, p. 68.

It will be notıced that all these 25 varıetıes are based on gramma tical consıderations such as sentence, a compound and varıous affixes Appaya Dīkṣıta rıghtly remarks that such divisions do not deserve to be treated in the science of poetıcs 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 Ellip tical Comparison are by no means exhaustıve Read चित्रमीमांसा P 27

It will be noticed that all these 25 varieties are based on grammatical considerations such as sentence, 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 Citramīmāṃsā, p. 27.

It may here be pointed out that उद्भट (800 A D ) is the earlıest writer who divides उपमा on such grammatical basis Vide his काव्यालंकार-संग्रह p 16 ( निर्णयसागर )

It may here be pointed out that Udbhaṭa (800 A.D.) is the earliest writer who divides Upamā on such grammatical basis. Vide his Kāvyālankārasaṃgraha, p. 16 (Nirnayasāgara).

Page 324

मालोपमा or Garland-Comparison and रशनोपमा or Girdle Comparison

Malopama or Garland-Comparison and Rashanopama or Girdle Comparison

Having finished with the divisions of उपमा Mammata proceeds to give us illustrations and definitions of मालोपमा and रशनोपमा in the Vrtti and remarks in the end ( p 48 ) that these two varieties of उपमा have not been separately defined by him in the Kankas ( न लक्षितौ =अन्यो मालोपमारशनोपमौ कारिकाया प्रत्युक्तत्वेन लक्षण न कृतम्.)

Having finished with the divisions of Upama, Mammata proceeds to give us illustrations and definitions of Malopama and Rashanopama in the Vrtti and remarks in the end (p. 48) that these two varieties of Upama have not been separately defined by him in the Kankas.

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 ( एवंविधवैचित्र्यसहस्संभवाद् ) and it will obviously be impossible to define and illustrate them all

A figure must have a distinct strikingness of its own. If such strikingness as is found in Malopama and Rashanopama be regarded as sufficient to constitute a separate figure, a thousand of such strikingnesses is possible, 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 (उपमेदानतिक्रमात् ) 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.

(2) Malopama and Rashanopama do not really go beyond or exceed the divisions already given. 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 अध्यायालंकार VIII. 25 and 27

This repudiation of the claims of Malopama and Rashanopama as independent divisions of Upama is apparently intended as a hit against Rudrata, who admits both these as regular varieties of Upama. See his Adhyayalankara VIII. 25 and 27.

एकसैव बहुपमानोपादाने 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.

Ekasyaiva bahupmanopadane malopama (p. 47)—This contains Mammata's definition of Malopama or Garland-Comparison, which consists in mentioning 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.

Malopama is of two kinds viz. (1) when the common property between the Upameya and the many Upamans is Abhinna 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, इत is उपमा प्रतिपादक in each sentence and शोभा, understood from माल्या, 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

Stanza 19—This stanza describes a woman who is withered with dejection. It is an example of Abhinne Sadharane Dharme Malopama. Here 'sa' is Upameya, Rajyasri, Manasvita, and Padmini are the many Upamans, 'it' is Upama Pratipadaka in each sentence, and 'sobha', understood from 'malya', is the one common property possessed by the Upameya and the many Upamans. As there are many Upamans for one Upameya and as there is only one common property, the stanza is an example of Abhinne Sadharane Dharme Malopama.

Out of the three sentences that constitute this stanza the first two are examples of वाक्यगा श्रौती पूर्णोपमा and the last one of समासगा ( पदिनीव ) श्रौती पूर्णोपमा Thus, मालोपमा does not go beyond the divisions of उपमा already mentioned

Out of the three sentences that constitute this stanza, the first two are examples of Vakyaga Srauti Punopama, and the last one is of Samasaga (Padmini) Srauti Punopama. Thus, Malopama does not go beyond the divisions of Upama already mentioned.

Page 325

२७२

काव्यप्रकाशः

[ Page 44

Stanza 20—describes a beautiful woman The stanza illustrates मित्रे साधारणे धर्में मालोपमा Here नितम्बिनी is the उपमेय, ज्योत्स्ना, धुरा and प्रसूता are the उपमानs and नयनानन्द , मदकारणम् and समाकृष्टसर्वलोक represent the three different common properties connected with these three उपमानs Thus as the उपमानs are many and as the common properties connected with them are different, the stanza is an illustration of मित्रे साधारणे धर्में मालोपमा But the three sentences, which form the stanza, can also be regarded as examples of समासगा श्रौती पूर्योगपमा Thus, मालोपमा does not go beyond the province of the divisions of उपमा mentioned before.

Stanza 20—describes a beautiful woman The stanza illustrates the simile with different common properties Here नितम्बिनी is the object of comparison, ज्योत्स्ना, धुरा and प्रसूता are the comparators and नयनानन्द , मदकारणम् and समाकृष्टसर्वलोक represent the three different common properties connected with these three comparators Thus as the comparators are many and as the common properties connected with them are different, the stanza is an illustration of simile with different common properties But the three sentences, which form the stanza, can also be regarded as examples of combined, audible, and complete comparison Thus, मालोपमा does not go beyond the province of the divisions of simile mentioned before.

मालोपमा is called, because here there are many उपमानs for one उपमेय, as in a garland many flowers are woven together by means of one thread

मालोपमा is called, because here there are many comparators for one object of comparison, as in a garland many flowers are woven together by means of one thread

यथोत्तरम् उपमेयस्य उपमानत्वे रशनोपमा (p 48)—This is Mammata’s definition of रशनोपमा or Girdle-Comparison, The very nature of रशनोपमा requires that there should at least be three sentences wherein an उपमेय should succesively become an उपमान Like मालोपमा ( पूनरुक्त = मालोपमावत् ) रशनोपमा is also of two kinds viz (1) when the common property is अभिन्न or not different i e one and (2) when the common property is different

यथोत्तरम् उपमेयस्य उपमानत्वे रशनोपमा (p 48)—This is Mammata’s definition of रशनोपमा or Girdle-Comparison, The very nature of रशनोपमा requires that there should at least be three sentences wherein an object of comparison should succesively become a comparator Like मालोपमा ( पूनरुक्त = मालोपमावत् ) रशनोपमा is also of two kinds viz (1) when the common property is identical or not different i e one and (2) when the common property is different

Stanza 21—Thus stanza describes a certain king whose speech, mind, action and fame are all exceedingly spotless or pure

This stanza illustrates अभित्रे साधारणे वच्म रशनोपमा, which is present in the second half Here मति. is the उपमेय in the first clause and it becomes उपमान in the second Similarly, चेष्टा, which is the उपमेय in the second sentence, becomes the उपमान in the third Thus, as an उपमेय succesively becomes the उपमान, we get रशनोपमा In all the three clauses the common property is the same viz अतिविमलत्वम् Hence, the figure in the stanza is अभित्रे साधारणे धर्में रशनोपमा

This stanza illustrates रशनोपमा with identical common property, which is present in the second half Here मति. is the object of comparison in the first clause and it becomes comparator in the second Similarly, चेष्टा, which is the object of comparison in the second sentence, becomes the comparator in the third Thus, as an object of comparison succesively becomes the comparator, we get रशनोपमा In all the three clauses the common property is the same viz अतिविमलत्वम् Hence, the figure in the stanza is रशनोपमा with identical common property

All the three clauses in this stanza can be regarded as examples of समासगा श्रौती पूर्यों Hence, रशनोपमा is not उभयवेदातिकान्त

All the three clauses in this stanza can be regarded as examples of combined, audible, and complete comparison Hence, रशनोपमा is not beyond both

Page 44

Stanza 22—This stanza illustrates मित्रे साधारणे धर्में रशनोपमा Here मूर्तिं which is the उपमेय in the first clause, becomes the उपमान in the second सभा, which is the उपमेय in the second, becomes the उपमान in the third Thus, रशनोपमा is developed. In all the three clauses the common property is different viz मूर्तित्व , प्रजाव्चितत्व and अजग्मयत्व respectively Hence, the figure in the stanza is मित्रे साधारणे धर्में रशनोपमा

Stanza 22—This stanza illustrates रशनोपमा with different common properties Here मूर्तिं which is the object of comparison in the first clause, becomes the comparator in the second सभा, which is the object of comparison in the second, becomes the comparator in the third Thus, रशनोपमा is developed. In all the three clauses the common property is different viz मूर्तित्व , प्रजाव्चितत्व and अजग्मयत्व respectively Hence, the figure in the stanza is रशनोपमा with different common properties

Page 326

In this stanza also all the three clauses are examples of समासोक्ती पूर्णी Hence, रश्नोपमा does not involve उत्क्षेपद्वातिकम्

रशनोपमा is so called, because here the उपमास 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 उपमानभावापत्तौ शृङ्खलान्यायेन वत्मानां रशनोपमा’ । सप्तदशप्रकरणी

(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.

उपमानान्तरस्वभाव अनन्वय—This Vritti 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 एकवाक्यगे 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, ‘अस्या बदनमिव अस्पा वक्त्रम्’ 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.

एकवाक्यगे 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 तद्भूषासु are described as being both the उपमेय and the उपमान Thus अनन्वय is developed

The ultimate idea in अनन्वय is ध्वन्यात्मकसाम्यमेव हि For, when one says that a certain object is like itself, one means there is no other object sumlar 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 ‘लोहितपीतैः कुड्मैराकृतमाभाति भूतलं किङ्करम् । दावाग्निना नुज्वालैः कदाविदांक्रीणिमिव स्मये ॥ Here the peak of the mountain as it looks at present is compared with itself as it looked at some other time

का ९८

Page 327

It should be noted that unlike विश्वनाथ, मम्मट thinks that for अनन्वय अलंकार, शब्दैकत्व in addition to अर्थैकत्व is necessary According to विश्वनाथ शब्दैकत्व is only accidental therein

It should be noted that unlike Viśvanātha, Mammaṭa thinks that for Ananvaya Alankara, Śabdāikatva in addition to Arthāikatva is necessary. According to Viśvanātha, Śabdāikatva 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 साम्य साधर्म्य is based on भेद For, unless two things are different, they cannot be said to be similar Therefore, in order to make साम्य possible one and the same thing is intentionally imagined to be different in अनन्वय Thus, अनन्वय is characterized by एकस्य एव वस्तुन आहार्य ( artificial, intentional, volitional, imaginary ) भेद

Another point to note in connection with this figure is this: The terms Upamāna and Upameya presuppose the idea of Sādṛśya or Sāmya. Sādṛśya is based on Bheda. For, unless two things are different, they cannot be said to be similar. Therefore, in order to make Sāmya possible, one and the same thing is intentionally imagined to be different in Ananvaya. Thus, Ananvaya is characterized by Ekasya eva vastuno āhārya (artificial, intentional, volitional, imaginary) bheda.

(3) उपमेयोपमा or Reciprocal Comparison

(3) Upameyopamā or Reciprocal Comparison

विपर्ययोस 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 ( विपर्ययोस = परिवर्तन ) of the उपमान and the उपमेय ( तयो = उपमानोपमेयो ) 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

Viparyayosa upameyopamā tayoḥ—This is Mammaṭa's definition of Upameyopamā. It means, as the Vṛtti on the next page explains, that when there is an inversion or interchange (Viparyayosa = Parivartana) of the Upamāna and the Upameya (Tayoḥ = Upamānopameyayoḥ) in of course two sentences, there is Upameyopamā. Thus, Upameyopamā requires that the Upamāna and the Upameya of the first sentence should respectively become the Upameya and the Upamāna 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 ( तृतीयसदृश्यवच्छेद ) Hence this mutual comparison must be based on one common property and not on different ones. Therefore सविता विदधाति विधुरुपि 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 तृतीयसदृश्यवच्छेद

Upameyopamā is so called because here there is a comparison with an Upameya. Mutual comparison is an external form of this Alankara. Its purpose is to exclude a third similar thing (Tṛtīyasadrśyavaccheda). Hence this mutual comparison must be based on one common property and not on different ones. Therefore, Savitā vidadhāti vidhurapi savitarati is not an instance of Upameyopamā. As indicated by the word Tayor in the definition, Upameyopamā is different from Rāśanopamā because in the latter, there is no mutual comparison and hence no Tṛtīyasadrśyavaccheda.

There is also no तृतीयसदृश्यवच्छेद in रशनोपमा Read ' तयो ' इत्यनेन ' भणितिरिव मति ' इत्यादिरशनोपमाव्याख्यास्ति । ततस्तु उपमेयाया मतेस्तद् उपमानताहुपचर्य्यसेपि भणितेस्तदुपमानभूताया उपमेयत्वरुपतदभावात् ।' प्रभा p 379

There is also no Tṛtīyasadrśyavaccheda in Rāśanopamā. Read 'Tayoḥ' ityanena 'Bhaṇitiriva mati' ityādirāśanopamāvyākhyāsti. Tatas tu upameyāyā mate stadd upamānatāhupacaryyasepi bhaṇitesteadupamānabhūtāyā upameyatvarūpatadbhāvāt.' Prabhā 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 वाक्यद्वये शब्दमार्थ वा । तेन ' रामरावणौ मिथस्तुल्यौ ' इत्यादौ नोच्यते । तत्रापि ' रामो रावणतुल्यः ' इति वाक्यार्थमेदप्रतीते ।' उद्योत

Vākyadvaye—It is pointed out that the two sentences, which are necessary for Upameyopamā, may either be expressed or implied. This will be clear from 'Tatra vākyadvaye śabdamārtha vā. Tena "Rāmarāvaṇau mithastulyaḥ" ityādau noccate. Tatrāpi "Rāmo Rāvaṇatulyau" iti vākyārtham edapratīte.' Udyota

Stanza 24—This stanza describes a certain king and contains three examples of उपमेयोपमा The common properties in these three examples are respectively महत्व, दुरसदत्व and विशालत्व It should be noted that the two sentences which constitute each of these three

Stanza 24—This stanza describes a certain king and contains three examples of Upameyopamā. The common properties in these three examples are respectively Mahattva, Durasadtva, and Viśālatva. It should be noted that the two sentences which constitute each of these three

Page 328

उपमेयोपमा's possess the same common property

Thus, 'मति कमलेव महत्वी कमला च मतिरेव 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

जगन्नाथ divides this अलंकार into two varieties depending on whether the साधर्म्य is expressly stated or suggested i e उत्कर्मो and व्यक्तधर्मो

( 4 ) उत्प्रेक्षा or Poetical Fancy

The three figures that have been dealt with so far are regarded as वाच्यसाधर्म्ये or those in which साधर्म्य is expressed by some word such as इव or तुल्य ( वाच्यम्=शब्दबोध्यम् ) Now Mammata starts on the treatment of व्यंग्यसाधर्म्ये 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 ) रूपेण ( उपमानेन ) सभावन ( प्रायस्तादात्म्यकल्पनम् ) उत्प्रेक्षा—

Poetical Fancy is the representation of an उपमेय as probably identical with a similar object i e with an उपमान e g अस्या 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 ( उत्त् ) 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 thus or that e g इदं मुखं चन्द्रे वा

Here both the alternatives viz मुखम् and चन्द्र are equally prominent

This is known as संशय , which is defined as 'एकस्मिन् धर्मिणि विरुद्धानानार्थमविशिष्टध्वगागाहि ज्ञान संशय' तर्कस्मृतौ or 'एकस्मिन् धर्मिणि विरुद्धानानात्मक 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 नूनमेन मुखं चन्द्रेण भवितव्यम्

This is technically known as ऊह or conjecture which is thus defined 'उत्तैककोटिक संशय ऊह' सस्पदाथी. It will be seen that ऊह is the same as उत्प्रेक्षा and सभावन

Thus, the technical ऊह is at the basis of the figure उत्प्रेक्षा

Page 329

२७६

276

काव्यप्रकाश.

Kavyaprakasha

[ 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 ‘रज्जुसर्पं’ or ‘घृतिकाया रजतम्’ or ‘चन्द्र’, said when we honestly mistake the face for the moon This is known as विपयेय , which is defined as ‘मिथ्याज्ञान विषयं’ ताक्रसग्रह विपयेय is at the basis of the figure भ्रान्तिमान्

basis of the figure Utpreksa (4) We falsely apprehend one thing as being another i.e. we honestly mistake one thing for another e.g. 'Rajasarpam' or 'Ghrtikaya Rajatam' or 'Chandra', said when we honestly mistake the face for the moon This is known as Vipayeya, which is defined as 'Mithyajnana Visayam' Takrasagraha Vipayeya is at the basis of the figure Bhrantiman

From the point of view of the apprehension of similarity between the उपमेय and the उपमान the following figures represent an ascending order (1) सदेह , which is based on संशय e g इद मुखं चन्द्रो वा Though the doubt in सदेह 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 चन्द्र एव भवितव्यम 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) हवक e g मुख चन्द्र Here the similarity reaches such a stage that we look upon the two as identical हवक is thus based on अभेद (5) अभेदोक्ति e g नेद मुख किं तु चन्द्र Here we have intensified identification (अतिशायित अभेद ) The identification is strengthened by the denial of the उपमेय (प्रकटनिषेधसहित 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) भ्रान्तिमान् 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 आहायँ or intentional But in भ्रान्तिमान the अभेद loses its आहायँत्व and becomes real There is an honest mistake of one thing for another

From the point of view of the apprehension of similarity between the Upameya and the Upamana the following figures represent an ascending order (1) Sandeha, which is based on Samshaya e.g. Idam Mukham Chandro Va Though the doubt in Sandeha arises from similarity between the face and the moon that similarity is not expressly stated (2) Upama e.g. Mukham Chandra Iva Here the Upameya and the Upamana are definitely realized as similar and the similarity is actually expressed by means of the word Iva (3) Utpreksa e.g. Nunam Anena Mukhena Chandra Eva Bhavitavyam 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) Hvaka e.g. Mukham Chandra Here the similarity reaches such a stage that we look upon the two as identical Hvaka is thus based on Abheda (5) Abhedokti e.g. Neda Mukham Kim Tu Chandra Here we have intensified identification (Atishayita Abheda) The identification is strengthened by the denial of the Upameya (Prakatanishedhasahita Abheda) (6) Atishayokti e.g. Chandra This is based on Adhyavasana Here all idea of Upameya is lost and it is realized as being nothing but the Upamana (7) Bhrantiman e.g. Chandra, 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 Upamana and the Upameya, though in 4 to 6 he represents them as Abhinna or identical The Abheda here is Aahaayen or intentional But in Bhrantiman the Abheda loses its Aahaayentva and becomes real There is an honest mistake of one thing for another

Essentials of उत्प्रेक्षा

Essentials of Utpreksa

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 ‘नूनमिद 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 भ उपमानेन

The essentials of Utpreksa 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 'Nunamidam Mukham Chandra' Hence, Utpreksa is developed (2) The fancy must proceed from similarity i.e. Utpreksa must have Upamanopameyabhava for its basis This is suggested by Mammata's paraphrase of Samena Bha Upamanena

(3) The fancy should be आहायँ or volitional It should not proceed from genuine mistake Thus, though in ‘नून तव मुख चन्द्र’ the lover is inclined to regard his beloved’s face as the moon, he is quite conscious that the two are different

(3) The fancy should be Aahaayen or volitional It should not proceed from genuine mistake Thus, though in 'Nuna Tava Mukham Chandra' the lover is inclined to regard his beloved's face as the moon, he is quite conscious that the two are different

Page 330

पद्मलक्ष्मीं

Padmalakṣmīṁ

जातिवैरী = सहजशत्रु

Jāti-vairī = Sahaja-śatru

पादनिष्ठा स्वाभाविकी पद्मशोभा

Pāda-niṣṭhā svābhāvikī padma-śobhā

हेतुत्रेक्षया

Hetu-utprekṣayā

मृच्छकटिक 1.34

Mṛcchakaṭik 1.34

तमस व्यापनम्

Tamas vyāpanam

अज्ञान लेपनम्

Ajñāna lepanam

अभिष्पात'

Abhiṣpāt'

प्रकृत या उपमान

Prakṛta yā upamāna

नभ कर्तृकम् अज्ञान कर्मक वर्णनम्

Nabha kartr̥kam ajñāna karmaka varṇanam

स्वरूपोत्रेक्षा

Svārūpotprekṣā

क्रियास्वरूपोत्रेक्षा

Kriyā-svarūpotprekṣā

व्यापने संपातो वा

Vyāpane sampāto vā

लेपन वर्णन वा

Lepana varṇana vā

समासगा श्लुती पर्णोंपमा

Samāsagā śrutī pūrṇopamā

उत्प्रेक्षा

Utprekṣā

Page 331

२७८

278

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 46

stanza According to उद्योत the प्रकृत or उपमेय in the second sentence is नमः कर्तृक-अज्ञानकर्तृक-अभ् प्रसारण and it is fancied to be identical with नमः कर्तृक-अज्ञानकर्तृक-वर्णन, which is the सम or उपमान Now नमः कर्तृक-अज्ञान-कर्मक-अध् प्रसारण is not a fact. But we have to suppose that the poet imagines it to be such Thus, according to the उद्योत we have here first an imagined fact, प्रकृत or उपमेय, which is poetically fancied to be सम or उपमान

According to Udyota, the Prakrit or Upameya in the second sentence is 'Namah kartṛka-ajñanakartṛka-abh prasāraṇa' and it is fancied to be identical with 'Namah kartṛka-ajñanakartṛka-varṇana', which is the Sama or Upamāna. Now 'Namah kartṛka-ajñana-karmaka-adh prasāraṇa' is not a fact. But we have to suppose that the poet imagines it to be such. Thus, according to the Udyota, we have here first an imagined fact, Prakrit or Upameya, which is poetically fancied to be Sama or Upamāna.

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 ( धर्मे ) such as लेनकर्तृत्वम् or वर्णनकर्तृत्वम् entity ( धर्मी ) such as तम or नम Read अलङ्कारसर्वस्व pp 58, 63

According to the 'Alamkārasarvasva', Utprekṣā 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 the sky, which cannot be the agent of the action of showering, is fancied to be such an agent. Thus, Utprekṣā here arises because an attribute (Dharma) such as 'Lenakartṛtvam' or 'Varṇanakartṛtvam' entity (Dharmin) such as 'Tama' or 'Nabha'. Read 'Alamkārasarvasva' pp 58, 63.

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 व्याप्त ) is fancied to be identical with another ( चन्द्र or लेपन ) धर्मोत्प्रेक्षा always springs from fancied identity or अभेद (2) धर्मोलेक्षा i e the उत्प्रेक्षा where a धर्मे or attribute ( लेनकर्तृत्वम् or वर्णनकर्तृत्वम् ) is fancied to belong to a धर्मिन् or an entity ( तम or नम ) धर्मोलेक्षा does not require the basis of अभेद Mammata and Viśvanātha admit धर्म्योत्प्रेक्षा only Ruyyaka admits both धर्म्योत्प्रेक्षा and धर्मोलेक्षा

Putting together the views of Mammata, with whom Viśvanātha agrees, and Ruyyaka, we arrive at the following conclusion: Utprekṣā is of two kinds, viz. (1) Dharmotprakṣā, i.e., the Utprekṣā where one entity (Mukha or Vyāpti) is fancied to be identical with another (Chandra or Lepana). Dharmotprakṣā always springs from fancied identity or Abheda. (2) Dharmollekṣā, i.e., the Utprekṣā where a Dharma or attribute (Lenakartṛtvam or Varṇanakartṛtvam) is fancied to belong to a Dharmin or an entity (Tama or Nabha). Dharmollekṣā does not require the basis of Abheda. Mammata and Viśvanātha admit Dharmotprakṣā only. Ruyyaka admits both Dharmotprakṣā and Dharmollekṣā.

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

Jagannātha considers this topic in detail and expresses his opinion in favour of the view of Ruyyaka, the author of the 'Alamkārasarvasva'. Read 'Rasagangādhara' pp 296, 298.

उत्प्रेक्षा is a very important figure Read 'सर्वालङ्कारसर्वस्व कविकौतु-विवार्धिनी' उत्प्रेक्षा हरति स्वान्तमचिरोळा 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

Utprekṣā is a very important figure. Read 'Sarvalamkārasarvasva Kavikautuka-vivardhinī'. 'Utprekṣā harati svāntamachiroḷā smitādiva.' 'Alamkāraśekhara' p 34. Its examples are sown broad-cast in Sanskrit literature. But Mammata 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 Rasagangādhara 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

An elaborate treatment of the divisions and sub-divisions of Utprekṣā is found in the 'Sāhityadarpana' and the 'Rasagangādhara'. 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., 'Svārūpa', 'Hetu', and 'Phala'.

Page 332

Broadly speaking उत्प्रेक्षा then is of three kinds viz. स्वरूपोत्प्रेक्षा, हेतूत्प्रेक्षा and फलोत्प्रेक्षा

Broadly speaking, utprekṣā then is of three kinds viz. svārūpotprekṣā, hetūtrekṣā and phalotprekṣā

These three varieties arise according as the thing which is fancied is either the nature of an object, or the motive, or the fruit

(1) स्वरूपोत्प्रेक्षा—(1) उरु कुरङ्कशिशुश्रेणीचलेच्छावलो भाति । सप्ताक्ष कनकमयो विजयस्तम्भ समरस्येव ॥

(1) svārūpotprekṣā—(1) uru kuraṅkaśiśuśreṇīcalechchhāvalo bhāti | saptākṣa kanakmayo vijayastambha samarasyeva ‖

Here the lady's thigh with its fluttering skirt is fancied to be Love's golden pillar of victory with a flag

(11) जाने मौन क्षमा शक्ती तयागे श्लाघाविपर्यय । गुणानुभाविनिर्वृत्तावस्तस्य प्रसवा इव ॥

(11) jāne mauna kṣamā śaktī tayāge ślāghāviparyaya | guṇānubhāvinirvṛttāvastasya prasavā iva ‖

Here his virtues are fancied to be procreative

(111) गत्ताम्भसि शुचित्राण तव नो शाननिस्वन । स्तातीवाधीरघूर्गेपे पातनपातकी ॥

(111) gattāmbhasi śucitrāṇa tava no śānaniḥsvana | stātīvādhīraghūrgepe pātanapātakī ‖

Here what is fancied is the action of bathing

मुखमणेनीडशो भाति पूर्णचन्द्र इवापर ।

mukhamaneṇīḍāśo bhāti pūrṇacandra ivāpara |

Here what is fancied is the moon

Viśvanātha regards स्वरूपोत्प्रेक्षा as pssessed of four varieties

Viśvanātha regards svārūpotprekṣā as possessed of four varieties

But as Jagannātha has pointed out these four varieties do not possess distinotive charm Their charm lies in स्वरूप or nature being fancied in every case

(2) हेतूत्प्रेक्षा—सैषा स्थली यत्र विचिन्तया त्वां श्रेष्ठ मया नूपुरेमकुय्याम् । अद्यैव त्वच्चरणारविन्दविलोकाद् खादिव बद्धपिनाकम् ॥

(2) hetūtrekṣā—saiṣā sthalī yatra vicintayā tvāṃ śreṣṭha mayā nūpuremakuyyām | adyaiva tvaccaraṇāravindavilokād khādiva baddhapinākam ‖

Here for the silence of the anklet a cause viz grief is poetically fancied

This is गुणहेतूत्प्रेक्षा, because a quality viz joy is there fancied as the cause सुख and दु ख are among the 24 गुणs, mentioned by the Naiyāyikas

This is guṇahetūtrekṣā, because a quality viz joy is there fancied as the cause suka and duḥkha are among the 24 guṇas, mentioned by the Naiyāyikas

(3) फलोत्प्रेक्षा—रावणस्यापि रामास्तो मित्रा वा हृदयमाहुग । विवेक भुवमाश्र्याद्यमुरगेन्द्र्य इव प्रियं ॥

(3) phalotprekṣā—rāvaṇasyāpi rāmāsto mitrā vā hṛdayamāhuga | viveka bhuvamāśryādyamuragendrya iva priyaṃ ‖

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 किया-फलोत्प्रेक्षा because अन्र आद्याहुतिमिति भूरवेशस्य फले कियारूपमुत्प्रक्षितम्

This is kriyā-phalotprekṣā because atra ādyāhutimiti bhūraveśasya phale kriyārūpamutprekṣitam

हेतूत्प्रेक्षा and फलोत्प्रेक्षा

hetūtrekṣā and phalotprekṣā

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

Their distinction is the same as the distinction between hetu or motive and phala 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

विरहोदयः is, therefore, a हेतु On the other hand the arrow shot by Rama entered the ground first and then it

Page 333

२८०

280

काव्यप्रकाशा

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 46

conveyed the news to the serpents Therefore, प्रियव्रयान is the फल in this case

conveyed the news to the serpents Therefore, priyavdyan is the phala in this case

From the practical point of view it may be noted that a हेतूपेक्षा is generally indicated by a noun in the ablative or in the instrumental, while a फलोत्पेक्षा is generally known from a noun in the dative or from infinitive

From the practical point of view it may be noted that a hetūpekṣā is generally indicated by a noun in the ablative or in the instrumental, while a phalotpekṣā is generally known from a noun in the dative or from infinitive

इव as उपमानवाचक and इव as उत्प्रेक्षायोतक

iva as upamānavācaka and iva as utprekṣāyotaka

Words like मन्ये, शङ्के, ध्रुवम् etc reveal the presence of उत्प्रेक्षा Other words are अवैति, ऊहे, संभावयामि, उत्प्रेक्षे, स्यात् etc Among these उत्प्रेक्षाप्रतिपादक word इव is included But we know that इव is उपमाप्रतिपादक So the question arises as to when इव is उपमानवाचक and when it is उत्प्रेक्षायोतक Mammata says nothing on this point, though he quotes 'लिम्पतीव०', where इव is उत्प्रेक्षायोतक Three different views are found in this matter

Words like manye, śaṅke, dhruvam etc reveal the presence of utprekṣā. Other words are avaiti, ūhe, saṃbhavāmi, utprekṣe, syāt etc. Among these utprekṣāpratipādaka word iva is included. But we know that iva is upamāpratipādaka. So the question arises as to when iva is upamānāvachaka and when it is utprekṣāyotaka. Mammata says nothing on this point, though he quotes 'limpatīva', where iva is utprekṣāyotaka. Three different views are found in this matter.

(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 उत्प्रेक्षा Thus, 'अस्या मुख चन्द्र इव' or 'अस्या मुख चन्द्रम इव मन्ये' is an example of उपमा, because चन्द्र as an उपमान is well known in the world But 'अस्या मुखपरक्षन्द्र इव' or 'अस्या मुखमपरं चन्द्रमिव मन्ये' is an illustration of उत्प्रेक्षा, because though चन्द्र is well known in the world, अपर चन्द्र is found nowhere except in the imagination of the poet

(1) When the upamān is such as is well known in the world, iva expresses similarity and the figure is upamā. But when the upamān is such as is specially imagined by the poet, iva suggests probability and the figure is utprekṣā. Thus, 'asyā mukha candra iva' or 'asyā mukha candram iva manye' is an example of upamā, because candra as an upamān is well known in the world. But 'asyā mukhaparakṣandra iva' or 'asyā mukhamaparaṁ candramiva manye' is an illustration of utprekṣā, because though candra is well known in the world, apara candra is found nowhere except in the imagination of the poet.

(2) According to Appaya Dīkṣita इव becomes संभावनापर, when the उपमान is qualified by some adjective or adjectival clause, which serves to indicate संभावना Thus, 'मुखमपरचन्द्र इव' is उत्प्रेक्षा, because the उपमान चन्द्र is qualified by अपर

(2) According to Appaya Dīkṣita iva becomes saṃbhavanāpara, when the upamān is qualified by some adjective or adjectival clause, which serves to indicate saṃbhavanā. Thus, 'mukhamaparacandra iva' is utprekṣā, because the upamān candra is qualified by apara.

(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 उत्प्रेक्षा e g पिनष्टीव तरन्नामि समुद्र फेनचन्दनम् । तदादाय करैरिन्दुरलिम्पतीव दिगक्ष्णा ॥

(3) Patanjali, the author of Mahabhasya, furnishes a third test. An upamān is always a sidha or accomplished entity and a kriyā is sādhya or in the process of accomplishment. Consequently, whenever iva occurs with a verb, it is saṃbhavanāpara and the figure is utprekṣā. e.g. pinaṣṭīva tarannāmi samudra phenacandanam । tadādāya karairinduralimpatīva digakṣṇā ॥

गम्योत्प्रेक्षा or प्रतीमयानोत्प्रेक्षा and व्यक्त्योत्प्रेक्षा or उत्प्रेक्षाच्यवनी

gamyotprekṣā or pratīyamānotprekṣā and vyaktyotprekṣā or utprekṣācya vanī

उत्प्रेक्षा is usually revealed by some such word as मन्ये, इव etc But sometimes it occurs even in the absence of an उत्प्रेक्षायोतक word. It is then called गम्योत्प्रेक्षा or प्रतीमयानोत्प्रेक्षा For example 'तनुकर्या स्तनयुग्मेन मुखं न प्रकटीकृतम् । हारेण गुरिणा स्थाने न दत्तामिति लज्जया ॥' Here the pair of breasts is not likely to feel shame Therefore, we

Utprekṣā is usually revealed by some such word as manye, iva etc. But sometimes it occurs even in the absence of an utprekṣāyotaka word. It is then called gamyotprekṣā or pratīyamānotprekṣā. For example 'tanukaryā stanayugmena mukhaṁ na prakaṭīkrtam । hāreṇa guriṇā sthāne na dattāmiti lajjayā ॥' Here the pair of breasts is not likely to feel shame. Therefore, we

Page 334

have to supply स्व after लज्जया and understand a गम्या or प्रतीमाना हेतुप्रेक्षा in this stanza

We have seen before that अलङ्कारध्वनि is one of the divisions of ध्वनि उत्केक्षाध्वनि 'or व्यङ्ग्योल्लेखा is a sub-division of अलङ्कारध्वनि and as such constitutes an example of उत्तमकाव्य An example of व्यङ्ग्योल्लेखा or उत्केक्षाध्वनि is ' महिलासहस्रैरपि तव हृदये सङ्ग सा रमन्ती । अनुदिनमनन्याकर्षी भव तन्वङ्गि तनुते ॥ '

The difference between प्रतीममानोल्लेक्षा and व्यङ्ग्योल्लेक्षा is that in the former the sense of the stanza is not complete unless उत्केक्षा is understood It is not so in व्यङ्ग्योल्लेक्षा

( 5 ) संदेह or the Doubtful or the Dubious

संदेहस्तु सङ्काय - In this Kārikā the definition of the figure संदेह is 'भेदोक्तौ तदनुक्तौ च' give its two divisions From the preceding Kārikā we have to supply 'प्रकृतस्य समेन'

The figure संदेह occurs when a doubt is expressed as to 'whether an उपमेय is this उपमान or that e इदं मुखं चन्द्रो वा कमल वा In this doubt the two or more alternatives that are expressed should be equally powerful i e the doubt should be a सङ्काय proper, as defined above The doubt, which constitutes संदेह, should be ( 1 ) charming and ( 2 ) based on similarity Thus, the doubt in 'स्थानवतो पुरुषो वा' is not संदेह, because though the doubt is based on similarity, it is not charming That it should be based on similarity follows from the words 'प्रकृतस्य ( उपमेयस्य ) समेन ( उपमानेन )' understood from the definition of the preceding figure Thus, the following stanza, though containing a doubt which is charming, is not an example of संदेह because the doubt does not proceed from similarity ( 1 ) मघ्य तव सरोजाक्षि पर्योधरभरार्दितम् । अतस्तु नास्तीति संदेह कस्य चित्ते न जायते ॥ साहित्यदर्पण ।

The name संदेह is significant, because the figure contains a doubt ( सदेहेन सहित संदेह )

संदेह is of two kinds ( 1 ) भेदोक्तौ i e when the difference bet ween the उपमेय and the उपमान is mentioned and ( 2 ) तदनुक्तौ - भेदलुप्तौ i e when such difference is not mentioned In this latter case संदेह is designated गूढ by Viśvanātha and Jagannātha भेदोक्तौ or mention of the difference arises in two ways ( 1 ) when a characteristic belonging to the उपमान is mentioned In this case the figure is known as निश्चयगर्भ ( 2 ) When a characteristic belonging to the उपमेय is mentioned In this case the figure is designated निश्चयान्त Thus संदेह has three varieties ( 1 ) निश्चयगर्भ, ( 2 ) निश्चयान्त, and ( 3 ) गूढ

Page 335

२८२

282

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[Page 46

This may be represented as follows

ससदेह

Sasandeha

( 1 ) निश्वयार्थे

(1) Nishvayarthe

अयं मार्तण्ड किम्

Aryam Martanda kim

( 2 ) निश्वयात

(2) Nishvayāt

इन्दु किम्

Indu kim

तददुक्तौ = भेदोक्तौ

Tadaduktau = Bhedoktau

( 3 ) श्रुतिः

(3) Shrutiḥ

अस्त्य सादृश्यविधौ

Astya sādrishyavidhau

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 प्रकृत or उपमेय is त्वम् and the उपमान is मार्तण्ड , कृषानु or कृतान्त 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 दुर्निरीक्ष्यत्व 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 king 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 ( कृषानु ) The common property between the king and fire is तेजोयुक्तत्वम् But while the king is moving in all directions on his horse, fire ( एष = कृषानु ) spreads in only one viz. the upward direction, ordinarily, or in the direction in which the wind is blowing Thus, सर्वासु दिक्षु अप्रसरणम् is a characteristic peculiar to fire. In the mention of this 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 बाहुकृत्य The king is killing people like Death does But Death rides a buffalo ( महिषवहन ), while the king is riding a horse Thus, महिषवहनत्व, w'ch is peculiar to that the king is not Death In this manner hostile warriors ( प्रतिभटा ) entertain doubts ( विकल्प ) about the king

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 prakṛt or upameya is tvam and the upamāna is mārtāṇḍa, krṣānu or kṛtānta. In the first line, a doubt as to whether the king is the sun (mārtāṇḍa) is first expressed. This doubt is based on the similarity between the king and the sun consisting of their durnirīkṣyatva. Then, the difference between them is conveyed by mentioning the sun's characteristic of being accompanied (ita = yukta) by seven horses. This is bhedokti, consisting of the mention of a characteristic belonging to the upamāna viz the sun. For, while the sun has seven horses, this king is riding only one. This bhedokti leads to the niścaya that the king is not the sun. So niścaya here consists of upamānabhinnatvena upameyasya avadhāraṇam. 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 (krṣānu). The common property between the king and fire is tejoyukta-tvam. But while the king is moving in all directions on his horse, fire (eṣa = krṣānu) spreads in only one viz. the upward direction, ordinarily, or in the direction in which the wind is blowing. Thus, sarvāsu dikṣu aprasaraṇam is a characteristic peculiar to fire. In the mention of this lies the bhedokti 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 (kṛtānta) arises in their mind. The common property between the king and Death is bāhukṛtya. The king is killing people like Death does. But Death rides a buffalo (mahiṣavahana), while the king is riding a horse. Thus, mahiṣavahanatva, which is peculiar to that the king is not Death. In this manner, hostile warriors (pratibhaṭā) entertain doubts (vikalpa) about the king

Page 336

Page 47 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash २८३

In this stanza the king is successively suspected to be the sun, fire and Death Thus, there is संशय Peculiar characteristics of these three are also mentioned in the three lines Thus, there is भेदोक्ति. Therefore, the stanza is an example of भेदोक्तौ ससंदेह This variety is called निश्शयगर्मे, 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 निश्शयगर्मे

In this stanza the king is successively suspected to be the sun, fire and Death. Thus, there is doubt. Peculiar characteristics of these three are also mentioned in the three lines. Thus, there is distinction. Therefore, the stanza is an example of distinction with doubt. This variety is called having doubt in the middle, because it possesses doubt in the middle. 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 doubt in the middle, this variety is called having doubt in the middle.

भेदोक्तौ इत्थनेन स्वीकृतम् —Mammata tells us here that by the use of the expression 'भेदोक्तौ' he not only accepts भेदोक्तौ ससंदेह but also निश्शयान्त as another variety Thus, भेदोक्ति gives rise to two varieties of ससंदेह viz निश्शयगर्मे and निश्शयान्त

Mammata tells us here that by the use of the expression 'भेदोक्तौ' he not only accepts distinction with doubt but also doubt at the end as another variety. Thus, distinction gives rise to two varieties of doubt, namely, having doubt in the middle and doubt at the end.

Page 47

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 उपमेयततेन उपमेयस्य अवधारणम् This निश्शय proceeds from भेदोक्ति, which consists in the mention of a characteristic peculiar to the उपमेय For, ललितसभिलाषवचनत्व belongs to the face to the exclusion of the moon and a lotus. Therefore, the stanza illustrates भेदोक्तौ निश्शयान्त ससंदेह

Thus, in this stanza there is doubt at the end. Here doubt means the determination of the object of comparison by the object being compared. This doubt proceeds from distinction, which consists in the mention of a characteristic peculiar to the object being compared. For, the quality of being a lovely and desirous speech belongs to the face to the exclusion of the moon and a lotus. Therefore, the stanza illustrates distinction with doubt at the end.

It should be noted that the word निश्शय, occurring in the names निश्शयगर्मे and निश्शयान्त , conveys two different senses In निश्शयगर्मे, निश्शय means उपमानाभिन्नतेन उपमेयस्य अवधारणम्, न तु उपमेयतेन For, if the उपमेय were determined as उपमेय, further doubt would be impossible On the other hand in निश्शयान्त निश्शय means उपमेयतेन उपमेयस्य अवधारणम् When such निश्शय occurs, further doubt becomes impossible And that is what happens in निश्शयान्त ससंदेह Then again, भेदोक्ति in निश्शयगर्मे arises from उपमानातविशेषकथन, while in निश्शयान्त it springs from उपमेयतातविशेषकथन

It should be noted that the word doubt, occurring in the names having doubt in the middle and doubt at the end, conveys two different senses. In having doubt in the middle, doubt means the determination of the object of comparison as different from the object being compared, not as being compared. For, if the object being compared were determined as being compared, further doubt would be impossible. On the other hand, in doubt at the end, doubt means the determination of the object being compared by the object of comparison. When such doubt occurs, further doubt becomes impossible. And that is what happens in doubt at the end with doubt. Then again, distinction in having doubt in the middle arises from the mention of a characteristic peculiar to the object being compared, while in doubt at the end it springs from the mention of a characteristic peculiar to the object of comparison.

It must be pointed out that 'इन्दुं किम्' is not a proper example of निश्शयान्त ससंदेह For, in the first half we have निश्शयगर्मे ससंदेह also 'क इन्दु:' represents an उपमानातविशेष Its mention leads to 'इन्दुमभितः सुखस्य अवधारणम् ' Similarly, 'अस्मात् कुत्र गताम्', which represents सरसिजगत-विशेष, creates the निश्शय 'सरसिजाभिन्नतेन 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 निश्शयगर्मे ससंदेह

It must be pointed out that 'Is it the moon?' is not a proper example of doubt at the end with doubt. For, in the first half we have having doubt in the middle with doubt. Also 'Who is the moon?' represents a characteristic peculiar to the object being compared. Its mention leads to the determination of happiness around the moon. Similarly, 'Where has she gone from this?', which represents a characteristic peculiar to the lotus, creates the doubt 'the determination of the face as different from the lotus'. 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 doubt in the middle. Therefore, it is an example of having doubt in the middle with doubt.

इत्थं निश्शयगर्मे भेदोक्तौ—Mammata here tells us that this निश्शयान्त variety of ससंदेह has been neglected i. e. not mentioned by Bhatta

Mammata here tells us that this doubt at the end variety of doubt with doubt has been neglected, i.e., not mentioned by Bhatta.

Page 337

Udbhata because here i e in निश्श्यान्त ससदेह the निश्शय that the उपमेय is the उपमेय is not suggested (प्रतीयमान) as in निश्शयान्त ससदेह But while the निश्शय in निश्शयगर्भ is suggested by the mention of an exclusive characteristic belonging to the उपमान, the निश्शय in निश्शयान्त is actually expressed by some such word as निश्चितम्, निश्शिकाय or निरणैषीत् Charm lies in suggestion, not in expression Therefore, निश्शयान्त, is not worthy of being regarded as a separate variety

Udbhata because here i e in nishshyanta sasandeha the nishshaya that the upameya is the upameya is not suggested (pratiyamana) as in nishshyanta sasandeha But while the nishshaya in nishshayagarbha is suggested by the mention of an exclusive characteristic belonging to the upamana, the nishshaya in nishshyanta is actually expressed by some such word as nishchitam, nishshikaya or niraneshit Charm lies in suggestion, not in expression Therefore, nishshyanta, is not worthy of being regarded as a separate variety

मम्मट however feels that though the निश्शय in निश्शयान्त is वाच्य, it possesses a separate charm and deserves to be se arately mentioned Actually मम्मट does not mention निश्शयान्त variety at all as possibly during his time it was not developed Hence he suggestion of मम्मट that उद्भट deliberately refused to accept this variety seems to be unwarranted

Mammata however feels that though the nishshaya in nishshyanta is vachya, it possesses a separate charm and deserves to be separately mentioned Actually Mammata does not mention nishshyanta variety at all as possibly during his time it was not developed Hence his suggestion that Udbhata deliberately refused to accept this variety seems to be unwarranted

Stanza 29—This is Vikramorvasīya I 8 The stanza is uttered by King Purūravas on seeing Urvaśī

पुष्पाकर माष means the Spring पुराणो मुनि signifies Nārāyana Accor ding to the accounts in the Purāṇas Nārāyaṇa created Urvaśī from his thigh पुराणो मुने is also interpreted as Brahma, the creator, who is even better known as वेदाभ्यासजड

Puṣpākara māṣa means the Spring purāṇo muni signifies Nārāyaṇa According to the accounts in the Purāṇas Nārāyaṇa created Urvaśī from his thigh purāṇo mune is also interpreted as Brahma, the creator, who is even better known as vedābhyāsajaḍa

This stanza is quoted as an illustration of तदुक्तो or शुद्ध ससदेह, which is found in the first half Hence, प्रजापति, or the creator of Urvaśī is the प्रकृत or उपमेय The सम or उपमान is represented by चन्द्र, मदन and जास, who are each suspected to be the creator of Urvaśī in turn No distinguishing characteristic, belonging either to the उपमेय or the उपमान, is mentioned Hence, the stanza is an example of तदुक्तो or शुद्ध ससंदेह

This stanza is quoted as an illustration of tadukto or śuddha sasandeha, which is found in the first half Hence, prajāpati, or the creator of Urvaśī is the prakṛta or upameya The sama or upamana is represented by candra, madana and jāsa, who are each suspected to be the creator of Urvaśī in turn No distinguishing characteristic, belonging either to the upameya or the upamana, is mentioned Hence, the stanza is an example of tadukto or śuddha sasandeha

( 6 ) रूपकम् or Metaphor

( 6 ) rūpakam or Metaphor

तद् नोपमेयो —This is Mammata's definition of रूपक or Metaphor Metaphor is the identification of the उपमान and the उपमेय This identi fication must spring from extreme resemblance between the two An example of रूपक is मुखं चन्द्र Here the उपमेय (मुखम्) and the उपमान ( चन्द्र ) are identified on account of their extreme resemblance It will be seen that रूपक is based on गौण सारोप लक्षणा

Tad nopaṃeyo —This is Mammata's definition of rūpaka or Metaphor Metaphor is the identification of the upamana and the upameya This identification must spring from extreme resemblance between the two An example of rūpaka is mukhaṃ candra Here the upameya (mukham) and the upamana (candra) are identified on account of their extreme resemblance It will be seen that rūpaka is based on gauṇa sāropa lakṣaṇā

Another point to note is that the अभेद in रूपक is आहायै or volitional Though we identify the face with the moon, we are quite conscious of the difference between the two

Another point to note is that the abheda in rūpaka is āhāyai or volitional Though we identify the face with the moon, we are quite conscious of the difference between the two

तद् रूपकम्—तद् here is equal to स (अभेद)

Tad rūpakam—tad here is equal to sa (abheda)

अनपह्नुतयो —This is intended to lay down that the identification which leads to रूपक, must be between the उपमान and the उपमेय, whose difference is not concealed Thus, in 'मुखं चन्द्र' the face and the moon

Anapahnutyaya —This is intended to lay down that the identification which leads to rūpaka, must be between the upamana and the upameya, whose difference is not concealed Thus, in 'mukhaṃ candra' the face and the moon

Page 338

अनपह्नुतयोः serves to exclude the figure अपह्नुति from the province of रूपक

Anapahnutayoh serves to exclude the figure Apahnuti from the province of Rupaka

नेद मुख किन्तु चन्द्र

Neda mukha kintu chandra

अत्र उपमान स्वात्मस्थाऽऽरोपेण उपमेयं रुप्यति रूपवन्तं करोति इति अन्यस्संमिधान रूपकालङ्कारस्य p 249

Atra upamāna svātmastheṣāropoṇa upameyaṃ rupyati rūpavantaṃ karoti iti anyassamidhāna rūpakālaṅkārasya p 249

समस्त यदा—This Kārikā defines one variety of रूपक viz समस्तवस्तु-विषय

Samasta yadā—This Kārikā defines one variety of Rupaka viz Samastavastu-viṣaya

समस्तवस्तुविषय variety of रूपक arises समस्त-वस्तुविषया

Samastavastuviṣaya variety of Rupaka arises Samasta-vastuviṣayā

समस्तानि वस्तूनि उपमानानि शब्दप्रतिपाद्यानी इत्यर्थः

Samastāni vastūni upamānāni śabdapratipādyāni ityarthaḥ

समस्तवस्तुविषय

Samastavastuviṣaya

रूपक, according to Mammata is, first of three kinds viz (1) साज्ञ, निरद्ध and (3) परपरित

Rupaka, according to Mammata is, first of three kinds viz (1) Sājña, Niraddha and (3) Paraparita

सांश रुपक

Sānśa Rupaka

एकदेशाविवर्ति (p 53)

Ekadeśavivarti (p 53)

एकदेशे एकावयवे शब्दप्रतिपाद्योपमानस्य अवयवैः

Ekadeśe ekāvayave śabdapratipādhyopamānasyāvayvaiḥ

Page 339

इत्यर्थं विशेषेण इष्टप्रतिपाद्यार्थरूपविशेषेण वर्तमानाद् एकदेशाविवर्त्ती इति धन्यर्थ नाम अस्य रूपकप्रभेदस्य

Thus, the name of this type of rūpaka is derived from its characteristic of being related to a specific aspect or part.

Mammata first defines samastavastuvishaya and then ekadeshāvivartī. Thereafter he tells us that these two (एतद्=द्रिमेदमेतदूपकम्) are ज्ञात् i.e. are the sub divisions of सार्ज रूपक. But he gives no general definition of सार्ज. For such general definition and the two varieties of सार्ज read ‘अथिनो यदि सार्जस्य रूपण सार्जमेव तत् ॥ 30 समस्तवस्तुविषयमेकदेशाविवर्ति च । आरोप्याणाम्रोषाणा शाब्दत्वे प्रथमं मतम् ॥ 31 यत्र कस्यान्चिदार्थस्यवमेकदेशाविवर्ति तत् ।

अथिनो यदि सार्जस्य रूपण सार्जमेव तत् ॥ 30 समस्तवस्तुविषयमेकदेशाविवर्ति च । आरोप्याणाम्रोषाणा शाब्दत्वे प्रथमं मतम् ॥ 31 यत्र कस्यान्चिदार्थस्यवमेकदेशाविवर्ति तत् ।

If the sāṅga rūpaka is defined, it is indeed sāṅga. It is of two types: samastavastuvishaya and ekadeshāvivartī. The first view is that the superimposition is verbal. Where there is a superimposition of some meaning, it is ekadeshāvivartī.

Mammata's divisions of रूपक may be thus shown —

Mammata's divisions of rūpaka may be thus shown —

आरोपिता अविवक्षित—Though in defining समस्तवस्तुविषय Mammata uses the word आरोपिता in the plural, Mammata tells us that the plural is not intended to be stated (विवक्षित) i.e. is not significantly used This means that समस्तवस्तुविषय is possible with even two metaphors

Although Mammata uses the word āropitā in the plural while defining samastavastuvishaya, he clarifies that the plural is not intended to be emphasized, meaning that samastavastuvishaya is possible even with just 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), तारकास्थीनी (तारका एव अस्थीनी) and चन्द्रमुद्राकपालम् (चन्द्र एव मुद्राकपालम्). These identify certain objects connected with

This stanza informs us that night wanders from continent to continent. The night is described through an elaborate metaphor, consisting of one primary and three secondary metaphors. Rātri-kāpālikī (night as a Kāpālikī female ascetic) is the primary metaphor, where Kāpālikī refers to a female ascetic of a sect distinguished by wearing a garland of human skulls around her neck. The secondary metaphors are jyotsnā-bhasma (moonlight as ashes), tārakā-asthīni (stars as bones), and chandra-mudrā-kapāla (moon as a skull-cup). These metaphors identify certain objects associated with

Page 340

the Kapalikı with others connected with might. Thus, the Kapalikı is white with the ashes with which her body is smeared The night is also white with the moon-light that is spread. The Kapalikı wears bones which are probably woven in her garland The night also possesses stars The Kapalikı carries the powder of magic ointment in a consecrated skull. This powder enables her to become invisible whenever she likes The night also has the dark spot on the moon Here the moon represents the skull and the spot the powder means one who takes delight in the sport of disappearance This is an adjective applicable only to the Kāpalikī and not to the night. For, the Kāpalikā alone is capable of finding pleasure in sport of disappearance

the Kapalikı with others connected with might. Thus, the Kapalikı is white with the ashes with which her body is smeared The night is also white with the moon-light that is spread. ज्योत्ल्ना एव भस्म तथा छचुरणेन प्रसरणेन च्छेपनैन न धवलā The Kapalikı wears bones which are probably woven in her garland The night also possesses stars तारकā एव अस्थीनि बिश्रती धरयन्ती The Kapalikı carries the powder of magic ointment in a consecrated skull. This powder enables her to become invisible whenever she likes The night also has the dark spot on the moon Here the moon represents the skull and the spot the powder भनतथोनवयसनरतिका means one who takes delight in the sport of disappearance This is an adjective applicable only to the Kāpalikī and not to the night. For, the Kāpalikā alone is capable of finding pleasure in sport of disappearance

Thus, in this stanza all the आरोपितs i. e. उपमानs viz. कापालिकī, भस्म, आस्थि and चन्द्रकपालम् are mentioned by means of distinct words. Hence, this is an example of समत्वस्तुविषय, which is contained in the first three lines The fourth line is an example of अपह्नुति, as is shown by the word छलेन But this figure is not here intended. Otherwise the stanza would have been an example of उपाति-संकरो उभयोलावसङ्कर

अत्र अनर्थकैन न कयन—This passage is intended to answer the following objection : The compound रात्रिकापालिकī is capable of being dissolved either as रात्रिरेव कापालिकī (रूपकम्), or as रात्रि कापालिकī इव (उपमा) रात्रि कापालिकī इव is formed according to ‘उपमितम् ब्याघ्रादिभि: सामान्यप्रयोगे’. रात्रिरेव कापालिकī is had according to ‘मयूरव्यंसकादय:’ पा 2 1 72 There is nothing to restrict us to either of these ways Therefore, the proper figure in the stanza is रूपकपमयो उदेहरसङ्कर How then can this be given as an example of रूपक?

This passage is intended to answer the following objection : The compound रात्रिकापालिकī is capable of being dissolved either as रात्रिरेव कापालिकī (रूपकम्), or as रात्रि कापालिकī इव (उपमा) is formed according to ‘उपमितम् ब्याघ्रादिभि: सामान्यप्रयोगे’. is had according to ‘मयूरव्यंसकादय:’ पा 2 1 72 There is nothing to restrict us to either of these ways Therefore, the proper figure in the stanza is How then can this be given as an example of रूपक?

We have seen before that in the case of a doubt of this kind the dissolution of the compound and consequently the figure are determined by some other word in the sentence or the stanza. Such decisive word in the present case is भनतथोनवयसनरतिका भनतथोनवयसनरतिका is a characteristic of the उपमान viz. कापालिकī (आरोपितदर्शी = आरोपितसम्बन्धी तथा धर्रा) i. e. the adjective भनत रसिका primarily goes with कापालिकī Therefore, the compound must be so dissolved as to give prominence to कापालिकī. This is done by dissolving it as रात्रिरेव कापालिकī, which yields the figure रूपक The other compounds ज्योत्ल्नाभस्म, तारकास्थीनि and चनद्रमुखद्वालपात्रे are also to be similarly dissolved so as to bring out रूपक in each case. Consequently, no suspcion should here be entertained that we have in this stanza the commixture (सङ्कर:) of Metaphor with Simile

We have seen before that in the case of a doubt of this kind the dissolution of the compound and consequently the figure are determined by some other word in the sentence or the stanza. Such decisive word in the present case is is a characteristic of the उपमान viz. कापालिकī (आरोपितदर्शी = आरोपितसम्बन्धी तथा धर्रा) i. e. the adjective भनत रसिका primarily goes with कापालिकī Therefore, the compound must be so dissolved as to give prominence to कापालिकī. This is done by dissolving it as रात्रिरेव कापालिकī, which yields the figure रूपक The other compounds ज्योत्ल्नाभस्म, तारकास्थीनि and चनद्रमुखद्वालपात्रे are also to be similarly dissolved so as to bring out रूपक in each case. Consequently, no suspcion should here be entertained that we have in this stanza the commixture (सङ्कर:) of Metaphor with Simile

Page 341

२८८

288

काव्यप्रकाश.

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 49

(तत्सकाराद्वा=तस्य रूपकस्य य सकर उपमया सह संदेहस्कर तस्य आहाझा ) Thus,

(Tatskarāddhā=tasyā rūpakasya ya sakara upamayā saha sandehasakara tasya ārāḍhā ) Thus,

अन्तर्थोक्तव्यसनरीसक्त्व, as an आरोपितधमें, turns out to be a favourable reason (साधकम् ) for understanding metaphors (रूपकपरिग्रहे = रूपकाणां परिग्रहे विज्ञाने)

Antarvyaktavasanaktva, as an āropitadharme, turns out to be a favourable reason (sādhakam) for understanding metaphors (rūpakaparihare = rūpakānāṃ parigrahe vijñāne)

in the first three lines (पादत्रये )

in the first three lines (pādatraye)

श्रोता विवर्त्ती तत्—This defines एकदेशविवर्ति रूपक, which arises when some of the उपमानs (आरोप्यमाणा ) are directly mentioned and some left

Śrotā vivartī tat—This defines ekadeśavivarti rūpak, which arises when some of the upamāns (āropyamānā) are directly mentioned and some left

to be determined from the power of words (अर्थो अर्थसामर्थ्योदवसेया )

to be determined from the power of words (artho arthasāmarthyodavasseyā)

Page 49

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 शाब्द रूपक The battle-field is the

This idea is conveyed by means of a śābda rūpak The battle-field is the

harem (रण एव रणमेव वा अन्त पुरम् तस्मिन् ) The creeper-like i e long

harem (raṇa eva raṇameva vā anta puram tasmmin) The creeper-like i e long

sword (मण्डलाग्र खड्ग लता इव ) is the नायिका and रिपुसेना is the प्रतिनायिका

sword (maṇḍalāgra khaḍga latā iva) is the nāyikā and ripusenā is the pratināyikā

When a प्रतिनायिका sees the नायक holding the नायिका by the hand, she turns

When a pratināyikā sees the nāyak holding the nāyikā 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 रससंमुखी युयुत्सया वीररससमन-

hand, it turns back though eager for fight rasasammukhī yuyutsayā vīrarasaman-

भवितुं सिद्धा ( रिपुसेना ), विरसया दृष्ट्वारसमुपमोक्ष समुत्सुका ( प्रतिनायिका )।

bhavituṃ siddhā (ripusenā), virasayā drṣṭvārasamupmokṣa samutsukā (pratināyikā)।

Here अन्त पुरत्व, which is superimposed on रण is श्रौत or शब्दोपात्त i e

Here anta puratva, which is superimposed on raṇa is śraut or sabdopātta i e

mentioned by word But नायिकात्व and प्रतिनायिकात्व, which are super

mentioned by word But nāyikātva and pratināyikātva, which are super

imposed on मण्डलाग्रलता and रिपुसेना respectively, are determined (अवसीयते

imposed on maṇḍalāgralatā and ripusenā respectively, are determined (avasīyate

निश्रीयते अनुमानतः इत्यर्थः ) from the power of the words Thus, as the रूपक

niśrīyate anūmānata ityarthaḥ) from the power of the words Thus, as the rūpak

exists specifically (विशेषण शब्दोपरतलुपपत्तवे) in one part (एकदेशे रणान्तपुरे

exists specifically (viśeṣaṇa śabdoparataluppatve) in one part (ekadeśe ṛṇāntpure

इत्यस्मिन् ), it is called एकदेशविवर्ति

ityasmin), it is called ekadeśavivarti

In this stanza रणान्त पूरे represents the principal metaphor, because

In this stanza ṛṇānta pūre represents the principal metaphor, because

it is the most prominent and is easily understood The other two

metaphors are subordinate The common property in रणान्त पुरे is

metaphors are subordinate The common property in ṛṇānta pure is

सुखसंचारास्पदत्वम् The common property between मण्डलाग्रलता and नायिका

sukhasaṃcharāspadatvam The common property between maṇḍalāgralatā and nāyikā

is either शीतत्व or करग्रहणीतत्व and that between रिपुसेना and प्रतिनायिका is

is either śītatva or karagrahaṇītva and that between ripusenā and pratināyikā is

पराङ्मुखीभवनम्

parāṅmukībhavanam

By the way it may be noted that मण्डलाग्रलता (मण्डलाग्र लता इव ) is

By the way it may be noted that maṇḍalāgralatā (maṇḍalāgra latā iva) is

an example of समासगा वादिर्धर्मैकधर्मता उपमा But this figure is not here

an example of samāsagā vādirdharmekadharma upamā But this figure is not here

intended (अभिवक्षित ) Otherwise the stanza would have been an

intended (abhivakṣita) Otherwise the stanza would have been an

example of रूपकोपमयोः समष्टि

example of rūpakopmayoḥ samaṣṭi

तु निरूढम् (अत्रूपकासंश्रयम् अज्ञास्यभावहीन केबलम् अद्वितीयमित्यर्थ ) तु निरूढम्—This

tu nirūḍham (atrūpakāsaṃśrayam ajñāsyabhāvahīn kevalam advitīyamityartha) tu nirūḍham—This

defines निरूढ or Partless Metaphor It is defined as pure i e. unmixed

defines nirūḍha 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 Mammata

with another, that is nirūḍha e g mukhachandra udeti tu suggests that Mammata

now begins the treatment of a new division viz निरूढ

now begins the treatment of a new division viz nirūḍha

Page 342

It should be noted that in 'शुद्ध निरञ्जम्' शुद्ध is the definition and निरञ्ज the name of the second main variety of रूपक Mammata does not give any special name for this variety of निरञ्ज It may, therefore, be called शुद्ध Viśvanātha designates it केवल

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, whi.ch is contain ed in the expression प्रेमलतिकाम in the fourth line प्रेमलतिकाम 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 सेवन As सेवन primarly goes with लतिका, प्रेमलतिका must be dissolved as प्रेम एव लतिकां, not as प्रेम लतिका एव सेवन in the case of प्रेम signifies वियोगेन or heightening

This stanza is quoted as an example of निरञ्ज रूपक, which is contained in the expression प्रेमलतिकाम in the fourth line प्रेमलतिकाम 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 सेवन As सेवन primarily goes with लतिका, प्रेमलतिका must be dissolved as प्रेम एव लतिकां, not as प्रेम लतिका एव सेवन in the case of प्रेम signifies वियोगेन or heightening

माला च पूर्ववत्—This defines माला or मालारूप निरञ्ज रूपक The definition is पूर्ववत्, which means पूर्वोक्तेन प्रकारेणोपमानं i e मालोपमा and hence paraphrased by Mammata in his Vṛtti by मालोपमावत् Just as in मालोपमा there are many उपमानs for one उपमेय, similarly in मालारूपक many उपमानs are super imposed 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 Mammata quotes for मालारूपक contains a series of निरञ्ज रूपकs Secondly, his Vṛtti on परपरित रूपक shows that he regards परपरित to be of two kinds viz माल रूप 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

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 हरोद्रुम 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 साङ्क, but निरञ्ज

का ९९

Page 343

माला तु पूर्ववत्—These words of the Kārikā possess special impor-

Mala tu purvavat—These words of the Kārikā possess special importance.

tance. पूर्ववत्, as we saw before, means पूर्वनिर्दिष्टालोच्यमानवत् Now, मालोच्यमा-

tance. Purvavat, as we saw before, means previously mentioned or discussed. Now, malocyamana-

has been mentioned before in the Vrtti on p 47, but not anywhere

has been mentioned before in the Vrtti on page 47, but not anywhere

in the Kārikās. The fact that this part of the Kārikā viz माला

in the Kārikās. The fact that this part of the Kārikā viz mala

तु पूर्ववत् refers to a matter occurring in the Vrtti before clearly shows

tu purvavat refers to a matter occurring in the Vrtti before clearly shows

that the author of the Kārikās and that of the Vrtti are one and

the same Otherwise, the author of the Kārikās, not being aware of

the same. Otherwise, the author of the Kārikās, not being aware of

what has been said in the Vrtti, would not allude to a subject dealt

with in the Vrtti alone The special importance of this passage lies in

with in the Vrtti alone. The special importance of this passage lies in

the fact that it disproves the view which says that Mammata is the

author of the Vrtti only and that the Kārikās were composed by some

one else before him

It is of course possible to take पूर्ववत् = निर्दिष्टवत् which would mean

It is of course possible to take purvavat = nirdishtavat which would mean

that मालारूपक is शुद्ध i e consists of series of independent metaphors

that malarupaka is shuddha i.e. consists of series of independent metaphors

This if accepted would avoid the necessity of concluding that the

author of the कारिकास is the same as that of the वृत्ति But in our mind

author of the kārikās is the same as that of the vrtti. But in our mind

there is no doubt that मम्मट understands पूर्ववत्—पूर्वनिर्दिष्ट मालोपमावत् as

there is no doubt that mammata understands purvavat—purvam nirdishta malopamavat as

is shown by the words मालोपमायामि, in the वृत्ति

is shown by the words malopamayami, in the vrtti

Page 51

Kārikā 9—This Kārikā defines परंपरित रूपक, which is the third of

Kārikā 9—This Kārikā defines paramparit rupaka, which is the third of

the main divisions of रूपक. Construe नियतारोपणोपाय ( नियतस्य निश्चितस्य

the main divisions of rupaka. Construe niyatāropanopāya ( niyatasyā nishchitasyā

कस्यचित् वस्तुन आरोपणम् आरोप उपाय हेतु निमित्त यस्य इह तत् ) य परस्परं ( अन्योन्य-

kasyachit vastuno āropanam āropa upāya hetu nimittam yasyā ihā tat ) ya parasparam ( anyony-

कस्यचित् वस्तुन ) आरोप तत् ( = स परस्य आरोप ) परंपरिते स्यात्, वाच्ये ( नियतवाच्ये

kasyachit vastuno ) āropa tat ( = sa parasya āropa ) paramparite syāt, vāchye ( niyatavāchye

शब्दे ) श्लिष्टे ( श्रेष्युक्त सति ) भेदभाजि ( भेदयुते भिन्नरूपे आख्ये ) वा ( सति ) ।

shabde ) shlishte ( shreshthyukta sati ) bhedabhāji ( bhedayute bhinnarupe ākhye ) vā ( sati ) ।

This definition means that when a certain metaphor is caused by

another, परंपरित रूपक occurs In short, परंपरित is developed when

another, paramparit rupaka occurs. In short, paramparit is developed when

there are two metaphors, which are related to each other as cause

and effect For example तन्वङ्गयाः मुखचन्द्रस्य स्मितज्योत्स्नाविलासितम् । आनन-

and effect. For example tanvangi mukhachandrasyā smitajyotsnāvilāsitam. Anana-

यति जिते मे निराशादु खपीडितम् ॥ Here the superimposition of the moon-

yati jite me nirashādu khapīditaṁ. Here the superimposition of the moon-

light on the smile ( परस्य चन्द्रमिथुनस्य वस्तुन इयोल्यनारोपस्य स्मिते आरोप ) is

light on the smile ( parasya chandramithunasya vastuno iyolyanāropasya smite āropa ) is

caused by ( उपाय ) the superimposition of the moon on the face

caused by ( upāya ) the superimposition of the moon on the face

( नियतस्य निश्चितस्य वस्तुन चन्द्रस्य मुखे आरोपणम् ) Hence, the stanza is an

( niyatasyā nishchitasyā vastuno chandrasyā mukhe āropanam ). Hence, the stanza is an

example of परंपरितरूपक

example of paramparitrupaka

In the above explanation नियतारोपणोपाय is taken as a बहुव्रीहि

In the above explanation niyatāropanopāya is taken as a bahuvrīhi

compound and as an attributive adjective of परस्य आरोप . It can also

compound and as an attributive adjective of parasya āropa. It can also

be understood as a तत्पुरुष compound and in apposition with परस्य आरोप,

be understood as a tatpurusha compound and in apposition with parasya āropa,

thus . नियतारोपणोपाय ( नियतस्य वर्णनौषतया प्रकृतस्य मुखस्य आरोपणस्य उपाय निमित्त )

thus. Niyatāropanopāya ( niyatasyā varnanoushatyā prakritasya mukhasya āropanasya upāya nimittam )

य. परस्य ( अन्यस्य ) आरोप तत् परंपरित स्यात्। Note that when we understand

ya parasya ( anyasya ) āropa tat paramparita syāt. Note that when we understand

Page 344

नियतारोपणोपाय as a तत्पुरुष compound, the words नियत and पर exchange their meanings Appyling this explanation to the example quoted above we get the following नियतस्य प्रस्तुतस्य मुख्यस्य आरोपणस्य स्मिते ज्योत्स्नाया आरोपणस्य इत्यर्थे उपाय निमित्त य परस्य चन्द्रस्य मुखे आरोप तत् स आरोप इत्यर्थे परपरितम् ।

Considering नियतारोपणोपाय as a तत्पुरुष compound, the words नियत and पर exchange their meanings. Applying this explanation to the example quoted above, we get the following meaning: नियतस्य प्रस्तुतस्य मुख्यस्य आरोपणस्य स्मिते ज्योत्स्नाया आरोपणस्य इत्यर्थे उपाय निमित्त य परस्य चन्द्रस्य मुखे आरोप तत् स आरोप इत्यर्थे परपरितम्.

Which of these two interpretations of नियतारोपणोपाय is preferable? This question is settled by Mammata's words 'एवमारोपणनिमित्तो ह्यसादेरारोपः' p 51 Here एवमारोपणनिमित्त represents the paraphrase of नियतारोपणपाय एवमारोपणनिमित्त is a बहुव्रीहि compound (एवमारोपण निमित्त यस्य) Therefore, नियतारोपणोपाय must also be a बहुव्रीहि compound Hence, the first explanation given above is the one intended by Mammata Had Mammata meant नियतारोपणोपाय as a तत्पुरुष compound, his Vritti would have run ' एवमारोपण ह्यसादेरारोपस्य निमित्तम्.' But मम्मट's remarks एवमारोपण निमित्तो ह्यसादेरारोप: made while explaining the अलङ्कार in V 34 show that according to him नियतारोपणोपाय is a बहुव्रीहि compound for आरोपणनिमित्त is a paraphrase of नियतारोपणोपाय If he meant नियतारोपणोपाय as a तत्पुरुष compound, his वृत्ति corresponding would have been 'एवमारोपणं ह्यसादेरारोपस्य निमित्तम्'

Which of these two interpretations of नियतारोपणोपाय is preferable? This question is settled by Mammata's words 'एवमारोपणनिमित्तो ह्यसादेरारोपः' (p. 51). Here, एवमारोपणनिमित्त represents the paraphrase of नियतारोपणपाय. एवमारोपणनिमित्त is a बहुव्रीहि compound (एवमारोपण निमित्त यस्य). Therefore, नियतारोपणोपाय must also be a बहुव्रीहि compound. Hence, the first explanation given above is the one intended by Mammata. Had Mammata meant नियतारोपणोपाय as a तत्पुरुष compound, his Vritti would have run 'एवमारोपण ह्यसादेरारोपस्य निमित्तम्.' But मम्मट's remarks एवमारोपण निमित्तो ह्यसादेरारोप: made while explaining the अलङ्कार in V 34 show that according to him नियतारोपणोपाय is a बहुव्रीहि compound for आरोपणनिमित्त is a paraphrase of नियतारोपणोपाय. If he meant नियतारोपणोपाय as a तत्पुरुष compound, his वृत्ति corresponding would have been 'एवमारोपणं ह्यसादेरारोपस्य निमित्तम्'.

In our translation on p 52 the second explanation has been followed The translation according to the first explanation would be as under Consequential metaphor would be that superimposition of another entity, which is caused by the superimposition of some other definite entity, when the word expressive of difinite entity is paronomastic or possessed of distinction ( i e not paronomastic )

In our translation on p. 52, the second explanation has been followed. The translation according to the first explanation would be as under: Consequential metaphor would be that superimposition of another entity, which is caused by the superimposition of some other definite entity, when the word expressive of a definite entity is paronomastic or possessed of distinction (i.e., not paronomastic).

It should be noted that the word नियत used in the definition ordinarily means प्रकृत or प्रस्तुत This meaning obviously is not applicable here as that would make the definition of परम्परित too narrow Hence we take नियत to mean निश्चित किंचिद् वस्तु । i e a definite entity

It should be noted that the word नियत used in the definition ordinarily means प्रकृत or प्रस्तुत. This meaning obviously is not applicable here as that would make the definition of परम्परित too narrow. Hence, we take नियत to mean निश्चित किंचिद् वस्तु, i.e., a definite entity.

परपरित is of two kinds (1) when the word which expresses the metaphor that is the cause is paronomastic वाचके means कारणा रोपवाचके शब्दे (2) When such a word is possessed of distinction (भेदभाजि ) i e is not paronomastic Both these varieties of परम्परित are each मालारूप and अमालारूप or केवल Thus, परम्परित is of four kinds

परपरित is of two kinds: (1) when the word which expresses the metaphor that is the cause is paronomastic (वाचके means कारणा रोपवाचके शब्दे); (2) When such a word is possessed of distinction (भेदभाजि), i.e., is not paronomastic. Both these varieties of परम्परित are each मालारूप and अमालारूप or केवल. Thus, परम्परित is of four kinds.

The name परपरित is significant It means that which is possessed of a series and the series is that of cause-and-effect superimpositions

The name परपरित is significant. It means that which is possessed of a series, and the series is that of cause-and-effect superimpositions.

Page 345

परंपरितम् and साक्ष्म

Paramparitam and Sakṣam

Both these divisions of रूपक resemble in so far as both of them are made of more than one inter related metaphors. But they differ from each other as follows (1) साक्ष is based on अत्यन्तिसंभाव, while परंपरित is founded on कार्यकारणभाव (2) In साक्ष the आधेय or principal metaphor is understandable in itself, i.e. it does not require the help of the subordinate metaphors to make itself intelligible, because it proceeds from a well known common characteristic But in परंपरितरूपक the कार्यरूपक is not possible without the help of the कारणरूपक Thus, in ‘तन्वङ्गया मुखचन्द्रे०’ the metaphor in स्मितज्योत्स्ना cannot be understood without the metaphor in मुखचन्द्र It is caused by the metaphor in मुखचन्द्र (3) A परंपरित रूपक consists of two metaphors only, one which is the cause and the other which is the effect Though a साक्षरूपक is possible with two metaphors, one principal and one subordinate, it usually consists of many, one principal and two or more subordinate metaphors, a साक्ष is

Both these divisions of rūpaka resemble insofar as both of them are made of more than one interrelated metaphors. But they differ from each other as follows: (1) Sākṣa is based on atyantisaṃbhāva, while paramparita is founded on kāryakāraṇabhāva. (2) In sākṣa, the ādheya or principal metaphor is understandable in itself, i.e., it does not require the help of the subordinate metaphors to make itself intelligible because it proceeds from a well-known common characteristic. But in paramparitarūpaka, the kāryarūpaka is not possible without the help of the kāraṇarūpaka. Thus, in 'tanvagyā mukhacandre' the metaphor in smitajyotsnā cannot be understood without the metaphor in mukhacandra. It is caused by the metaphor in mukhacandra. (3) A paramparita rūpaka consists of two metaphors only, one which is the cause and the other which is the effect. Though a sākṣarūpaka is possible with two metaphors, one principal and one subordinate, it usually consists of many, one principal and two or more subordinate metaphors; a sākṣa is

Stanza 34—This stanza is an address to a king विदुषा पण्डिताना मानस वित्तमेव मानरस् एतदाम्रकं सर तस्मिन् वर्तमान हस between the two is मनसि स्थिति —The word मानस is श्लिष्ट or paronomastic and means the mind and the Mānasa lake The other epithets are to be similarly explained वैरिणा शत्रुणा कमलाया लक्ष्म्या सकोच नाश एव कमलानाम् असकोच विकास तस्मिन् दैत्ययुते सूर्यं The king causes कमलसकोच (कमलाया संकोच ) The sun also causes कमलासकोच (कमलानाम् असकोच ), कमलासकोच is श्लिष्ट and has to be split up in two different ways according as it is construed with the king and the sun दुर्गाणि परिपरिखादिगुप्तस्थानानाम् (forts) अमार्गणमेव अनन्वेषणमेव दर्शयित्वा पार्वत्या मार्गणम् अन्वेषणं तस्मिन् नल्लोहित शिव The king indulges in दुर्गोमार्गण (दुर्गाणाममार्गणम्) 1 e does not resort to forts Siva also practises दुर्गोमार्गण (दुर्गोया मार्गणम्.) 1 e institutes a search for Pārvatī, his wife दुर्गोमार्गणम् is thus श्लिष्ट and has to be split up in two ways in order to obtain two sense समितां युद्दानां स्वीकार अन्नीकार एव समिधाम् इन्धनानां स्वीकार कवल्लन् तस्मिन् वैश्वानर अभि समित्र्f battle समिधू f fuel The king accepts battles, Fire takes up fuel समित्स्वीकृतार is श्लिष्ट and contains two different words viz समित्र and समिधू सत्ये तथ्ये प्रीति प्रेमभावा तस्या विधाने करणे दक्ष कन्यकायाम् अप्रिति प्रेमभावा तस्या प्रजापते The king entertains affection for truth Dakṣa showed disaffection (अप्रीति ) for Satī, his daugther. सत्यप्रिति is श्लिष्ट and has to be split up in two different ways in order to get these two ideas विजय परपराभव एव विजय अर्जुन तस्य प्राभावे

Stanza 34—This stanza is an address to a king. viduṣā paṇḍitānāṃ mānas vittameva mānasas tadāmrakaṃ sara tasmin vartamāna hasa. Between the two is manasi sthiti. The word mānas is śliṣṭa or paronomastic and means the mind and the Mānasa lake. The other epithets are to be similarly explained. vairiṇā śatruṇā kamalāya lakṣmyā sakocha nāśa eva kamalānām asakocha vikāsa tasmin daityayute suryaṃ. The king causes kamalasakocha (kamalāya saṃkoca). The sun also causes kamalāsakocha (kamalānām asakocha); kamalāsakocha is śliṣṭa and has to be split up in two different ways according as it is construed with the king and the sun. durgāṇi pariṣarikhadiguptasthānānām (forts) amārgaṇameva ananveṣaṇameva darśayitvā pārvatyā mārgaṇam anveṣaṇaṃ tasmin nallohita śiva. The king indulges in durgomārgaṇa (durgāṇāmamārgaṇam). i.e., does not resort to forts. Siva also practises durgomārgaṇa (durgoyā mārgeṇam). i.e., institutes a search for Pārvatī, his wife. durgomārgaṇam is thus śliṣṭa and has to be split up in two ways in order to obtain two senses. samitāṃ yuddānāṃ svīkāra annīkāra eva samidhām indhanānāṃ svīkāra kavallan tasmin vaiśvānara abhi samitr f battle samidhū f fuel. The king accepts battles; Fire takes up fuel. samitsvīkār is śliṣṭa and contains two different words viz samitr and samidhū. satye tatye prīti premabhāva tasyā vidhāne karaṇe dakṣa kanyakāyām apriti premabhāva tasyā prajāpate. The king entertains affection for truth; Dakṣa showed disaffection (apriti) for Satī, his daughter. satyapriti is śliṣṭa and has to be split up in two different ways in order to get these two ideas. vijaya paraparābha eva vijaya arjuna tasya prābhāve

Page 346

प्रथमार्जने प्रथमोल्पत्तौ च भीम भीमसेन

In the first conquest and in the first origin, Bhima is Bhimasena

The king is characterized by विजयप्राभाव they can defeat him Bhīma is also characterized by विजयप्राभाव 1 e birth before Arjuna. वरवीर = उत्तमवीर वैरिष्यम् ( विरिषे ब्रह्मण इदं वैरिषं ब्राह्मम् ! ' धातृद्रयोनिदृष्टिहीं गो विरिषि कमलासन ' अमर ) belonging to Brahma वत्सरगणतम् is accusative of time One day of Brahman is equal to 432, 00, 00,000 human years So a thousand years of Brahman is equal to 432, 00, 00,000 × 360 × 1000 human years The king is blessed to rule for this almost incalculable number of years! किया is benedictive second person singular from कृ करोति

This stanza is an example of श्लिष्टे वाचके or श्लिष्टशाब्दनिबन्धन मालारूप परपरित रूपक It contains six examples of परपरित, which are all based on श्लेष Thus, the superimposition of मानस the lake on मानस the mind is the cause of the superimposition of हंस on वरवीर The common property between मानस the mind ( उपमेय ) and मानस the lake ( उपमान ) is एकशब्दवाच्यत्वम् Similarly, the साधारण धर्म between वरवीर ( उपमेय ) and हंस ( उपमान ) is मानसे स्थिति The word मानस, which expresses ( वाचक ) the उपमेय and the उपमान in the metaphor, which is the cause, is paronomastic Hence, this metaphor is श्लिष्टे वाचके or श्लिष्टशाब्दनिबन्धन वरवीर or प्रभो, the परंपरित is मालारूप The other श्लिष्ट words, as we saw above, are कमलासकोच, दुर्गोस्मर्गण, स्मितस्वीकार, सत्यप्रतीति and विजयप्राभाव

In connection with विद्रुमानसहस the Udyota observes as follows The word मानस is here paronomastic Context restricts this double meaning word to the sense of the mind, because the king is the matter in hand The sense, the lake is obtained by means of अभिधामूलव्यजना Therefore, ' वाचके ' in the Kārka should be understood in the sense of ' बोधके ' Read ' अन्य मानसादिपद श्लिष्टम् । अत्र श्लिष्टशाब्देन अर्थद्रव्योपस्थितौ तौ श्लेषमहिम्ना प्रकृतसंबन्धिनि अप्रकृताभेदप्रतीतय । प्रकरणेन प्रकृतसंबन्धिनोऽविशेष्यत्वात् । स च अभिधामूलव्यज्ननया इति बोधयम् । ' वाचके ' इति बोधके इत्यर्थकम् । तनस्तमेव साधारणधर्ममात्राश्रित्य प्रकृत रागि ह्सलाद्यारोपितपरुपकासिद्ध । उद्योत P 36

We are unable to accept this view of the Udyota for two reasons ( 1 ) In अभिधामूलव्यजना the sense is complete even without the व्यज्यार्थ, which the अभिधामूलव्यजना suggests But here the sense of the expression विद्रुमानसहस is not complete unless we get the sense the lake from मानस in addition to the sense, the mind ( 2 ) In expressions like विद्रुमानसहस we have really two words viz मानस the mind and मानस the lake, कमल and कमला, सक्कोच and असकोच etc They, however, do not appear

Page 347

३४८

348

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 52

separately, because being exactly of the same form they become merged in each other But each of them expresses its sense all right Hence, there is no scope for आभिषामूलन्यजन here

separately, because being exactly of the same form they become merged in each other But each of them expresses its sense all right Hence, there is no scope for abhishamulanyajana here

Page 52

अथापि रमणीयत्वे—Figures are of two kinds, शब्दालङ्कारs and अर्थालङ्कारs.

And also in being pleasing - Figures are of two kinds, shabdalankaras and arthalankaras.

शब्दालङ्कारs are those in which the particular words used are important and do not tolerate exchange with synonyms In other words in शब्दालङ्कारs words are पर्यायपरिवृत्तिसह अर्थालङ्कारs on the other hand are those in which the sense is important. Then, words are पर्यायपरिवृत्तिसह

Shabdalankaras are those in which the particular words used are important and do not tolerate exchange with synonyms In other words in shabdalankaras words are not interchangeable with synonyms Arthlankaras on the other hand are those in which the sense is important. Then, words are interchangeable with synonyms

If other words having the same meaning are used, the figure is not lost

श्लेष is both a शब्दालङ्कार and an अर्थालङ्कार श्लेष is treated of below शब्दालङ्कार श्लेष was dealt with in the 9th Ullāsa

Shlesha is both a shabdalankara and an arthalankara Shlesha is treated of below Shabdalankara Shlesha was dealt with in the 9th Ullasa

When both word and sense are important that figure is known as उभयालङ्कार or शब्दार्थालङ्कार श्लेष is such a वाचक or निश्चितशब्दनिबन्धन परंपरित is such a शब्दार्थालङ्कार For, in विद्दग्मानसहंस वरवीर while मानस is पर्यायपरिवृत्तिसह other words are पर्यायपरिवृत्तिसह

When both word and sense are important that figure is known as ubhayalankara or shabdarathalankara Shlesha is such a vachaka or nishitashabdanibandhana paramprapta is such a shabdarathalankara For, in viddhgamanasahamsa varaveera while manasa is interchangeable with synonyms other words are not interchangeable with synonyms

Mammata himself has said (उक्तताम् ) before in the 9th Ullasa and will say (वक्ष्यते) again that this परंपरित is an उभयालङ्कार

Mammata himself has said (uktam) before in the 9th Ullasa and will say (vakshyate) again that this paramprapta is an ubhayalankara

Mammata has mentioned पुनरुक्तवदाभास as an example of उभयालङ्कार at the end of the ninth Ullāsa i, e between his treatment of शब्दालङ्कारs and अर्थालङ्कारs When he knows that निश्चितशब्दनिबन्धन परंपरित is an उभयालङ्कार, he should have treated it along with पुनरुक्तवदाभास at the end of the ninth Ullāsa How is it then that it is taken for treatment here among अर्थालङ्कारs? The passage under discussion is intended to answer this quesion

Mammata has mentioned punaruktavadabhsa as an example of ubhayalankara at the end of the ninth Ullasa i, e between his treatment of shabdalankaras and arthalankaras When he knows that nishitashabdanibandhana paramprapta is an ubhayalankara, he should have treated it along with punaruktavadabhsa at the end of the ninth Ullasa How is it then that it is taken for treatment here among arthalankaras? The passage under discussion is intended to answer this question

Mammata pleads that he treats of निश्चितशब्दनिबन्धन परंपरित, which he knows well to be an उभयालङ्कार among अर्थालङ्कारs for two reasons ( 1 ) Out of regard (अनुरोध ) for well known usage (प्रसिद्धि ) It is well known that निश्चितशब्दनिबन्धन परंपरित, which is really an उभयालङ्कार, has been dealt with among अर्थालङ्कारs by famous writers Mammata does the same and thus shows his respect for this ancient well known usage.

Mammata pleads that he treats of nishitashabdanibandhana paramprapta, which he knows well to be an ubhayalankara among arthalankaras for two reasons (1) Out of regard (anurodha) for well-known usage (prasiddhi) It is well known that nishitashabdanibandhana paramprapta, which is really an ubhayalankara, has been dealt with among arthalankaras by famous writers Mammata does the same and thus shows his respect for this ancient well-known usage.

( 2 ) निश्चितशब्दनिबन्धन परंपरित is by other writers called or designated एकदेशविवर्ति एकदेशविवर्ति is by common consent regarded as an अर्थालङ्कार Therefore, Mammata treats निश्चितशब्दनिबन्धन परंपरित among अर्थालङ्कारs.

(2) Nishitashabdanibandhana paramprapta is by other writers called or designated ekadeshvavarti Ekadeshvavarti is by common consent regarded as an arthalankara Therefore, Mammata treats nishitashabdanibandhana paramprapta among arthalankaras.

The reason for which these others (भट्टैः) regard निश्चितशब्दनिबन्धन परंपरित रूपक as एकदेशविवर्ति is as follows In 'विद्दग्मानसहंस वरवीर' the superimposition of हंस on वरवीर is श्लिष्ट or directly or expressly stated even like the superimposition of अन्त पुर on रण.

The reason for which these others (bhattaih) regard nishitashabdanibandhana paramprapta rupaka as ekadeshvavarti is as follows In 'viddhgamanasahamsa varaveera' the superimposition of hamsa on varaveera is shlishta or directly or expressly stated even like the superimposition of anta pura on rana.

Page 348

of मानस the lake on मानस the mind is not expressed, but has to be determined by inference (आर्थ) from the force of the words, exactly like the superimposition of नायिका on मण्डलप्रलता or of उपनायिका on रिपुसेना Hence विदृनमानसहस एकदेशविवर्ति

of the lake on the mind is not expressed, but has to be determined by inference from the force of the words, exactly like the superimposition of heroine on a group of women or of a secondary heroine on an enemy's army. Hence, the destruction of the lake is a partial manifestation.

Out of the two reasons that Mammata gives in this passage for treating श्लिष्टार्थदनिबन्धन परपरित among अर्थालङ्कारs the first has some cogency But the second is absolutely unconvincing The fact that श्लिष्टार्थदनिबन्धन is called एकदेशविवर्ति by others does not effect any change in its character as an उपभयालङ्कार and is really on reason why it should find a place among अर्थालङ्कार

Out of the two reasons that Mammata gives in this passage for treating the figurative expression based on a pun among the semantic ornaments, the first has some cogency. But the second is absolutely unconvincing. The fact that it is called a partial manifestation by others does not affect any change in its character as a dual ornament and is really the reason why it should find a place among the semantic ornaments.

As a matter of fact both the reasons of Mammata are unsatisfactory The real reason, which Mammata does not mention, is that the charm in श्लिष्टपरपरित रूपक lies in this particular kind of रूपक and not in the श्लेष on which it is founded For, परपरित occurs even without श्लेष Therefore, though श्लेष exists hare, it is not to be counted Consequently, श्लिष्टपरपरित is an अर्थालङ्कार

As a matter of fact, both the reasons given by Mammata are unsatisfactory. The real reason, which Mammata does not mention, is that the charm in the metaphor based on a pun lies in this particular kind of metaphor and not in the pun on which it is founded. For, the metaphor occurs even without the pun. Therefore, though the pun exists here, it is not to be counted. Consequently, the metaphor based on a pun is a semantic ornament.

इति उक्तम्—This has reference to what Mammata has said in the 9th Ullāsa

Thus it is said—This has reference to what Mammata has said in the 9th Ullāsa.

वक्ष्यते च—This has reference to what Mammata says later in justification of the three Fold division of अलङ्कारs

And it will be said—This has reference to what Mammata says later in justification of the three-fold division of ornaments.

एकदेशविवर्ति हि इदम् अन्यैरभियुज्यते—इदम् means श्लिष्ट वाचके परपरितम् अन्ये evidently refers to Udbhata, whose एकदेशवृत्ति, as we saw before cotres ponds to Mammata's श्लिष्ट परपरित From this it is clear, that ‘एकदेशविवर्ति’ is some scribe's mistake for ‘एकदेशवृत्ति’

This is considered a partial manifestation by others—This refers to the metaphor based on a pun. Others evidently refers to Udbhata, whose partial manifestation corresponds to Mammata's metaphor based on a pun. From this, it is clear that 'एकदेशविवर्ति' is some scribe's mistake for 'एकदेशवृत्ति'.

The sentence ‘एकदेशविवर्ति’ धीयते has been explained above as containing Mammata's second reason for treating श्लिष्ट परपरित among अर्थालङ्कारs and we have remarked that this reason is absolutely unconvincing It is possible to interpret this sentence in another way We may say that Mammata gives only one reason viz प्रसिद्धधनुरोध for including श्लिष्ट परपरित among अर्थालङ्कारs and then proceeds to state as an obiter dictum that this श्लिष्ट परपरित is by others called एकदेशवृत्ति In this case हि should be taken in the sense of 'indeed'

The sentence 'एकदेशविवर्ति' धीयते has been explained above as containing Mammata's second reason for treating the metaphor based on a pun among semantic ornaments, and we have remarked that this reason is absolutely unconvincing. It is possible to interpret this sentence in another way. We may say that Mammata gives only one reason, viz., the adherence to the well-known, for including the metaphor based on a pun among semantic ornaments, and then proceeds to state as an obiter dictum that this metaphor based on a pun is called a partial manifestation by others. In this case, हि should be taken in the sense of 'indeed'.

Stanza 35—This stanza describes the arm of a king by means of a series of non-paronomastic परपरित metaphors आलानम् tying post समुद्रम् एवं अमृतसागर आलोडनीलवात् तस्य प्रमथने प्रचण्डमालोडन तदेव कीडा सुखनिरवेशलवात् तस्या विधयी सपादने मन्दर एतान्नामक पर्वत The idea is the king's arm used to produce violent agitation in the battle The reference is to the churning of the ocean for obtaining nectar by gods and demons, when the

Stanza 35—This stanza describes the arm of a king by means of a series of non-paronomastic metaphors: a post tying an elephant, the ocean, the churning rod, the Mandara mountain. The idea is that the king's arm used to produce violent agitation in the battle. The reference is to the churning of the ocean for obtaining nectar by gods and demons, when the

Page 349

२९६

296

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 52

Mandara mountain was used as a churning rod and created a tremendous agitation therein

अमृतसागर must be understood as a kind of मध्यमपदलोपी समास in the sense of अमृतार्थ मथित सागर

Or अमृतसागर should be taken equal to जलसागर because अमृत means water as well

In this case we shall have to suppose that अमृतम्=जल्म् has been used to distinguish this ocean from others such as those of milk etc

The stanza is an example of भेदभाजि 1 e अभ्लिष्टे वाच्ये or अभ्लिष्ट परंपरित

It contains four examples of such परंपरित रूपकs viz. जयकुजरस्य आलानम् विपद्यारथे हृदया सेठु, करवालचणडमहस् उवोद्रि and सघामा .मन्दर

Here the superimposition of कुजर on जय is the cause of the superimposition of आलान on भुज

Nobody would ordinarily have thought of superimposing आलानत्व on भुज

But this becomes possible when there is the superimposition of कुजरत्व on जय

The idea is the king's arm keeps victory tied to itself 1 e always wins victory

अत्र नियतस्य निश्वितस्य वस्तुनः कुजरस्य जये हृदां सेठु, पूर्वाद्रि ( where the sun appears ) and मन्दर on भुज

No paronomastic words are used to express the उपमेय and उपमान in the metaphors which represent the causes

Therefore, these are illustrations of अभ्लिष्ट परंपरित रूपक

Stanza 36 — This stanza is an example of अमलारूप or केवल श्लिष्ट परंपरित, which is contained in सद्दहमुज्जलतनम्

This is explained as सद्दशे ( सदृशौ कुल्मम् ) एवं सद्देश ( शोभनो वेधु ) तरिमन् मुक्कारलत समुज्जलमौक्तिकम्

He e, the superimposition of सद्देश ( good family ) on सद्देश ( good bamboo ) is the cause of the superimposition of मुक्कारलत on भवान्

सद्देश is श्लिष्ट and there is only one such metaphor in the stanza

Hence, the stanza illustrates अमलारूप श्लिष्ट परंपरित

The common property between सद्देश good family ( उपमेय ) and सद्देश good bamboo ( उपमान ) is एकसदृशवाच्यत्व and that between भवान् ( उपमेय ) and मुक्कारलत ( उपमान ) is सद्देशो स्थिति

We cannot regard भलौदिक जगत्रय as representing the साधारण धर्म between भवान् and मुक्कारलत, because भलौदिक .जगत्रय is not applicable to मुक्कारलत

सदृशशुपकारलत्म्—The underlying idea here is that pearls are found, among other places, in bamboos

Page 350

Note that मुक्तारत्नम् (मुक्ता रत्नमिव) is itself an example of धर्मवादिलुप्सा उपमा, where the सामान्यधर्म समुज्ज्वलत्व or उत्कृष्टत्व and उपमानप्रतिपादक इव are dropped But this figure is covered by the statement 'अगणयित्वा एव तत्'

Page 53

Stanza 37—This stanza is an address to Lord Visnu by some devotee and describes his Tortoise-incarnation

The stanza is an illustration of अमालारूप अभिष्ट परंपरित This is contained is चतुर्दशलोकेकविकन्द भवान् चतुर्दशलोकेक एव वल्लि रता तस्या कन्द मूलम् Here the superimposition of वल्ली on चतुर्दशलोक is the cause of the superimposition of कन्द on भवान् चतुर्दशलोकवत्, which represents the metaphor that is the cause, does not contain paronomasia. And there is only one such metaphor here Therefore, the stanza is an example of अमालारूप अभिष्ट परंपरित

Between चतुर्दशलोक and वल्ली, उत्तरोत्तरसुपरिणामित्वम् may be regarded as the सा धर्मः Similarly आलम्बनत्व is the सा धर्मः between भवान् and कन्द

इति च अमालारूपकमपि परंपरित दृश्यम्—Mammata here tells us that as illustrated in the two above stanzas (इति) परंपरित should be understood to exist in a not garland form also i.e. in a pure or lonely form This means, according to Mammata, परंपरित has two forms, मालारूप and अमालारूप But why does Mammata not say so in the Kārikā ?

A परंपरितरूपक consists of two metaphors of which one is the cause and the other effect. Now for considering which is the cause and which the effect, the general criterion is that the metaphor which can exist independently is the cause Thus in विध्रुतमानसहंस—वरवीर, मानसेव मानसस् is the cause of वरवीर एव हंस We must however add that whilte this works satisfactorily in the case of श्लिष्ट परंपरित it may not work in the case of अभिष्ट परंपरित Hence in आालान जगकुजरस्—the metaphor जय एव कुजर regarded by मम्मट as cause cannot exist independently for there is no obvious सा धर्मः between the two

Stanza 38—This is rather a prosaic stanza, which has apparently been composed to serve as an illustration of रशनारूपक

We saw before that रशनोपमा occurs when the उपमेय of a preceding sentence successively becomes the उपमान in the succeeding रशनारूपक is the opposite of this In रशनारूपक the उपमान in a preceding sentence becomes successively the उपमेय in the following यथोच्चैःसुपमानस्य यदा स्यादुपमेयता। तदालंकारिकैः प्रोक्तं हि रशनालंकारम् ॥ Here कर is उपमान in किसलयकरः (किसलयान् येब करास्ते ) Then, it becomes उपमेय in करकरमलैः

Page 351

२९८

298

काव्यप्रकारः

Kavyaprakasha

(करा एव कमलानि तैः) कमल, which is उपमान here becomes उपमेय in कमलमुखैः and मुख् which is उपमेय in कमलमुखैः becomes उपमान in मुखेन्दुमिः

(kara eva kamalāni taiḥ) kamala, which is upamāna here becomes upameya in kamalamukhaiḥ and mukha which is upameya in kamalamukhaiḥ becomes upamāna in mukhendumiḥ

Thus, the various rūpaka are connected with one another as the links in a girdle Hence, the stanza is an example of रशनारूपक

इत्यादि . न लक्ष्षितम्—Here Mammata tells us that रशनारूपक does not possess charm Therefore, it has not been defined by him in the Kārikā ( न रक्षितम्—कारिकाया तस्य लक्षण न कृतम्)

Ityādi . na lakṣitam—Here Mammata tells us that raśhānārūpaka does not possess charm Therefore, it has not been defined by him in the Kārikā ( na rakṣitam—kārikāyā tasya lakṣaṇaṁ na kṛtam)

In this connection read Udyota ‘उपमेयोत्तरक्षप्रतिपादिनाम् उपमानीकृतानाशुप-मेयीकरणे तदुत्कर्षप्रतिपादनस्य गतानात् ।’

In spite of the above, we think रशनारूपक has a sufficient charm to rank as a division of रूपक Needless to say that thus is a personal feeling.

( 7 ) अपह्नुति or Concealment

(7) Apahnuti or Concealment

प्रकृत 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 नेंदु मुख किंतु चन्द्र there ( भासत्प ) and चन्द्र, which is अप्रकृत or उपमान, is established in its place Hence ‘ नेंदु मुख किंतु चन्द्र ’ is a proper अपह्नुति

Prakṛta apahnuti —The figure apahnuti arises when a matter in hand viz. an upameya is denied i.e. is represented as non-existent or false and another i.e. an upamāna is established in its place e.g. nendu mukhaṁ kiṁtu candra there ( bhāsat ) and candra, which is aprākṛta or upamāna, is established in its place Hence ‘nendu mukhaṁ kiṁtu candra’ is a proper apahnuti

It will be seen that अपह्नुति is developed (1) when there is a denial of the प्रकृत or उपमेय (2) when there is an establishment of the अप्रकृत or उपमान in the place of the प्रकृत or उपमेय, and ( 3 ) when both these are आभारी or volitional It should be noted that though Mammata does not specifically say so, अन्यत् स्थापिते means अन्यत्र अप्रकृत-उपमाने वा प्रकृतस्य उपमेयस्य वा स्थाने स्थापिते

It will be seen that apahnuti is developed (1) when there is a denial of the prakṛta or upameya (2) when there is an establishment of the aprākṛta or upamāna in the place of the prakṛta or upameya, and (3) when both these are ābhārya or volitional It should be noted that though Mammata does not specifically say so, anyatra sthāpite means anyatra aprākṛta-upamāne vā prakṛtasya upameyasya vā sthāne sthāpite

In the Kārikā Mammata lays down प्रकृतनिषेध and अप्रकृतस्थापन as the essentials of अपह्नुति These are general terms, but in the vṛtti he restricts them by paraphrasing प्रकृत by उपमेय and अन्यत् or अप्रकृत by उपमान This means that according to Mammata the thing denied must be an उपमेय and the thing established an उपमान i e अपह्नुति must be based on औपम्य In thus restricting the scope of अपह्नुति Mammata has made himself hable to the charge of पूर्वोपरविरुद्धाभिधान For, while dealing with अलंकारव्यनि in the 4th Ullāsa he explains the nature of a suggested अपह्नुति (on p 141 वामनाचार्य ), that is present in a certain stanza from which it is quite clear that he does not regard औपम्य as the basis of अपह्नुति Under these circumstances the words उपमेयम् and उपमानम् occurring in the vṛtti must be regarded as उपलक्षण or प्रात्ययिक i e as suggesting that अपह्नुति should generally be based on उपमेयोपमानभाव, but that if in some cases this उपमेयोपमानभाव

In the Kārikā Mammata lays down prakṛtanisedha and aprākṛtasthāpan as the essentials of apahnuti These are general terms, but in the vṛtti he restricts them by paraphrasing prakṛta by upameya and anyat or aprākṛta by upamāna This means that according to Mammata the thing denied must be an upameya and the thing established an upamāna i.e. apahnuti must be based on aupamya In thus restricting the scope of apahnuti Mammata has made himself liable to the charge of pūrvoparavruddhābhidhān For, while dealing with alaṅkāravyani in the 4th Ullāsa he explains the nature of a suggested apahnuti (on p. 141 vāmana-ācārya), that is present in a certain stanza from which it is quite clear that he does not regard aupamya as the basis of apahnuti Under these circumstances the words upameyam and upamānam occurring in the vṛtti must be regarded as upalakṣaṇa or pratyayik i.e. as suggesting that apahnuti should generally be based on upameyopamānabhāva, but that if in some cases this upameyopamānabhāva

Page 352

is not found, that need not prevent them from being examples of

अपह्नुति

Apahnuti

The definition of अपह्नुति thus comes to be 'प्रकृतं किश्चित् निषिध्य

The definition of Apahnuti thus comes to be 'that which denies something real'

तत्स्थाने कस्यचिद् अन्यस्य स्थापनम्'

and establishes something else in its place'

This view regarding the nature of अपह्नुति finds support in

वाक्यार्थी, हेमचन्द्र and केशवमिश्र

Vakyarthi, Hemachandra and Keshavamishra

But it must be stated that the majority of rhetoricians hold, that अपह्नुति must be based on औपम्य

c f the definitions of भामह, उद्भट and जगन्नाथ

cf. the definitions of Bhamaha, Udbhatta and Jagannatha

Since in this figure, no charm is developed merely by denying a thing and establishing another in its place, we also feel that औपम्य is necessary for अपह्नुति

About Mammata we believe that he holds that उपमेयोपमानभाव is necessary for अपह्नुति

That is why he purposely paraphrases प्रकृतं

अन्यत्

anyat

of the Kārikā by उपमेय and उपमान respectively

As regards his statement in the 4th Ullāsa, well, it seems to have been made without proper thinking

In अपह्नुति we must also remember that the demal and the establishment must be आहार्य or intentional

i e though we deny a thing and establish something else in its place, we are quite conscious of the real state of things

i e that the two are different

In order to bring out this characteristic of अपह्नुति the Udyota paraphrases

स्थाप्यते

sthapayate

of the Kārikā by आहार्यनिविष्यविपर्ययोक्रियते

of the Karika by 'aaharyanivishyaviparyayokriyate'

Hence 'न पद्म सुवमेवेद न भृङ्गी वल्गुवी इमे' (काव्यादर्श II 36 ab) is not an अपह्नुति, because here we have the representation of the real state of things and there are no

आहार्य, निषेध and स्थापन

Aaharya, nishedha and sthapana

The name अपह्नुति is significant

It means concealment from (अप + ह्नु + ति to conceal )

The figure is so called, because here we have the concealment of the उपमेय

According to the way in which the निषेध and स्थापन are conveyed अपह्नुति is of two kinds viz (1) शाब्दी where the निषेध is expressed by means of the negative particle न , and (2) आर्थी where the निषेध and also the स्थापन are indirectly conveyed

There are quite a number of ways in which the निषेध and स्थापन can be indirectly conveyed

e g by the use of such words as कपट, कैतव, छद्म, छल, मिष and वपुस or by the use of verbs like परिणम

Then again, according to the order in which the निषेध and स्थापन are mentioned the figure is once more two fold viz-

(1) यत्र अपह्नवपूर्वक आरोप and (2) यत्र आरोपपूर्वक अपह्नव

(1) Yatrapahnvapurvaka aaropa and (2) yatra aaropapurvaka apahnava

Apropos the latter division it is pointed out that the gerund in

निषिध्य

nishidhya

must not be regarded as significant

Properly speaking the gerund in Sanskrit is used to denote the prior of two actions that

Page 353

३००

300

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

have the same agent, according to ‘समानकर्तृकयोः पूर्वकाले’ पा ३ ४ २१ (समानकर्तृकयोर्थयोः पूर्वकाले वियमानाद्धातो क्त्वा स्यात् । मुक्त्वा ऋजति । (सि कौ) If the gerund निषेध्य is understood in its real grammatical sense, it would mean that in अपह्नुति the निषेध must come first and then the स्थापन 1 e we must always have ‘निषेधपूर्वक आरोप’ But ‘आरोपपूर्वक स्थापन’ is also regarded as conducing to अपह्नुति Therefore, it is said that the gerund is not significant

Page 54

Stanza 39—This stanza is addressed by Śiva to Pārvatī on seeing the dark spot on the full moon The main idea in the stanza is ‘नाय कलङ्कः, किंतु इय 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 dark ness (श्यामत्वम्‌)

This अपह्नुति is शाब्दी, because the निषेध is expressly by ‘अयं नैव कलङ्को विलसति’ Then again it belongs to the ‘अपह्नवपूर्वक 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 रतिश्रान्ताश्रेते goes primarily with रमणी The common property between रजनी and रमणी is त्रीत्व or प्रियात्व The night is the beloved of the moon Note his name निशापति

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] समृद्धाणि सहकाराणि, अपि तु सकालकूटा शरा’ Thus, समृद्धाणि सहकाराणि are denied and सकालकूटा शरा 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 समृद्धसहकारः is conveyed by the word छलः the अपह्नुति is आर्थी As the निषेध of समृद्ध सहकारः comes first and the स्थापन of सकालकूट विशेषः afterwards, the अपह्नुति once more belongs to the ‘अपह्नवपूर्वक आरोप’ variety

Stanza 41—The stanza is supposed to have been addressed to a voluptuary by the maid of a courtesan, wherein she describes the

Page 354

fascinating beauty of her mistress Cupid was burning with the fire of Siva's anger He, therefore, threw himself in the lake of loveliness on the hip-region of this beautiful damsel A line of smoke, suggesting the extinction of the embers in the form of Cupid's limbs, arose and was visible on her abdomen in the form of the line of hair

Here the idea (प्रतीति) is ‘ने [इत्ये] रोमावली’, [आप् तु] धूमरेखा इयम्’ The निषेध is conveyed by the word वपुस् and the स्थापन by परिणमति Hence, अपह्नुति is आर्थी Further, स्थापन is first stated by ‘ध्रुवा धूमस्थेय परिणमति’ and then comes the निषेध in ‘रोमावलिरपु’ Therefore, in this अपह्नुति we have आरोपपूरक अपह्नव

Here the idea (pratīti) is ‘ne [itye] romāvalī’, [āp tu] dhūmarēkhā iyam’ The nidhēd is conveyed by the word vapus and the sthāpan by parinmati Hence, apahnuti is arthī Further, sthāpan is first stated by ‘dhruvā dhūmasthēya parinmati’ and then comes the nidhēd in ‘romāvaliraipu’ Therefore, in this apahnuti we have ārōpapūraka apahnava

There are two other figures in this stanza लावण्यामृतसरसि is an example of अतिशयोक्ति, for here the उपमेय viz वरारोहम् is completely swallowed by the उपमान viz लावण्यामृतसर In अज्ञारारणाम् we have a रूपक must be dissolved as अज्ञानी एव अज्ञाता, because प्रशम and धूमावली primarily go with अज्ञाता and not with अज्ञानी

There are two other figures in this stanza lāvaṇyāṃṛtasarasi is an example of atiśayōkti, for here the upamēya viz varārōham is completely swallōwed by the upamāna viz lāvaṇyāṃṛtasa In ajñārāraṇām we have a rūpaka must be dissolved as ajñānī ēva ajñātā, because praśama and dhūmāvalī primarily go with ajñātā and not with ajñānī

एवमियम् (अपह्नुति) भवत्यन्रैव (भक्ति-ध्री = प्रकार भक्त्यन्रै = प्रकारान्रै ) अपि उच्यते (अनुमेयास्तक्यः)—Mammata here tells us that there are other ways of conveying अपह्नुति i e conveying the अपह्नव and आरोप which constitute it, and that these should be inferred from the two ways illustrated in stanzas 40 and 41

evamiyam (apahnuti) bhavatyantraiva (bhakti-dhrī = prakāra bhaktyantra = prakārantrai ) api uchyatē (anumāyāstakyaḥ)—Mammata here tells us that there are other ways of conveying apahnuti i e conveying the apahnava and ārōpa which constitute it, and that these should be inferred from the two ways illustrated in stanzas 40 and 41

Viśvanatha speaks of a second kind of अपह्नुति, which consists in concealing a thing, which one has somehow divulged, either by means of paronomasia or otherwise (गोपनीय कमप्यर्थे द्वोत्यर्थे वा ह्यचचन ।। 38 यदि मिश्रेणान्यथा वाच्ययेत् सापह्नुति ।। 39 सा द ) This variety evidently has no basis of औपम्य The कुवलयानन्द calls this छेकापह्नुति ( Clever Concealment ) Its example प्रजल्पन् मत्पदे लग्न कान्त किं न हि नूपुर ! कु

Viśvanatha speaks of a second kind of apahnuti, which consists in concealing a thing, which one has somehow divulged, either by means of paronomasia or otherwise (gōpanīya kampyarthē dvōtyarthē vā hyachchana ।। 38 yadi miśrēṇānyathā vāchyayēt sāpahnuti ।। 39 sā da ) This variety evidently has no basis of aupamya The Kuvalayānanda calls this chēkapanuti ( Clever Concealment ) Its example prajalpan matpadē lagna kānta kiṃ na hi nūpura ! ku

(8) श्लेष or Paronomasia or Pun

(8) ślēṣa or Paronomasia or Pun

श्लेष भवेत्—This is the definition of अर्थश्लेष अर्थश्लेष arises when words which ordinarily have one sense convey two owing to peculiar circumstances The words ‘एकस्मिन् वाक्ये’ of the Kānkā and the expression ‘एकार्थप्रतिपादकानामेव’ of the Vṛtti are intended to distinguish अर्थश्लेष from शब्दश्लेष In order to understand this distinction we must know a little more about शब्दश्लेष

ślēṣa bhavēt—This is the definition of arthashlēṣa arthashlēṣa arises when words which ordinarily have one sense convey two owing to peculiar circumstances The words ‘ēkasmin vakyē’ of the Kankā and the expression ‘ekārthapratipādakanamēva’ of the Vritti are intended to distinguish arthashlēṣa from shabdashlēṣa In order to understand this distinction we must know a little more about shabdashlēṣa

श्लेष, as we saw before, is of two kinds viz शब्दश्लेष and अर्थश्लेष शब्दश्लेष is that where double meaning words express more than one sense According to one principle of division शब्दश्लेष is of three kinds

ślēṣa, as we saw before, is of two kinds viz shabdashlēṣa and arthashlēṣa shabdashlēṣa is that where double meaning words express more than one sense According to one principle of division shabdashlēṣa is of three kinds

Page 355

३०२

302

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

v1z समञ्ज, अभङ and उभयात्मक ( पुनब्रिधा समञ्जोऽथाभयात्मक स्तुभयात्मक । सा द x 12)

viz samanj, abhang and ubhayatmak (punarbidha samanjosthabhayatmak stubhayatmak | sa da x 12)

When an expression has to be split up in two different ways in order to obtain two senses therefrom, that is an example of समञ्ज श्लेष e g कमलासकोच , दुर्गामारणम and सत्यप्रीति of stanza 34 When a word expresses two senses without being split up in two different ways, that is called अभङ श्लेष e g मानसम of stanza 34 and वङ्गा of stanza 36 When both these kinds of श्लेष occur in one stanza, it constitutes an example of उभयात्मक श्लेष e g stanza 34

अर्थश्लेष and शब्दश्लेष

Arthashlesha and Shabdashlesha

Both these figures resemble, because in both two senses are conveyed But their distinction is as follows (1) In अर्थश्लेष words naturally have only one meaning, while in शब्दश्लेष words are always double meaning एकार्थप्रतिपादकानामेव thus represents a point of distinction between अर्थश्लेष and शब्दश्लेष (2) In अर्थश्लेष words are पर्यायपरिवृत्तिसह i e can be changed for their synonyms, in शब्दश्लेष words are पर्यायपरिवृत्त्यसह i e they do not admit of exchange with synonyms (3) Ir अर्थश्लेष there is only one sentence In शब्दश्लेष there are two, representing the two natural senses of the paronomastic words त्वा सर्वेंदोमाधव पायात is equal to त्वा सर्वेदा माधव पायात and त्वा सर्वेदा उमाधव पायात It will thus be seen that एकस्मिन वाक्ये represents another point of distinction between अर्थश्लेष and शब्दश्लेष

Both these figures resemble, because in both two senses are conveyed But their distinction is as follows (1) In Arthashlesha words naturally have only one meaning, while in Shabdashlesha words are always double meaning ekarthapratipadakanaimev thus represents a point of distinction between Arthashlesha and Shabdashlesha (2) In Arthashlesha words are paryayarivritti-sah i.e. can be changed for their synonyms, in Shabdashlesha words are paryayarivritty-asah i.e. they do not admit of exchange with synonyms (3) In Arthashlesha there is only one sentence In Shabdashlesha there are two, representing the two natural senses of the paronomastic words tva sarvendomadhava payat is equal to tva sarveda madhava payat and tva sarveda umadhava payat It will thus be seen that ekasmin vakye represents another point of distinction between Arthashlesha and Shabdashlesha

It must be pointed out that though ‘एकस्मिन वाक्ये’ in the Kārikā is intended to distinguish अर्थश्लेष from शब्दश्लेष, Mammata does not say anything about this in the Vrtti On the contrary he brings out in the Vrtti another point to distinguish अर्थश्लेष from शब्दश्लेष in the expression ‘एकार्थप्रतिपादकानामेव’, a point which finds no mention in the Kārikā This once more reveals his unsystematic method

It must be pointed out that though 'ekasmin vakye' in the Karika is intended to distinguish Arthashlesha from Shabdashlesha, Mammata does not say anything about this in the Vrtti On the contrary he brings out in the Vrtti another point to distinguish Arthashlesha from Shabdashlesha in the expression 'ekarthapratipadakanaimev', a point which finds no mention in the Karika This once more reveals his unsystematic method

It should be noted that Mammata's words एकार्थप्रतिपादकानामेव शब्दाना यत्र अनेक अर्थ स श्लेष एकार्थप्रतिपादक, how can they convey more than one sense ?

It should be noted that Mammata's words ekarthapratipadakanaimeva shabdana yatra aneka artha sa shlesha ekarthapratipadaka, how can they convey more than one sense ?

This apparent contradiction is removed in two ways (1) Though words have naturally one sense, they convey two on account of their union or identification ( श्लेष ) with other words of similar forms, but of different meanings Thus, उदय ( stanza 42 ), which means rise, conveys the other sense of prosperity owing to its being identical with another word उदय which means prosperity If it be urged that this practically means that उदय is double meaning and hence there is no distinction between शब्दश्लेष and अर्थश्लेष, we reply in शब्दश्लेष there are double-meaning

This apparent contradiction is removed in two ways (1) Though words have naturally one sense, they convey two on account of their union or identification (shlesha) with other words of similar forms, but of different meanings Thus, udaya (stanza 42), which means rise, conveys the other sense of prosperity owing to its being identical with another word udaya which means prosperity If it be urged that this practically means that udaya is double meaning and hence there is no distinction between Shabdashlesha and Arthashlesha, we reply in Shabdashlesha there are double-meaning

Page 356

words, which are पर्यायपरिकृतिसह, while in अर्थश्लेष the so-called double-meaning words are पर्यायपरिक्रुतिसह It will thus be seen that the assertion that in अर्थश्लेष words are एकार्थप्रतिपादक or स्वभावोक्तिकार्य is rather flimsy

( 2 ) When it is said that in अर्थश्लेष words are एकार्थप्रतिपादक, what is meant is that they naturally signify one general sense, two particular shades of which are understood from the absence of any such circumstance as संयोग to restrict it to one Thus, उदय means rise in general, both physical and metaphorical There is nothing to restrict the word to either of these two particular senses Hence, both are understood eggually prominently But in शब्दश्लेष there is no such thing as a general and particular sense These words definitely have two different senses. That is what makes them पर्यायपरिक्रुतिसह

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

Stanza 42—This stanza contains a description of the sun and a king. Thus उदय = (1) rise, (2) prosperity दिङ्मालिन्यम् = (1) darkness of the quarters (2) misdeeds of the people residing in all directions दिग्वधू = (1) the seal of 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 ( आकार ) 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 पर्यायपरिक्रुतिसह and hence an example of शब्दश्लेष only

Thus, as the words in this stanza are ordinarily एकार्थप्रतिपादक only and yet convey more than one 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 पर्यायपरिक्रुतिसह Thus, if we substitute उदयम् by उदितम्, मालिन्यम् by काष्यम्, क्रिया by कर्माणि etc , the अर्थश्लेष would sill be there Hence, it is distinguished from शब्दश्लेष by the एकार्थप्रतिपादकत्व or पर्यायपरिक्रुतिसहत्व of words

श्लेष and अभिधामूलव्यजना or शब्दशक्तिमूलव्यजना

अत्र अभिधाया वाच्यौ — This sentence is intended to point out the distinction between श्लेष and अभिधामूलव्यजना (for which vide 2nd Ullasa

Page 357

Kārikā 14 ) Both these resemble because in both two senses are conveyed But the distinction between them is as follows In अभिधामूलव्यंजना owing to the presence of some such circumstance as सयोग 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 व्यंजना afterwards and thus becomes व्यंग्य In श्लेष on the other hand the expressive power of words is not restricted owing to the absence of any such circumstance as सयोग Hence, both the senses, viz the sun and the king in the present stanza, are conveyed by अभिधा and are, therefore, वाच्य

Kārikā 14) Both these resemble because in both two senses are conveyed. But the distinction between them is as follows. In अभिधामूलव्यंजना owing to the presence of some such circumstance as सयोग 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 व्यंजना afterwards and thus becomes व्यंग्य. In श्लेष on the other hand the expressive power of words is not restricted owing to the absence of any such circumstance as सयोग. 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 शब्दालंकार or अर्थालंकार Our author, whom Viśvanatha follows, holds that it is both a शब्दालंकार and an अर्थालंकार उद्दट quotes श्लेष as an अर्थालंकार only He divides it into two kinds, अर्थश्लेष and शब्दश्लेष, which exactly correspond to अभिधानश्लेष and समन्वयश्लेष Vide his काव्यालंकारसार pp 54–57 Ruyyaka also treats श्लेष among अर्थालंकारs and divides it into three kinds viz शब्दश्लेष (=समन्वयश्लेष), अर्थश्लेष (=अभिधानश्लेष ) and उभयश्लेष Vide his अलंकारसर्वस्व p §6

Difference of opinion exists among rhetoricians as to whether श्लेष is a शब्दालंकार or अर्थालंकार. Our author, whom Viśvanatha follows, holds that it is both a शब्दालंकार and an अर्थालंकार. उद्दट quotes श्लेष as an अर्थालंकार only. He divides it into two kinds, अर्थश्लेष and शब्दश्लेष, which exactly correspond to अभिधानश्लेष and समन्वयश्लेष. Vide his काव्यालंकारसार pp. 54–57. Ruyyaka also treats श्लेष among अर्थालंकारs and divides it into three kinds viz शब्दश्लेष (=समन्वयश्लेष), अर्थश्लेष (=अभिधानश्लेष) and उभयश्लेष. Vide his अलंकारसर्वस्व p §6.

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 अनुप्राहक or helper and develops, newer and newer charm Read रसगंगाधर 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 रसगंगाधर pp, 393–396 Also vide काव्यप्रकाशा उल्लास ix pp 516–529 ( वामनाचार्य ), अलंकारसर्वस्व pp 97 ff

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 रसगंगाधर pp, 393–396. Also vide काव्यप्रकाशा उल्लास ix pp 516–529 (वामनाचार्य), अलंकारसर्वस्व pp 97 ff.

(9) समासोक्ति or the Speech of Brevity

(9) समासोक्ति or the Speech of Brevity.

परोक्त समासोक्ति -This is the definition of समासोक्ति Construe निलष्टेः ( श्लेषयुक्तैः व्यर्थप्रतिपादकैः ) मेदकैः ( मेदयति व्यवच्छेदयति इति मेदकान् विरोषणानि तैः ) परोक्तिः ( परस्य अप्रकृतस्य अर्थस्य उपमानरूपस्य उत्की अभिधानम् प्रतिपादनम् ) समासोक्तिः

परोक्कि समासोक्ति - This is the definition of समासोक्ति. Construe निलष्टेः (श्लेषयुक्तैः व्यर्थप्रतिपादकैः) मेदकैः (मेदयति व्यवच्छेदयति इति मेदकान् विरोषणानि तैः) परोक्तिः (परस्य अप्रकृतस्य अर्थस्य उपमानरूपस्य उत्की अभिधानम् प्रतिपादनम्) समासोक्तिः.

Thus (1) From the description of a relevant matter, an irrelevant matter is understood (2) Such irrelevant matter is understood by

Thus (1) From the description of a relevant matter, an irrelevant matter is understood. (2) Such irrelevant matter is understood by.

Page 358

means of paronomastic adjectives ( 3 ) The substantive in the sentence which describes a relevant matter is not paronomastic An example is अयमेन्द्रीसुखम् पद्यम् रक्तं चुम्बति चन्द्रमाः Here from the desciption of the moon, who is rising in the east and is प्रकट, we understand a नायक who kisses his beloved and who is अप्रकट This is done by means of the adjective रक्त, which is paronomastic and means अरुण or red and अनुरागयुत or full of affection The plural in रक्ते चुम्बति must be regarded as अभिव्यक्तिवशेन मुखम् In इन्द्रीसुखम् is also paronomastic and signifies प्रारम्भम् and वदनम् The substantive चन्द्रमाः is not double-meaning and does not in any way help us to understand the अप्रकृत नायक

means of paronomastic adjectives (3) The substantive in the sentence which describes a relevant matter is not paronomastic. An example is 'अयमेन्द्रीसुखम् पद्यम् रक्तं चुम्बति चन्द्रमाः'. Here from the description of the moon, who is rising in the east and is प्रकट, we understand a नायक who kisses his beloved and who is अप्रकट. This is done by means of the adjective रक्त, which is paronomastic and means अरुण or red and अनुरागयुत or full of affection. The plural in 'रक्ते चुम्बति' must be regarded as अभिव्यक्तिवशेन मुखम्. In इन्द्रीसुखम् is also paronomastic and signifies प्रारम्भम् and वदनम्. The substantive चन्द्रमाः is not double-meaning and does not in any way help us to understand the अप्रकृत नायक.

न तु विशेष्यस्यापि सामर्थ्योत—These words are put in the Vṛtti in order to distinguish समासोक्ति from अर्थान्तरञ्यास, where the substantive also e g विभाकर in stanza 42 above, is either actually श्लिष्ट or अनेकार्थप्रतिपादक

न तु विशेष्यस्यापि सामर्थ्योत—These words are put in the Vṛtti in order to distinguish समासोक्ति from अर्थान्तरञ्यास, where the substantive also, e.g., विभाकर in stanza 42 above, is either actually श्लिष्ट or अनेकार्थप्रतिपादक.

The name समासोक्ति is significant, समासा means brevity ( सक्षेप ). Here two matters viz प्रकट and अप्रकट are stated briefly Hence the figure is so called Compare ‘सक्षेपवचनात् समासोक्तिरित्याहुः ।’ वामन iv 3 3

The name समासोक्ति is significant; समासा means brevity (सक्षेप). Here two matters, viz., प्रकट and अप्रकट, are stated briefly. Hence the figure is so called. Compare 'सक्षेपवचनात् समासोक्तिरित्याहुः ।' वामन iv 3 3.

Stanza 43—The context of this stanza is ‘समरपतितं स्वामिनमवेक्ष्य वीरपत्न्या इयमुक्तिः ’ शुदासागर p 592 The stanza tells us that the Glory of victory, who used to feel some indescribable pleasure ( उल्लास आनन्द ) at the touch of the warrior’s arm, does not shine now, but has grown weak Here जयलक्ष्मी is प्रकट and from the use of the distinguishing words ( भेदकैः ) उल्लास , 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 उल्लास , उज्ज्वला and दुर्बला are applicable to both जयलक्ष्मी and कान्ता This double application is brought out by the सपदायप्रकाशिनी thus ‘बहुशयों दौर्निदिध पाणिपीडनं च । उल्लास अभिव्यक्तिः हर्षैक् । दुर्बला निस्त्रैया कृशा च ।’ The word जयलक्ष्मी alone, which is the विशेष्य, has no power to express beloved ( कान्तावाचकत्वम् ). Thus, as the अप्रकृत कान्ता is conveyed by the sentence, which describes the प्रकट जयलक्ष्मी, by means of the भेदक words उल्लास , उज्ज्वला and दुर्बला, but not by means of the substantive जयलक्ष्मी thus stanza is an example of समासोक्ति अथन प्रकृतजयलक्ष्मीप्रतिपादकवाक्येन ‘उल्लास ’ , ‘ उज्ज्वला ’ , ‘ दुर्बला ’ इति भेदकैराहत्यात, न तु ‘जयलक्ष्मी’ इत्येतस्य विशेष्यस्य सामर्थ्यादपी अप्रकृतकान्ताया अभिधानम् इति समासोक्तिः ।

Stanza 43—The context of this stanza is 'समरपतितं स्वामिनमवेक्ष्य वीरपत्न्या इयमुक्तिः' शुदासागर p. 592. The stanza tells us that the Glory of victory, who used to feel some indescribable pleasure (उल्लास आनन्द) at the touch of the warrior's arm, does not shine now, but has grown weak. Here जयलक्ष्मी is प्रकट and from the use of the distinguishing words (भेदकैः) उल्लास, 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 lustreless and weak in his absence. उल्लास, उज्ज्वला, and दुर्बला are applicable to both जयलक्ष्मी and कान्ता. This double application is brought out by the सपदायप्रकाशिनी thus: 'बहुशयों दौर्निदिध पाणिपीडनं च । उल्लास अभिव्यक्तिः हर्षैक् । दुर्बला निस्त्रैया कृशा च ।' The word जयलक्ष्मी alone, which is the विशेष्य, has no power to express beloved (कान्तावाचकत्वम्). Thus, as the अप्रकृत कान्ता is conveyed by the sentence, which describes the प्रकट जयलक्ष्मी, by means of the भेदक words उल्लास, उज्ज्वला, and दुर्बला, but not by means of the substantive जयलक्ष्मी. Thus, this stanza is an example of समासोक्ति. अथन प्रकृतजयलक्ष्मीप्रतिपादकवाक्येन 'उल्लास', 'उज्ज्वला', 'दुर्बला' इति भेदकैराहत्यात, न तु 'जयलक्ष्मी' इत्येतस्य विशेष्यस्य सामर्थ्यादपी अप्रकृतकान्ताया अभिधानम् इति समासोक्तिः।

समासोक्ति is an important figure but its treatment by मम्मट is very unsatisfactory Please notice that the essence of समासोक्त lies not in परोक्ति so much as in the attribution of the behaviour ( व्यवहार ) of the

समासोक्ति is an important figure, but its treatment by मम्मट is very unsatisfactory. Please notice that the essence of समासोक्त lies not in परोक्ति so much as in the attribution of the behaviour (व्यवहार) of the.

Page 359

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, उज्झ्रस, and दुर्बल cannot be said to be श्रेष्ठ though they convey two different shades of meaning Further in the expression of अप्रकृतस्य अभिधानम् given in the वृत्ति as para phrase of परोक्ति, अभिधानम् does not mean अभिधया प्रतिपादित but means व्यंजनया बोधित or suggested

Though Mammata has not expressed this, he obviously means it. Then again, paronomastic adjectives are not absolutely necessary for Samasokti. In fact, the words ujjval, ujjhas, and durbal cannot be said to be श्रेष्ठ though they convey two different shades of meaning. Further in the expression of अप्रकृतस्य अभिधानम् given in the वृत्ति as paraphrase of परोक्ति, अभिधानम् does not mean अभिधया प्रतिपादित but means व्यंजनया बोधित or suggested

विश्वनाथ defines समासोक्ति as 'समासोक्तिः समैयत्र कार्यालंकारविशेषणैः । 156 व्यवहृतसमरोप प्रस्तुतेऽन्यस्य वस्तुनः ॥ 57 साहित्यदर्पण

Visvanatha defines Samasokti as 'Samasoktiḥ samaiyatrakāryālaṃkāraviśeṣaṇaiḥ. 156 Vyavahṛtasamaropa prastute'nyasya vastunaḥ. 57 Sāhityadarpaṇa'

Though मम्मट does not give any divisions of समासोक्ति, it is useful to see the divisions given by विश्वनाथ

Though Mammata does not give any divisions of Samasokti, it is useful to see the divisions given by Visvanatha

समासोक्ति

Samasokti

(1) समनकोष्ठा (2) समधिकोष्ठा (3) समविशेषणोक्त्या

(1) Samanakoṣṭhā (2) Samadhikoṣṭhā (3) Samaviśeṣaṇoktyā

(a) श्लिष्टविशेषणोक्त्या (b) औपम्यगर्भविशेषणोक्त्या (c) साधारणविशेषणोक्त्या समासोक्ति and रूपकम्

(a)śliṣṭaviśeṣaṇoktyā (b) Oupamyagarbhviśeṣaṇoktyā (c) Sādhāraṇaviśeṣaṇoktyā Samasokti and Rūpaka

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 चन्द्र)

Resemblance —In both Oupamya is ultimately brought out on account of the Upameyopamanabhava existing between the Prastuta (e.g. Jayalakṣmī and Mukham) and the Aprastuta (e.g. Kānta and Chandra)

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

Distinction (1) In Rūpaka the Upamāna overpowers the nature of the Upameya by superimposing its own upon it. In Samasokti on the other hand the Aprakrta merely attributes its behaviour to the Prakrta and thus makes it more charming than before. (2) In Rūpaka, the Upamāna is expressly stated, but in Samasokti the Aprakrta is only suggested on account of certain circumstances such as paronomastic adjectives

समासोक्ति and श्लेष Resemblance In both there are double meaning words and two senses

Samasokti and Śleṣa 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 आधिकृत्य इदमुच्यते । अलंकारसर्वस्व p 95, नाय (श्लेष) समासोक्ति । (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 व्यंग्य

Distinction (1) In Śleṣa both the adjectives and the noun (Viśeṣyam) are double meaning, in Samasokti only the adjectives are double-meaning. Adhikṛtya idamucyate. Alaṃkārasarvasva p. 95, Nāya (Śleṣa) Samasokti. (2) In Śleṣa both the senses are Vācya. Both are equally Prakata. But in Samasokti the sense, which refers to the Prakrta or Upameya is Vācya, while the one which brings out the Aprakrta or Upamāna is Vyanga

Page 360

(10) निदर्शना or Illustration

(10) Nidarshanā or Illustration

निदर्शना is defined as an impossible connection between things which leads to comparison The two things, the impossible connection between which leads to comparison, may be either two वाक्यार्थस् ( sentence-senses) or two पदार्थस् (word-senses ) Thus, निदर्शना is of two kinds (1) वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना and (2) पदार्थनिदर्शना वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना naturally requires two sentences So it is otherwise called अनेकवाक्यगा पदार्थनिदर्शना is possible in one sentence So it is otherwise known as एकवाक्यगा These divisions of निदर्शना may be thus shown

Nidarshanā is defined as an impossible connection between things which leads to comparison. The two things, the impossible connection between which leads to comparison, may be either two sentence-senses or two word-senses. Thus, Nidarshanā is of two kinds: (1) Vākyārthanidarshanā and (2) Padārthanidarshanā. Vākyārthanidarshanā naturally requires two sentences. So it is otherwise called Anekavākyagā. Padārthanidarshanā is possible in one sentence. So it is otherwise known as Eka-vākyagā. These divisions of Nidarshanā may be thus shown.

(1) वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना or अनेकवाक्यगा क सूर्यप्रभवो वग

(1) Vākyārthanidarshanā or Anekavākyagā

(2) पदार्थनिदर्शना or एकवाक्यगा उदयति विततोर्ध्वरश्मिरज्जौ

(2) Padārthanidarshanā or Eka-vākyagā

निदर्शना is so called, because there is in it the citing of an illustration ( दृष्टान्तकरणम् ) Mammata calls the figure by the name निदर्शना, but while explaining its significance he uses the form निदर्शनम् Why he thus changes the name we do not know It may just be due to his carelessness It may be pointed out that Dandin, Vāmana and Bhoja call the figure निदर्शनम् निदर्शना or निदर्शनम् means literally pointing out The figure points out an original proposition i e brings it prominently before us by giving an illustration

Nidarshanā is so called because there is in it the citing of an illustration (Drṣṭāntakaranam). Mammata calls the figure by the name Nidarshanā, but while explaining its significance, he uses the form Nidarshanam. Why he thus changes the name we do not know. It may just be due to his carelessness. It may be pointed out that Dandin, Vāmana, and Bhoja call the figure Nidarshanam. Nidarshanā or Nidarshanam means literally pointing out. The figure points out an original proposition, i.e., brings it prominently before us by giving an illustration.

Stanza 44—This is दृष्टान्त 1 2 Here Kālidāsa says out of modesty that proceeding to describe the solar race with his limited intellect is like desiring to cross the ocean by means of a raft

Stanza 44—This is Drṣṭānta 1 2. Here Kālidāsa says out of modesty that proceeding to describe the solar race with his limited intellect is like desiring to cross the ocean by means of a raft.

Here the two sentences that comprise this stanza do not seem to have any connection between them But as Kālidāsa has placed these two sentences together, there must be some purpose in such juxtaposition And that purpose is to bring out comparison or similitude between the two sentence senses So the ultimate idea is ‘उद्येन सगरतर-णामव मन्त्या सूर्यवंशवर्णनम्’ Thus, an impossible connection between two वाक्यार्थस् leads to comparison between them Consequently, this stanza is an example of वाक्यार्थ or अनेकवाक्यगा निदर्शना

Here the two sentences that comprise this stanza do not seem to have any connection between them. But as Kālidāsa has placed these two sentences together, there must be some purpose in such juxtaposition. And that purpose is to bring out comparison or similitude between the two sentence senses. So the ultimate idea is ‘Udyena sagarataraṇāmava mantryā sūryavaṃśavarnanam’. Thus, an impossible connection between two sentence-senses leads to comparison between them. Consequently, this stanza is an example of Vākyārtha or Anekavākyagā Nidarshanā.

Two things must be noted in connection with these examples of वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना First, the two sentences that comprise each of these two stanzas are not independent, but interconnected Their mutual connection has, however, not been expressly stated, but is implied Hence the उद्योत says that निदर्शना in such stanazas is आर्थी शाब्दी वाक्यार्थ-

Two things must be noted in connection with these examples of Vākyārthanidarshanā. First, the two sentences that comprise each of these two stanzas are not independent, but interconnected. Their mutual connection has, however, not been expressly stated, but is implied. Hence the Udyota says that Nidarshanā in such stanzas is Ārthī Śābdī Vākyārtha-

Page 361

निदर्शना is found in इदं किलाव्याजमनोहरं वपुःस्तपःक्षेमे साधयितुं य इच्छति । ध्रुवं स नीलोत्पलपत्रधारया शमीस्तलं छेदुमर्षितव्यवस्थति ॥ श्लोकान्तल 1 18

Nidarśanā is found in this verse: 'Idaṃ kilāvyājamanoheraṃ vapuḥstapaḥkseme sādhayituṃ ya icchati | dhruvaṃ sa nīlotpala patrādhārayā śamītalaṃ chedumarṣitavyavasthati' (ślokāntala 1.18).

Here the mutual connection between the two sentences is expressly brought out by the use of the relative and demonstrative pronouns य and स. Hence this is an illustration of शाब्दी वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना. Secondly, each of the two sentences that embody a वाक्यार्थौनिदर्शना cannot be independently understood. The statement becomes understandable, only when the comparison between the two sentence-senses is comprehended. Thus, in a वाक्यार्थौनिदर्शना the comprehension of the similitude makes the sentences understandable.

These two characteristics of वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना should be remembered, because it is these that distinguish this kind of निदर्शना from the figure दृष्टान्त, as we shall see below

Stanza 45—This is शिशुपालवध 4 20 It contains a description of the रैवतक mountain in the morning of the day following the full moon

Stanza 45—This is Śiśupālavadha 4.20. It contains a description of the Raivataka mountain in the morning of the day following the full moon.

Here the mountain corresponds to the elephant, the sun and the moon to the two bells and the rays going up on both the sides of the mountain from these two luminaries to the cords with which the bells were tied

Here the mountain corresponds to the elephant, the sun and the moon to the two bells, and the rays going up on both sides of the mountain from these two luminaries to the cords with which the bells were tied.

Here the principal sentence is गिरौ वारणेन्द्रलीलां वहति Now how can one have the grace of another ? Therefore, the connection between the two पदार्थौ is निरि and वारणेन्द्रलीला seems impossible

Here the principal sentence is 'Girau vāraṇendralīlāṃ vahati'. Now, how can one have the grace of another? Therefore, the connection between the two substances (पदार्थौ) 'निरि' and 'वारणेन्द्रलीला' seems impossible.

In order to account for it we have to suppose that वारणेन्द्रलीला is equal to वारणेन्द्रलीलासदृशी लीलाम् Thus, an impossible connection between two पदार्थौ leads to comparison in this stanza Here there is only one sentence Hence, the stanza is an example of पदार्थ or एकवाक्यगा निदर्शना

In order to account for it, we have to suppose that 'वारणेन्द्रलीला' is equal to 'वारणेन्द्रलीलासदृशी लीलाम्'. Thus, an impossible connection between two substances (पदार्थौ) leads to comparison in this stanza. Here, there is only one sentence. Hence, the stanza is an example of 'पदार्थ' or 'एकवाक्यगा निदर्शना'.

Stanza 46—This stanza is addressed to a king and describes how difficult it is to proclaim his virtues Here the connection between the sense of the sentence ‘यस्ते दधाति’ and that of the three others is impossible

Stanza 46—This stanza is addressed to a king and describes how difficult it is to proclaim his virtues. Here, the connection between the sense of the sentence 'यस्ते दधाति' and that of the three others is impossible.

For, what has such an attempt to do with the desire to swim over the ocean etc ? Thus, the impossible connection between these sentence—senses leads to comparison between them Hence, the stanza is an example of वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना As here we have more than one sentence-senses, which represent उपमान, this निदर्शना is मालारूपा

For, what has such an attempt to do with the desire to swim over the ocean, etc.? Thus, the impossible connection between these sentence-senses leads to comparison between them. Hence, the stanza is an example of वाक्यार्थनिदर्शना. As here we have more than one sentence-sense, which represents उपमान, this निदर्शना is मालारूपा.

This निदर्शना usually occurs when an उपमानधर्म is represented as being impossible in the उपमेय But Viśvanātha points out that it may

This निदर्शना usually occurs when an उपमानधर्म is represented as being impossible in the उपमेय. But Viśvanātha points out that it may.

Page 362

इये च क्रचिदुपमेयत्वृत्तस्य उपमानेऽसभवेऽपि भवति ।

And it happens that sometimes even when the उपमेय (object compared) is represented as impossible in the उपमान (object with which it is compared).

सा द (1) योजनुभूत कुरक्ष्यास्तस्थ्या मधुरिमाधरे । समास्वादि स शृङ्गारसे रसविशारदैः ॥

Examples of रसविरादै (experts in rasa) are (1) योजनुभूत कुरक्ष्यास्तस्थ्या मधुरिमाधरे । समास्वादि स शृङ्गारसे

सा द (2) वियोगे गौडनारीणां यो गण्डतलपाण्डिमा । अलक्ष्यत स खज्जीरमज्जरीगर्भरेणषु ॥

(2) वियोगे गौडनारीणां यो गण्डतलपाण्डिमा । अलक्ष्यत स खज्जीरमज्जरीगर्भरेणषु ॥

अलङ्कारसर्वस्व

The essence of अलङ्कार

This निदर्शना, with its two varieties, वाक्यार्थ or एकवाक्यग and पदार्थ or अनेकवाक्यग, is known as असभवद्रुतसवन्ध निदर्शना

Second निदर्शना

स्वस्वहेतुत्वन्वय सापरा—This gives us the definition of the second निदर्शना that Mammata treats of

When an action itself ( क्रियैव ) conveys the connection between itself ( स्व ) and its cause ( स्वहेतु ), 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

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 ( धुत ) by a gentle breeze it fell down

Here the action is पतन Its cause is उन्नतपदप्राप्ति

The fact that पतन and उन्नतपदप्राप्ति 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 पतनक्रिया itself publishes the connection viz कार्यकारणभाव between पतन and its cause viz लाघवे सति उन्नतपदप्राप्ति, this stanza is an example of अपरा निदर्शना

अत्र पातक्रिया स्व्याप्यते—This Vritti once more reveals Mammata's careless writing

After उन्नतपदप्राप्तिरूपपस्य, 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 उन्नतपदश्रयाते instead of उन्नतपदप्राप्तिरूपपस्य

सबन्ध 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

Page 363

३९०

काव्यप्रकाशः

[ Page 58

One point to note in connection with this second निदर्शना is this Mammata does not definitely say whether the statement of the connection between the क्रियास्वरूप and the क्रिया कारण by the क्रिया itself should lead to औपम्य But evidently he means it For, he gives to this figure the name निदर्शना itself and we have seen before what the significance of this name is Thus, in the present stanza औपम्य is suggested to exist between दष्कषणस्य पात and उन्नतपदस्यितस्य लङ्कुन पात

This अपरा निदर्शना of Mammata is known an सभवद्रस्तुसंबन्धनिदर्शना

This निदर्शना is also styled बोधनिदर्शना, because here some lesson is always sought to be conveyed to the world by describing some natural phenomenon in appropriate terms

The terms असंभवद्रस्तुसंबन्धनिदर्शना and सभवद्रस्तुसंबन्धनिदर्शना are borrowed from विश्वनाथ, who defines निदर्शना as 'संभवनं वस्तुसंबन्धयोग्संभवनं वापि कुत्नचिद् । 51 यत्र विम्बानुबिम्बत्वं बोधयेत् सा निदर्शना । 52' साहित्यदर्पण x Though the सभवद्रस्तुसंबन्धनिदर्शनो of Viśvanātha corresponds to the अपरा निदर्शना of Mammata, there is a difference between the two According to Mammáta the connection between the two things must be कार्यकारणभाव, while according to Viśvanātha the connection may be any one

It appears to us that limiting the scope of this अपरा or सभवद्रस्तुसंबन्ध निदर्शना by laying down that the वस्तुसंबन्ध must be कार्यकारणभाव is unnecessary No other rhetorician favours such restriction

निदर्शना and रूपकम

As pointed out by Udyota, in रूपक we have identification between two objects which are well known in the world as उपमान and उपमेय, while in वाक्यार्थीनिदर्शना, which is sought to be made out as वाक्यार्थरूपक the two वाक्यार्थ's are not so known Secondly, in रूपक owing to similarity between two objects, which we already know, we proceed to identify them, but in निदर्शना the identification appears inexplicable and in order to make it reasonable we presume similarity between the two senten-ces that are identified

( 11 ) अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा or Irrelevant Description

प्रस्तुताश्रया ( प्रस्तुत प्रकृतमाश्रयो यस्या प्रस्तुतप्रतिपत्तिजनका ) या अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ( अप्र-स्तुतस्य अप्रकृतस्य प्रशंसा वर्णना अभिधानमुक्तिः ) सा सैव ( अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा एवं अप्रस्तुतप्र-शसा नाम अलङ्कारः एवंर्थः ) When there is a description of some irrelevant matter which leads to the description of the relevant one, अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा occurs It is of five kinds viz ( 1 ) कार्ये प्रस्तुते तद्न्यस्य नाम अप्रस्तुतस्य कारणस्य हेतुः 1 e. When an effect is relevant, its cause which is irrelevant, is stated, ( 2 ) निमित्ते प्रस्तुते तद्न्यस्य नाम अप्रस्तुतस्य कार्यस्य वच् . (3) सामान्ये प्रस्तुते

Page 364

तदन्यस्य नाम अप्रस्तुतस्य विशेषणस्य वच , ( 4 ) विशेषे प्रस्तुते तदन्यस्य नाम अप्रस्तुतस्य सामान्तस्य वच , and ( 5 ) तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तदन्यस्य नाम अन्यस्य अप्रस्तुतस्य तुल्यस्य वच

and (4) when a particular is mentioned, the statement of the name of some other irrelevant thing which is similar to it; and (5) when something equal (to the subject under discussion) is mentioned, the statement of the name of some other irrelevant thing which is equal to it.

प्रशंसा is derived from प्र + शंस् इषति to tell or declare and means mention, statement or description, and not praise The title अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा is significant, because here we have a statement of the irrelevant, from which the relevant is implied or suggested

Stanza 48—This is ध्वनिकारत्नाकर 10 It is quoted to illustrate the first kind of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा viz कार्ये प्रस्तुते अप्रस्तुतस्य कारणस्य वच A young man had decided to start on a journey on a certain day Soon after this day had passed, he met a friend, who, surprised to see him there, inquired whether he had stopped from going ( प्रस्थानात् निवृत्तोऽसि किम् ) Instead of answering him in the affirmative the young man waxed eloquent over the reason which was responsible for his abandoning the journey viz that his beloved showed eagerness to court death in his absence Thus the कार्ये, which was प्रस्तुत here, was प्रस्थानात् निवृत्ति भाविमरणोत्साहसूचनम् Therefore, this is an example of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, consisting of कार्ये प्रस्तुत अप्रस्तुतस्य कारणस्य वच

It should be remembered what figure a particular stanza contains very often 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 गूढे प्रियाभाविमरणोत्साह-रुपकारणमभिहितम् That is why it is an example of ‘कार्ये प्रस्तुते कारणस्य वच’ kind of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

But अर्जुनवर्मदेव, the commentator of the ध्वनिकारत्नाकर, supplies the following context for this stanza कश्चिद् देसांतरगमनोपक्रमं विहाय युष्मत्पूर्वमव-स्थित केनचिदरमणकारण गूढे प्राह । If the stanza is understood in this context, it would obviously not be an example of ‘कार्ये प्रस्तुते कारणस्य वच’ kind of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा For, according to this new context कार्य itself would be the प्रस्तुत here According to अर्जुनवर्मदेव 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 ‘कार्ये प्रस्तुते’ and his quoting this stanza as an illustration of the

Page 365

तेन (उच्चोन प्रस्तुततथेन कार्येण) च कारणं व्यज्यते इत्यर्थः । अत्र व्यङ्ग्याद् वाच्यस्य अधिकचमत्कारित्वेन न ध्वनित्वव्यपदेशः, किन्तु अलङ्कारव्यवहार एवैति बोध्यम् ।

By that (i.e., by the high degree of the presented fact) the cause is revealed. Here, it is not considered as Dhvani because the suggested sense does not produce more charm than the literal sense, but it is treated as Alankara.

Stanza 50—This stanza is भर्तृशतक 94. It describes the doings of a fool This fool once saw a sparkling particle of water on the leaf of a lotus plant He thought it was a brilliant pearl In order slowly to pick it up he extended his fingers, when the water stuck to them and the imaginary bright pearl disappeared. From that time the fool gets no sleep every day at the thought that his pearl has flown away somewhere.

Here the प्रस्तुत is the general proposition that fools entertain attachment or affection (मनस्तापं) for improper objects (अस्थाने). Instead

Page 366

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 'सामान्ये प्रस्तुते अप्रस्तुतस्य विशेषस्य वच'

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 'जदानामस्त्याने ममत्संबंधना ' The word 'तस्य' and 'स जड' clearly show that that particular fool is the प्रस्तुत in this stanza. However, as it has been quoted to illustrate 'सामान्ये प्रस्तुते विशेषस्य वच' variety of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, we cannot but accept the context given by Mammata

Stanza 51—The context of this stanza is 'श्रीकृष्णेन नरकाख्ये हते तथ्खुब्धे (शाल्व) प्रति तन्मनत्रिण इयमुक्तिः 'उदाहरणचन्द्रिका

Here Naraka's minister really wanted to tell शाल्व that if he would kill कृष्ण, 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 शाल्व should kill कृष्ण, 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 वच It may be noted that the device of using this particular kind of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा to suggest to शाल्व 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 हेतौ—This passage tells us that the 5th variety of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा which consists in तुल्ये प्रस्तुते अप्रस्तुतस्य अनन्यस्य तुल्यस्य वच' 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) विशेष or (2) समासोक्ति or (3) साधर्म्यमात्र 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 'ध्रेय So 'धेय' is declared to be the first reason for 'तुल्यात् तुल्यस्य आक्षेप' (2) When only the adjectives are double-meaning This occurs in समासोक्ति Thus, समासोक्तिः is the

Page 367

३९८

काव्यप्रकाशा

[ Page 61

second reason of the implication of a similar from a similar (3) When there is mere resemblance between the two similars

It will be seen from the above that the words श्लेष and समासोक्ति are here used not in the sense of the figures of those names, but to denote certain circumstances which are found in those figures Thus, श्लेष means double meaning विशेषणs and विशेष्य, while समासोक्ति means double meaning विशेषण/s only That Mammata should have used the names of these figures to designate the circumstances found underlying them is once again an indication of his loose writing

Page 61

Stanza 52—This stanza is भट्टि० 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 Visnu, 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 Visnu in order to save his people

पुस्त्वादपि प्रतिच्छलेत् —This refers to Visnu's assumption of the form of मोहिनी at the time of depriving the demons of their share of nectar

अयोध्यपि यायात् —This has reference to Visnu's incarnation as a Tortoise, when he went down to Pātāla with a view to support the earth on his back, or to his incarnation as a Boar, when also he went down to Pātāla in order to lift the earth up on his tusk प्रणयने ( अभ्यर्थने ) न महानपि स्यात् —This has reference to Vāmanāvatāra, when the Lord became a pigmy ( न-महान् ) at the time of preferring a request to Bali Thus, the words पुस्त्वम् ( पुल्लिङ्ग शौर्यं च ), अयोध्यानम् ( पातालगमनं निकृष्टावस्थाप्राप्तिसिद्ध ) and न-महान् ( वामन महत्त्वविरहितस्त्व ) are double-meaning Similarly,

विश्वम् also means the world ( जगत् ) as also all the people in the kingdom And last the substantive पुरुषोत्तम is paronomastic and means Lord Visnu as well as this king, who was the best of men.

In this stanza the प्रस्तुतु is the king Instead of describing him the poet describes the अप्रस्तुत Visnu, who is similar ( तुल्य ) to that king From the description of the अप्रस्तुत Visnu, we understand the प्रस्तुत king on account of the paronomastic adjectives ( understood in the wider, not in the grammatical, sense ) such as पुस्त्व etc. and the paronomastic substantive ( विशेष्य ) viz पुरुषोत्तम. Therefore, this stanza is an example of श्लेषहेतुकं तुल्ये प्रस्तुत्वे तुल्याभिधानरूपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

Though this stanza appears very similar to stanza 42 above, it is not an example of श्लेष, because here we suppose that विष्णु is अप्रस्तुत

Page 368

and वाच्य and the king प्रस्तुत and व्यङ्ग्य In श्लेष both are प्रस्तुत and वाच्य

and literal meaning and the king presented and suggested meaning In double meaning both are presented and literal meaning

It is also pointed out that the word पुरुषोत्तम by its well-known denotative power first creates the apprehension of Visnu, who is अप्रस्तुत Then the great man, who is प्रस्तुत, is implied Therefore, this is अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and not श्लेष

Stanza 53 — This stanza is an address to the moon The moon is

deprived of his lustre by the sun as he rises It is, therefore, proper for the moon to retaliate against the sun. But the moon grasps his feet ( also punningly, derives rays or lustre from him ) If it be said that he does so, because he is exhausted, yet it is sheer stupidity that he shines refulgently in the sky with this borrowed lustre

The moon is surely अप्रस्तुत in this stanza The stanza is not

The moon is surely not presented in this stanza The stanza is not

composed to describe the moon in this manner It is, really meant to refer to the case of a man, who, instead of retaliating against an enemy who has deprived him of his prosperity and reduced him to destitution, falls at his feet and accepts help from him Not only this, but with the help thus derived he makes himself prominent, which only shows how stupid he is

The stanza contains प्रस्तुत adjectives, but the substantives चन्द्र and

The stanza contains presented adjectives, but the substantives moon and

रवि are not श्लेष In this stanza the प्रस्तुत is कवित् अभिमानधनस्य पुरुष and the अप्रस्तुत is चन्द्र From the description of the अप्रस्तुत moon, we get the idea of the प्रस्तुत lack self respect man Here the adjectives are paronomastic, but not the substantives This is what is found in समासोक्ति Therefore, the stanza is an example of समासोक्तिहेतुका तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिधानलुपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

Stanza 54 —This stanza is ascribed to महेन्द्रराज by क्षेमेन्द्र in his

Stanza 54 —This stanza is ascribed to Mahendra Raja by Ksemendra in his

औचित्यविचारचर्चा, to श्रीशुक in शृङ्गारप्रकाशपद्धति In both these there are minor variations in readings This is also quoted exactly in the same form as here in सुबाषितावलि as No 891 unascribed

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 ( वडवाग्नौ ) and storing it in the cavern of the nether world

The ocean is clearly अप्रस्तुत here The प्रस्तुत is some thoughtless

The ocean is clearly not presented here The presented is some thoughtless

man, who amasses riches from all quarters, but does not put them to proper use. There are no paronomastic words in this stanza But there is simple resemblance between the ocean and such a man as far

Page 369

सादृश्यमात्रहेतुका तुले प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिधानरूपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

Where the similarity is the only reason, the अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा (hidden praise) is of the form of समाननाम (similar name) in the presented and the unpresented.

इय च काचित्—Mammata is here introducing a new principle of division with reference to the fifth variety of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, which consists in ‘तुल्ये प्रस्तुते अन्यस्य अप्रस्तुतस्य तुल्यस्य अभिधानम्’ The new principle is प्रतीयमानार्थस्य अध्यारोप If the वाच्यार्थ, which represents the अप्रस्तुत, is understandable without the superimposition of the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ, 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 व्यङ्ग्यार्थ, 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 ‘वाच्यार्थ सम्भवासम्भवोभयरूपतया त्रिप्रकारा इयम् ।’ साहित्यदर्पण

Thus, the fifth variety of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा has really six sub-divisions

But these six sub-divisions are not mutually exclusive For example, stanza 52 is an example of वाच्ये प्रतीयमानार्थस्य अध्यारोपेणापि अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा For, the stanza is quite understandable as far as it refers to Lord Visnu It is not necessary to superimpose the king on Visnu in order to make the वाच्यार्थ possible But stanzas 53 and 54 stand on a different footing In their case the वाच्यार्थ requires the superimposition of the व्यङ्ग्यार्थ in order to become possible or understandable An address to the moon, such as is found in stanza 53, is in itself impossible For, nobody would be so foolish as to address the inanimate moon in this manner But that address becomes understandable as soon as we superimpose the अभिमानभूतन्य पुरुष on the moon i e. as soon as we realize that the moon really stands for such a man Similarly, the description of the ocean in stanza 54 becomes understandable only when we remember that the ocean is really that thoughtless man Thus, stanza 53 and 54 are examples of वाच्ये प्रतीयमानार्थस्य अध्यारोपेणैव अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

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?

Page 370

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

In this stanza the ocean is not the main subject. The main subject 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 साधर्म्यमात्रहेतुका तुल्ये (प्रशुरूपे) प्रस्तुते अन्यस्य तुल्यस्य (अध्ये) अभिधानरूपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

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 अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा where the अप्रस्तुत (ocean) is used to suggest the प्रस्तुत (king) due to their similarity.

Stanza 56—this stanza records a dialogue between a tree and a traveller.

वामेन—This is उपलक्षणे तृतीया वामेन उपलक्षित इत्यर्थे वामेन is paronomastic It means ( 1 ) मार्गद्र वामभोगेन उपलक्षित , मार्गस्य वामभागे स्थित इत्यर्थे situated to the left of the road ( 2 ) वामेन वामाचरणेन कुटिलताचारण उपलक्षित

वामेन—This is an instance of तृतीया used in the sense of उपलक्षण (indication). वामेन is paronomastic. It means (1) मार्गद्र वामभोगेन उपलक्षित, i.e., situated to the left of the road (2) वामेन वामाचरणेन कुटिलताचारण 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 वट stands for उच्चजाति असत्पुरुष Thus, in this stanza from the description of the अप्रस्तुत शाखोटक and वट we understand the प्रस्तुत दित्सु अधमजाति पुरुष and उच्चजाति असत्पुरुष

In this stanza the शाखोटक is certainly not the main subject. The main subject 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 वट stands for उच्चजाति असत्पुरुष. Thus, in this stanza from the description of the अप्रस्तुत शाखोटक and वट we understand the प्रस्तुत दित्सु 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 साधर्म्यमात्रहेतुका तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिधानरूपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा Though वामेन is श्लिष्ट, it does not materially affect, the साधृश्यमात्रहेतुकत्व of the figure

The suggestion of the two main subjects (men) is made on account of their general resemblance with the two अप्रस्तुत (trees). Hence, the stanza is an example of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा where the अप्रस्तुत is used to suggest the प्रस्तुत due to their similarity. Though वामेन is श्लिष्ट, it does not materially affect the साधृश्यमात्रहेतुकत्व 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 possible only by the superimposition of दित्सु अधमजाति on शाखोटक and उच्चजाति असत्पुरुष on वट Hence, the stanza is an example of वाच्ये प्रतीमात्रस्य अर्थस्य अध्यारोपेणैव अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

Now, a conversation of this kind with an inanimate tree is in the very nature of things impossible. Therefore, the literal meaning (वाच्यार्थ) in this stanza becomes possible only by the superimposition of दित्सु अधमजाति on शाखोटक and उच्चजाति असत्पुरुष on वट. Hence, the stanza is an example of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा where the literal meaning is superimposed with another meaning.

Stanza 57—This stanza is भ्रष्टतशक 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

Stanza 57—This stanza is an example of भ्रष्टतशक. 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

Page 371

३१८

318

काव्यप्रकाराः

Types of Poetry

have prevented the bee from going near him The elephant and the bee are of course अप्रस्तुत here A repulsive master ( निवारक प्रभु ) and a devoted servant ( अनुगत सेवक ) are प्रस्तुत The suggestion of the प्रस्तुत master and servant is obtained from the अप्रस्तुत elephant and bee owing to paronomastic adjectives and paronomastic substantive Therefore, the stanza is an example of श्लेषमूला तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिघानरूपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

have prevented the bee from going near him. The elephant and the bee are of course not directly mentioned here. A repulsive master and a devoted servant are the actual subjects. The suggestion of the actual master and servant is obtained from the indirectly mentioned elephant and bee due to paronomastic adjectives and paronomastic substantives. Therefore, the stanza is an example of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा where the indirectly mentioned subjects are similar in description.

Page 63

रसनाविपर्ययः = (1) जिह्वापरिवृत्ति turning of the tongue वारणपक्षे । (2) वाग्विसवाद प्रतिज्ञातार्थविपरिवर्त्तनं वा inconsistency of speech प्रभुपक्षे ।

रसनाविपर्ययः = (1) Turning of the tongue in the context of the elephant. (2) Inconsistency of speech or change in the declared meaning in the context of the master.

When a master is inconsistent in his speech, that is a reason why servants should desert him In the case of the elephant रसनाविपर्यय कर्णयोः शपल्ता अनश्रतचालनम् ।

When a master is inconsistent in his speech, that is a reason why servants should desert him. In the case of the elephant, the movement of the ears and the unrestrained movement.

यस्य कस्यचिदापि वचने विश्वासनिक्षेपः, परवचने ऽनन्वयसेन प्रत्यादेये वा ।

The lack of trust in anyone's words, or the tendency to follow others' words without consideration.

This corres ponds to what is called 'कानांचा हलकेपणा' in Marāṭhī मद = (1) ichor or intoxication (2) pride or arrogance The elephant loses all sense of direction owing to intoxication The master loses all discrimination between his own people and others कर = (1) trunk (2) hand The elephant's trunk is hollow inside The master's hand is empty 1 e he does not pay salaries to his servants वारण = (1) an elephant substantive अमर is not So the cause of अप्रस्तुतादेश really wavers between श्लेषा and समासोक्ति ।

This corresponds to what is called 'कानांचा हलकेपणा' in Marathi. मद = (1) ichor or intoxication (2) pride or arrogance. The elephant loses all sense of direction due to intoxication. The master loses all discrimination between his own people and others. कर = (1) trunk (2) hand. The elephant's trunk is hollow inside. The master's hand is empty, he does not pay salaries to his servants. वारण = (1) an elephant. The substantive अमर is not. So the cause of अप्रस्तुतादेश really wavers between श्लेषा and समासोक्ति.

This stanza has been qnoted as an example where we get अशेषु अध्यारोपेण अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ।

This stanza has been quoted as an example where we get अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा through the superimposition of the अप्रस्तुत on the प्रस्तुत.

This means that the superimposition of the प्रस्तुत or of the प्रतीमानार्थे on the वाच्यार्थे is necessary to under stand only some parts of this stanza The stanza enumerates four characteristics of the elephant viz रसनाविपर्यय, कर्णयोः शपल्तम्, मदवत्त्वम् and अन्तः शून्यकरत्वम् as reasons why the bee should not resort to him Out of these the three viz रसनाविपर्यय, मदवत्त्व and अन्तः शून्यकरत्वम् are really no reasons why the bee should avoid the elephant On the contrary ichor is a positive attraction for the bee to resort to the elephant Under these circumstances we find that as far as these three reasons are concerned, the वाच्यार्थे is not understandable or possible without the superimposition of the प्रतीमानार्थे thereon When we realize that the elephant stands for निवारक प्रभु and the bee for a devoted servant, then we see how these three in their second sense are sufficient reasons why the servant should not resort to the master Thus आसीत् । श्लोके एषु त्रिषु अशेषु वाच्ये प्रतीमानार्थेन्यः अध्यारोपेण अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसाः भवति ।

This means that the superimposition of the actual or the intended meaning on the literal meaning is necessary to understand only some parts of this stanza. The stanza enumerates four characteristics of the elephant, viz., inconsistency, flapping ears, intoxication, and hollowness of the trunk, as reasons why the bee should not resort to him. Out of these, the three, viz., inconsistency, intoxication, and hollowness of the trunk, are really not reasons why the bee should avoid the elephant. On the contrary, ichor is a positive attraction for the bee to resort to the elephant. Under these circumstances, we find that as far as these three reasons are concerned, the literal meaning is not understandable or possible without the superimposition of the intended meaning thereon. When we realize that the elephant stands for a repulsive master and the bee for a devoted servant, then we see how these three in their second sense are sufficient reasons why the servant should not resort to the master. Thus, in this verse, there are three अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा through the superimposition of the intended meaning on the literal meaning.

Page 372

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.

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and समासोक्ति

Resemblance

In both the वाच्यार्थ suggests some other प्रतीमानार्थ

The fifth variety of the अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा especially resembles समासोक्ति, because in both the behaviour of one is superimposed on another

Distinction (1) In अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा the वाच्य is अप्रस्तुत and from that अप्रस्तुत वाच्य the प्रस्तुत गम्य is suggested In समासोक्ति on the other hand the वाच्य is प्रस्तुत and it suggests the अप्रस्तुत

It will thus be seen that अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and समासोक्ति are exactly the opposite of each other and whether a particular stanza contains अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and समासोक्ति depends on what you consider to be प्रस्तुत and what अप्रस्तुत

(2) When अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा is based on श्लेष, sometimes the adjectives and sometimes both the adjectives and the substantive may be paronomastic. But in समासोक्ति based on श्लेष only the adjectives a.e paronomastic

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and श्लेष (of both kinds)

Resemblance

In both the figures there are double-meaning adjectives and substantives and two senses

Distinction In अप्रस्तुत प्रशंसा one sense is वाच्य and अप्रस्तुत and the other is व्यंग्य and प्रस्तुत In श्लेष both the senses are वाच्य and as there is nothing to determine which is प्रस्तुत and which अप्रस्तुत, both are regarded as प्रस्तुत

(12) अतिशयोक्ति or Hyperbole

निगीर्यो यत-This is a definition of the first kind of अतिशयोक्ति

Mammata does not give us a general definition of अतिशयोक्ति, but proceeds to define its four kinds straight off. The first kind of अतिशयोक्ति occurs when the पर or उपमान completely swallows the प्रस्तुत or उपमेय with the result that the उपमेय is ascertained to be identical with the उपमान e g चन्द्र उदेति, said when a lovely girl arrives

अध्यवसाय is defined as ' विषयानिगरणेन अभेदप्रतिपत्ति विषयिणि अध्यवसायः ' साहित्यदर्पण.

It will be noted that both रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति (1st kind) are founded on गौ । र लक्‌तमा, which, as we know, is caused by resemblance For, in both the two objects identified are related to each other as उपमेय

Page 373

३२०

320

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ Page 63

and उपमान, between which of course resemblance exists. Thus, while रूपक (मुखं 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 भ्रान्तिमान.

and the standard of comparison, between which of course there exists a resemblance. Thus, while a metaphor (e.g., 'face is moon') is based on secondary superimposition (e.g., 'the cow is said to be'), hyperbole (e.g., 'the moon rises') has as its foundation secondary implication (e.g., 'the cow is implied'). But neither 'the cow is said to be' is a metaphor, nor 'the cow is implied' a hyperbole, because these expressions lack strikingness. Again, when we consider the object of comparison to be identical with the standard of comparison due to being overshadowed by it, our understanding must be intentional, i.e., we must be well aware of the difference between the two and consciously identify one with the other. However, if our understanding is not intentional, the expression falls under the category of the figure 'confusion'.

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 swallowing must be an उपमान and 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 साध्यवसन लक्षणा give rise to अतिशयोक्ति, but also शुद्ध साध्यवसान लक्षणा (आयु: पिबति) would do so.

The words 'प्रकृतस्य' and 'परेण' in the Kārikā have been paraphrased in the Vṛtti as 'उपमेयस्य' and 'उपमानेन' respectively. According to some, as mentioned in the Udyota, this unnecessarily restricts the scope of this type of hyperbole. The paraphrase necessitates that the entity that overshadows must be the standard of comparison and the entity overshadowed must be the object of comparison. These scholars believe that since 'प्रकृत' and 'पर' are general terms, hyperbole should be understood to be present even in cases where there is an introsusception not based on resemblance. This implies that not only secondary implication would give rise to hyperbole, but also pure implication (e.g., 'drinking life') would do so.

For this view read उद्योत p. 58. विश्वनाथ seems to favour this view.

For this view, refer to Udyota p. 58. Vishvanath seems to support 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 अन्योन्यसंभविन: 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.

The lines 'प्रस्तुतस्य...अतिशयोक्तिः सा:' define the three other divisions of hyperbole. They are: (2) When the subject under description, though the same, is represented or understood as something else or different. (3) When there is a supposition or assumption of an impossible thing (e.g., using words like 'if' or 'in case') as a result of expressing or implying a sense of 'if'. (4) When there is an inversion of the order or sequence of cause and effect, i.e., when the effect is mentioned first to highlight 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. Mammata does not recognise this second sub-division. But it is necessary that we should admit it. One wonders what figure Mammata would say there is in examples of this second sub-division.

The inversion of the order of cause and effect is possible in two ways: (a) when the effect occurs before the cause, and (b) when it arises simultaneously with the cause. Mammata does not acknowledge this second sub-division, but it is necessary to accept it. One wonders what figure Mammata would classify examples of this second sub-division under.

Page 374

अतिशयोक्ति

exaggeration

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

Stanza 58—This is an example of निगीर्योभयवसानरूपा or भेदेऽपि अभेदरूपा अतिशयोक्ति

This is an example of निगीर्योभयवसानरूपा or भेदेऽपि अभेदरूपा अतिशयोक्ति

Here the उपमानs viz कमलम्, कुवलये and कनकलतिका completely swallow the उपमेय viz मुखम्, नेत्रे and तनु, which are consequently ascertained to be identical with the उपमानs

Here the objects of comparison, namely कमलम्, कुवलये and कनकलतिका completely swallow the objects being compared, namely मुखम्, नेत्रे and तनु, which are consequently ascertained to be identical with the objects of comparison

Or though मुखम्, नेत्रे and तनु are different (भेदेऽपि ) from कमलम् कुवलये and कनकलतिका, they are represented as not different from (अभेद ) i e identical with them

Or though मुखम्, नेत्रे and तनु are different from कमलम्, कुवलये and कनकलतिका, they are represented as not different from them, i.e. identical with them

Hence, the stanza exemplifies the first kind of अतिशयोक्ति consisting of निगीर्योभयवसानम् or भेदेऽपि अभेद

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 1 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 सौकुमार्यम् and वर्णेनच्छाया

The subject presented in this stanza is सौकुमार्यम् and वर्णेनच्छाया

These are stated to be another i e different from what we find in the world

Hence, the stanza is an illustration of प्रस्तुतस्य अन्यत्वरूपा अतिशयोक्ति

As a matter of fact the सौकुमार्य and वर्णेनच्छाया 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 अतिशयोक्ति here takes the form of अभेदे भेद

The purpose of representing a thing as different, though it is really not so is to suggest द्वितीयसदृशाभाववच्छेद or its absolute uniqueness

We have seen before that the purpose of अन्यत्व is also द्वितीयसदृशाभाववच्छेद

But this variety of अतिशयोक्ति differs from अन्यत्व, because it suggests द्वितीयसदृशाभाववचनम् by representing a thing as different, while अन्यत्व does so by comparing a thing with itself

It will be noticed that अन्यत्वम् in प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्यत्वम् means लोकप्रसिद्ध प्रस्तुताद् अन्यत्वम् लोकावलक्षणत्वम् इत्यर्थ

Stanza 60—Here in the first half an impossible entity viz a spot less moon is supposed by the use of the word चेत्

Hence, it is an example of यथायोग्यकल्पनरूपा अतिशयोक्ति

Now to look at it from another point of view

Though the spot is really connected with the moon, in

Page 375

the first half it is presumed that it is not so connected Therefore, the

first half is an example of सबन्धे ( अपि ) असबन्धरुपा अतिशयोक्तिः Then again

first half is an example of 'sambandhe' (api) asambandharupa atisayoktiḥ 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 असबन्धे

of the stanza. Therefore, the second half is an example of asambandhe

( अपि ) सबन्धरुपा अतिशयोक्तिः

(api) sambandharupa atisayoktiḥ

Stanza 61 — This is दामोदरगुप्त’s कुट्टिनीमत stanza No 96 It states that

Stanza 61 — This is Dāmodaragupta's Kuṭṭinīmat stanza No 96 It states that

as soon as a certain man, who was a favourite with ladies ( रमणीवल्लभ ),

as soon as a certain man, who was a favourite with ladies (ramaṇīvallabha),

came within the range of Mālatī'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 रमणो

Cupid and then by this man who came within her sight Here ramaṇo

वल्लभकर्णैक मालतीहृदयादिष्टानम् is the cause and मदनकर्णैक

vallabhakarṇaika malatīhṛdayādiṣṭānam is the cause and madanakarṇaika

( कुषुमचापवाण = मदन ) मालतीहृदयादियष्टानम् is the effect As the effect is declared to have arisen

(kuṣumacāpavāṇa = madana) malatīhṛdayādiyaṣṭānam is the effect As the effect is declared to have arisen

before the cause, the stanza is an example of कार्येकरणयोः पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययरुपा

before the cause, the stanza is an example of kāryekaraṇayoḥ pārvāparyaviparyayarupā

अतिशयोक्तिः, where there is कार्यस्य कारणात् पूर्वसुक्तिः For a similar example

atiśayoktiḥ, where there is kāryasya kāraṇāt pūrvasuktiḥ For a similar example

cf रघुवंश 4 4

cf Raghuvaṃśa 4 4

It should be noticed that these four or five divisions of अतिशयोक्तिः,

It should be noticed that these four or five divisions of atiśayoktiḥ,

are not based on any common foundation Though Viśvanātha gives

सिद्ध अध्यवसाय as a general definition of this figure, it would be difficult

siddha adhyavasāya as a general definition of this figure, it would be difficult

to demonstrate that सिद्ध अध्यवसाय underlies all the five divisions that

to demonstrate that siddha adhyavasāya underlies all the five divisions that

he mentions It would appear that according to the original concep

tion of अतिशयोक्तिः, this figure consisted in some startling, extraordinary

tion of atiśayoktiḥ, this figure consisted in some startling, extraordinary

hyperbolic statement The definitions and illustrations of अतिशयोक्तिः

hyperbolic statement The definitions and illustrations of atiśayoktiḥ

given by the ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha and Dandin corroborate

this conclusion. Later on rhetoricians realized that extraordinary

statements which comprised अतिगयोकित could be classed under four or

statements which comprised atigayokita could be classed under four or

five heads. Thus came the four or five divisions of this figure. Yet

modern writers, mentioned by Jagannātha ( रसगंगाधर p 313), think that

modern writers, mentioned by Jagannātha (Rasagaṅgādhara p 313), think that

अतिशयोक्तिः has just one variety viz that which is based on अध्यवसाय,

atiśayoktiḥ has just one variety viz that which is based on adhyavasāya,

Another point to note with reference to आतिगयोकित is that in one

Another point to note with reference to ātigayokita is that in one

or the other of its forms it lies at the basis of many figures Thus,

in ‘सैषा स्थली०’ whuch is an example of हेतुहेतुमद्‌क्ष, there is अतिशयोक्तिः of the

in 'saiṣā sthalī°' which is an example of hetuhetumad‌akṣa, there is atiśayoktiḥ of the

‘भेदेऽपि अभेद’ kind, because the silence of an inanimate object like the

'bhedede api abheda' kind, because the silence of an inanimate object like the

anklet, though distinct from the `silence, which an intelligent being

assumes through grief, is considered to be identical with it Similarly

in ‘सहधरदलनास्या यौवने रागभाजू प्रिय’, which illustrates सदृक्षि, we have

in 'sahadharadalanāsyā yauvane rāgabhājū priya', which illustrates sadṛkṣi, we have

अतिशयोक्तिः of the same kind at its foundation, because the two ‘रागस’

atiśayoktiḥ of the same kind at its foundation, because the two 'rāgas'

though distinct, are regarded as identical Then again in ‘जम्बालित्रितयम्-

though distinct, are regarded as identical Then again in 'jambālitritayam-

Page 376

चिल्लीडयध लीलयैव व्यानत्रीकृतकमनोयौनकुम्भयोः । नीलस्मोकसरह्नयनेऽधुना कुचौ ते स्पर्धते खलु कनकाचलेन साधेमं',

Chillīḍaya dhalīlayeva vyānatrikṛtakamano yaunakumbhayoh । nīlasmōkasarahnayanē'dhunā kuchau tē spardhatē khalu kanakāchalēna sādhēṃ'

which is an example of सार or climax, there is अतिशयोक्ति of the 'असम्बन्धेऽपि सम्बन्ध' kind, because the lady's breasts are there depicted as connected with the action of rivalling, though really they have no such connection Truly does Dandin observe

अलकारान्तराणामप्येकमाहु परायणम् । वाग्वैदग्धितामुक्तिःभिमामातिसयाहाहयाम् ।।' 11. 226

Alakārāntarāṇāmapyēkamāhu parāyaṇam । vāgvai dagdhitāmukti hima mātisayāhāhyām ।।' 11. 226

( 13 ) प्रतिवस्तूपमा or Parallel

( 13 ) Prativastūpamā 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 विर्म्वप्रतिविम्वभाव The former underlies प्रतिवस्तूपमा, while the latter is at the basis of दृष्टान्त and निदर्शना Appaya Diksita in his Citramimāṃsā p 18 defines them as follows एकस्यैव धर्मस्य सम्बन्ध-भेदेन द्विरुपादानं वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव is the mention of one and the same common property by means of two different words, when it is connected with two different entities Two different words are used to express the same common property, because if the same word is repeated, it constitutes a poetical defect. वस्तुतः मिश्रयोर्धर्मयोः परस्पर-सादृश्यादभिन्नतया अध्यवसितशो द्विरुपादानं विर्म्वप्रतिविम्वभाव विर्म्व भाव consists in the mention by means of two different words of two properties, which though really distinct, are consciously looked upon as identical owing to their mutual resemblance.

प्रतिवस्तूपमा तु स्थिति —The figure प्रतिवस्तूपमा occurs when one common property is mentioned twice by means of two different words ( शब्दभेदेन ) in two sentences i e in the sentence which represents the उपमेय and in the sentence which represents the उपमान

Prativastūpamā tu sthiti —The figure prativastūpamā occurs when one common property is mentioned twice by means of two different words ( śabdabhēdena ) in two sentences i e in the sentence which represents the upamēya and in the sentence which represents the upamāna

कवितपदत्वस्य (पुनरुक्तशब्दत्वस्य) दुश्रतया (दोषयुतत्वेन) अभिहितत्वात्— This gives the reason why the same word is not to be repeated, though the common property is the same Mammata has said in the 7th Ullāsa that repetition of the same word without a special purpose constitutes a defect called कवितपदत्वम् That is why the same word is not to be used कवितपदत्वम् is defined as 'प्रयोजनं विना यत्वे सति समनार्थकसमनानुपूर्वकपदवत्त्वम्' वामनाचार्य p 341

Kavitapadatvasya (punaruktaśabdatvasya) duśratayā (dōṣayutatvēna) abhihitatvāt— This gives the reason why the same word is not to be repeated, though the common property is the same Mammata has said in the 7th Ullāsa that repetition of the same word without a special purpose constitutes a defect called kavitapadatvam That is why the same word is not to be used kavitapadatvam is defined as 'prayōjanaṃ vinā yatvē sati samanārthakasamanānupūrvakpadatvam' Vāmana charya p 341

वस्तुनो वाक्यार्थस्य उपमानत्वात् —In these words Mammata explains the significance of the name प्रतिवस्तूपमा In this figure a sentence sense forms the उपमान From this we have to infer that here a sentence-sense is also the उपमेय (प्रतिवाक्यार्थं वस्तुनोरैक्यादर्थयोःभेद्यते) उपमा (उपमा इत्यस्य उपमेयमुपमानं च अर्थे

Vastuno vākyārthasya upamānatvāt —In these words Mammata explains the significance of the name prativastūpamā In this figure a sentence sense forms the upamāna From this we have to infer that here a sentence-sense is also the upamēya (prativākyārthaṃ vastunōraikyād arthayō h bhidyate) upamā (upamā ityasya upamēyam upamānaṃ cha arthē

Page 377

उपमीयते इयम् उपमीयते भनया इति व्युत्पत्या) यत्र

Where according to the etymology 'upamīyate iyam upamīyate bhanayā iti'

Appaya Dīkṣita explains the name in a different manner According to him प्रतिवस्तूपमा means that in which there is a common property in each sentence Note ‘प्रतिवस्तु प्रतिवाक्यार्थ ( प्रतिवाक्यमिल्यर्थ ) उपमा समानधर्म अस्यामिति व्युत्पत्तिः’ कुवलयानन्द p 52

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 ‘कथम् भजतु’ and ‘न खलु’ The ultimate idea in the stanza is the resemblance between the two sentences

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 a माला प्रतिवस्तूपमा Here the उपमेय sentence is contained in the fourth line ‘प्रकृतिरेव सताम् विषादिता’, 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 आश्रयोभाव or अनुत्तभाव, which is expressed in four different ways viz किंकर्तुम्, किं तत्, सदैव and प्रकृतिरेव The ultimate idea is just as three phenomena described in the first three lines cause no wonder, even so the absence of disconsolateness ( अभाविषादिता ) of the good causes no wonder Hence, the stanza illustrates मालाप्रतिवस्तूपमा

एवमन्यत्रापि भजुसरतैव्यमू मम्मट tells us here in a general manner that the garland-form of the figure is possible in the case of other figures also अन्यत्रापि is also explained as वैधर्म्येस्थलेऽपि This means that प्रतिवस्तूपमा is possible, not only when there is साधर्म्य between the two sentences, but also when there is वैधर्म्यं between them An example of वैधर्म्येण प्रतिवस्तूपमा is विदुषानव विजानाति विद्धुजनपरिश्रमम् । न हि वन्ध्या विजानाति गुर्वी प्रसववेदनाम् ॥ कुवलयानन्द

Thus, Mammata tells us here in a general manner that the garland-form of the figure is possible in the case of other figures also. अन्यत्रापि is also explained as वैधर्म्येस्थलेऽपि. This means that प्रतिवस्तूपमा is possible, not only when there is साधर्म्य between the two sentences, but also when there is वैधर्म्यं between them. An example of वैधर्म्येण प्रतिवस्तूपमा is विदुषानव विजानाति विद्धुजनपरिश्रमम् । न हि वन्ध्या 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 If it be urged that in a वाक्यार्थोपमा also, we have two sentences, the reply is (2) In उपमा when two sentences occur, they are inter dependent, while in प्रतिवस्तूपमा the two

Page 378

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

(3) In upama the resemblance is expressed either directly or indirectly by the use of words like yatha and tulya, in prativastupama the resemblance is only implied and word like yatha and iva 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

(4) In upama the one common property is generally expressed once, in prativastupama 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 ( वाक्यार्थयोः साम्यम् )

(5) In upama the resemblance is between two word-senses (padarthayoh samyam), in prativastupama the resemblance lies between two sentence senses (vakyarthayoh samyam)

प्रतिवस्तूपमा and निदर्शना

Prativastupama and Nidarshana

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

Distinction (1) While two sentences are a necessity in prativastupama, nidarshana 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

(2) In prativastupama the two sentences are independent and complete as far as their senses are concerned, in nidarshana 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

(3) In prativastupama 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

It is thus based on vastupratibimbabhav In nidarshana 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 bimbapratibimbabhava

(14) दृष्टान्त or Exemplification

(14) Drishtanta or Exemplification

दृष्टान्त प्रतिविम्बनम्—In this definition of दृष्टान्त we have to supply ‘वाक्यद्वये’ from the definition of प्रतिवस्तूपमा which precedes दृष्टान्त con sists in the reflective correspondence of the common property and others in two sentences

Drishtanta is a reflection or exemplification. In this definition of drishtanta we have to supply 'vakyadvaye' from the definition of prativastupama which precedes drishtanta. It 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 प्रतिविम्बन correspondence exists

Thus, the two sentences that constitute drishtanta possess, not one property expressed by two different words as in prativastupama, but two different properties, between which bimbapratibimbabhava or prativimban correspondence exists

i e which reflectively correspond to each other i e which are similar

i.e. which reflectively correspond to each other i.e. which are similar

The word आदि in साधारणधर्मोद्बोधनादि 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 word adi in sadharandharmodbodhanadi shows that in drishtanta 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 upameya and upaman, and between other circumstances connected with them, if any

The name दृष्टान्त is significant अन्त here means determination or ascertainment

The name drishtanta is significant. Anta 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 दृष्टान्त (प्रकृतस्य वस्तुनः उदाहरणदर्शनोन्नयनिःक्षयः ) यत्र स दृष्टान्तः

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 drishtanta (prakrtasya vastunah udaharanadarshonnayaniksayah) yatra sa drishtantah

Page 379

३२६

326

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

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, whrch 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, लम्, साज, मन, मनोभवज्वलनम् and निर्वापणम् find a reflective correspon dence in हिमाचु, कुसुमद्रती, कुषुमम्, (सूर्येकिरणज्वलनम्) and विकासनम् respectively As the stanza contains एतेषां साधारणयोदीनां सर्वेषां प्रतिबिम्बनम् it is an example of दृष्टान्त

Stanza 64—This stanza is addressed by a friend of a nāyikā to a nāyaka and describes how the mind of the nāyikā, burning with love becomes cool at the sight of the nāyaka, even as a night lotus blooms at the appearance of the moon. Here nirvāti (is extinguished, becomes cool) andvikasati (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 upameya sentence and those in the upamāna sentence so that they appear to be related to one another as original reflection. Thus, lam, sāja, mana, manobhavajvalanam and nirvāpanam find a reflective correspondence in himāśu, kusumadrti, kuśumam, (sūryakiranjvalanam) and vikasanam respectively. As the stanza contains eteṣām sādhāraṇayodīnām sarveṣām pratibimbanam it is an example of drṣṭānta.

Stanza 65—This stanza is an illustration of वैधर्म्येण दृष्टान्त and is addressed to a king

Stanza 65—This stanza is an illustration of vaidharmyeṇa dṛṣṭānta 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 भटं and पासव and विरारास्तागमनम् and आस्थिरताधारणम् as also between त्वम् and वात Therefore, the stanza is an example of वैधर्म्येण दृष्टान्त'

Here the last line, which is the upamāna sentence, speaks of dust remaining firm, while the upameya sentence describes hostile warriors running away. Thus, there is vaidharmya between the upameyavākya and the upamānavākya. 'There is reflective correspondence between bhaṭaṃ and pāṃśava and virarāstāgamanam and āsthiratādharāṇam as also between tvam and vāta. Therefore, the stanza is an example of vaidharmyeṇa dṛṣṭānta.'

दृष्टान्त and प्रतिबिम्बोपमा

Drṣṭānta and pratibimbopamā

Resemblance In both there are two independent sentences, between which similarity is conveyed

Resemblance: In both there are two independent sentences, between which similarity is conveyed.

Distinction ( 1 ) While in प्रतिबिम्बोपमा 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 प्रतिबिम्बोपमा is based on वस्तुतद्वस्तुभाव, दृष्टान्त is founded on बिम्बप्रति बिम्बभाव ( 2 ) In प्रतिबिम्बोपमा 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.

Distinction: (1) While in pratibimbopamā an identical common property is expressed in two sentences by two different words, in dṛṣṭānta 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 pratibimbopamā is based on vastutadvastubhāva, dṛṣṭānta is founded on bimbapratibimbabhāva. (2) In pratibimbopamā 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 dṛṣṭānta 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 upameya and upamāna and other attendant circumstances.

Page 380

Page 65 ] NOTES . Tenth Flash 329

In connection with the distinction ( 1 ) mentioned above, it should be noted that since in both the Alāmkāras 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 connection with the distinction (1) mentioned above, it should be noted that since in both the Alankaras the property or properties are expressed by different words, difficulty is often experienced in determining the Alankara. 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 connection 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

In this connection, it is interesting to note that Jagannatha is prepared to regard Drishtanta and Prativastupama as two divisions of one figure. Read Rasgangadhar pp 337 and 339.

Resemblance In both there are two sentences between which similarity is conveyed and in both this similarity is based on विर्म्बप्रतिविम्बभाव

Resemblance: In both, there are two sentences between which similarity is conveyed, and in both, this similarity is based on Vimbapratibimbabhava.

Distinction ( 1 ) While निदर्शना 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 विर्म्बप्रतिविम्बभाव existing between them is apprehended But in निदर्शना the विर्म्बप्रतिविम्बभाव or सादृश्य has first to be understood in order to make the sense of the sentence or the sentences complete or intelligible

(1) While Nirdeshana is in some cases possible in a single sentence, Drishtanta always requires two. (2) In Drishtanta, the two sentences are independent and complete, each in itself as far as its sense is concerned. In Nirdeshana, 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 Drishtanta, after the senses of the two sentences are completely understood, the Vimbapratibimbabhava existing between them is apprehended. But in Nirdeshana, the Vimbapratibimbabhava or Sadrsya has first to be understood in order to make the sense of the sentence or the sentences complete or intelligible.

दृष्टान्त and उपमा

Drishtanta and Upama

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

The resemblance and the points of distinction between these two figures are the same as those between Prativastupama and Upama, except point (4) of distinction, for which we should say (4) In Upama, the common property is one and is generally expressed once. In Drishtanta, 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

Writers of Sanskrit Kavyas and Natakas freely use Drishtanta. The student will be able to multiply examples from almost any author. Kalidasa alone will furnish scores of illustrations. Vide inter alia Raghuvaṃśa 5 13, 6 22, Śakuntala III 13, V 7, 14.

( 15 ) दीपकम or Illuminator

(15) Dipakam 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

Karika 17—This Karika defines two varieties of Dipak. (1) When a common property, consisting of an action or a quality, belonging to

Page 381

३२८

328

काव्यप्रकारः

Kāvyaprakāraḥ

[ Page 66

the relevant and the irrelevant 1 e to उपमेयs and उपमानs occurs 1 e is mentioned only once, that is the first variety of दीपक, which is called क्रियादिदीपक ( 2 ) When a case noun ( कारकम् ) such as a noun in the nominative case occurs once in connection with many actions that is the second variety of दीपक, known as कारकदीपक

the relevant and the irrelevant i.e. to उपमेयs and उपमानs occurs i.e. is mentioned only once, that is the first variety of दीपक, which is called क्रियादिदीपक (2) When a case noun (कारकम्) such as a noun in the nominative case occurs once in connection with many actions that is the second variety of दीपक, known as कारकदीपक

प्रकृत(प्रकृणिका)प्रकृत(णिकानाम्) is the paraphrase of प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनाम् But when it is further explained as उपमानोपमेयानाम् Mammata does not observe the rule of recpetivity This is due to carelessness

प्रकृत(प्रकृणिका)प्रकृत(णिकानाम्) is the paraphrase of प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनाम् But when it is further explained as उपमानोपमेयानाम् Mammata does not observe the rule of receptivity This is due to carelessness

कारक is a technical term in grammar and signifies the relation which exists between a noun and a verb in a sentence This relation is of six kinds, which belong to the first seven cases except the genitive. The genitive does not denote any special relation, but signifies relation in general ( सामान्यसम्बन्ध ) Thus, there are six Kārakās, which are enume rated in ' कर्ता कर्म च करणं सम्प्रदानं तथैव च । अपादानाधिकरणमित्याहु कारकाणि षट् ॥ ' A noun in a case expresses one of these Kārakās Therefore, कारक comes to mean a noun in case-relation, a sense which the word possesses in the present Kārikā

कारक is a technical term in grammar and signifies the relation which exists between a noun and a verb in a sentence This relation is of six kinds, which belong to the first seven cases except the genitive. The genitive does not denote any special relation, but signifies relation in general (सामान्यसम्बन्ध) Thus, there are six Kārakās, which are enumerated in 'कर्ता कर्म च करणं सम्प्रदानं तथैव च । अपादानाधिकरणमित्याहु कारकाणि षट् ॥' A noun in a case expresses one of these Kārakās Therefore, कारक comes to mean a noun in case-relation, a sense which the word possesses in the present Kārikā

एकस्थस्यैक दीपकम्—Here Mammata explains the significance of the title दीपक दीपकम् means the same as दीप or a lamp ( दीप एवं दीपकम् स्वार्थे कप्रत्यय ), or something which is similar to a lamp ( दीप इव दीपकम् सज्ञाया कप्रत्यय ) As a lamp stationed in one place illumines all objects round about it, even so the common property occurring in one sentence is connected with all sentences Some consider that in दीपक we have only one sentence and not many According to them एकस्थ means वाक्यैकदेशस्थ remaining in one part of the sentence and समस्तवाक्य means the whole of the sentence Read रसगङ्गाधर p 322

एकस्थस्यैक दीपकम्—Here Mammata explains the significance of the title दीपक दीपकम् means the same as दीप or a lamp (दीप एवं दीपकम् स्वार्थे कप्रत्यय), or something which is similar to a lamp (दीप इव दीपकम् सज्ञाया कप्रत्यय) As a lamp stationed in one place illuminates all objects round about it, even so the common property occurring in one sentence is connected with all sentences Some consider that in दीपक we have only one sentence and not many According to them एकस्थ means वाक्यैकदेशस्थ remaining in one part of the sentence and समस्तवाक्य means the whole of the sentence Read रसगङ्गाधर p 322

The first variety of दीपक is of two kinds, according as the property is an action or a quality The second variety is regarded as three fold, according as the various actions connected with one कारक are प्रकृत, अप्रकृत or प्रकृताप्रकृत This may be represented as follows

दीपक

Dīpaka

क्रियादिदीपक

Kriyāddīpaka

कारकदीपक

Kārakadīpaka

क्रियादीपक गुणवदीपक

Kriyādīpaka Guṇavdīpaka

प्रकृतक्रियारूप अप्रकृतक्रियारूप प्रकृताप्रकृतक्रियारूप

Prākṛtakriyārūpa Aprākṛtakriyārūpa Prākṛtāprākṛtakriyārūpa

रूपणाना धनम् (श्यामलः) प्राप्तवैण्याभि स्वप्यति कूणति (दूरोकरोति कुमतिमः) (वशु दधुम्)

Rūpaṇānā dhanaṁ (Śyāmalaḥ) Prāptavaiṇyābhi svapyati kūṇati (Dūrīkaroti kumatiṁ) (Vaśu dadhuṁ)

Page 382

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 कुल बालिकानाम् (अर्थोपरिणीताना) रत्न are प्रकृत and hence उपमेय and कृपणानां धनम्, न मानां छायामनि and विदग्धा वधू: are अपकृत and hence उपमान The common property is an action represnted by स्पृश्यन्ते and is mentioned only once. It is connected with both प्रकृत and अपकृत Therefore, the stanza is an example of कियादिपकम्

Stanza 66—This stanza enumerates certain things, which cannot be touched as long as the owners thereof are alive (immortal). Here the wealth of the miserly people, the shadow of the trees, and the clever bride are natural and hence the object of comparison, and the jewels of the noble girls (whose wealth is renowned) are unnatural and hence the standard of comparison. The common property is an action represented by 'can be touched' and is mentioned only once. It is connected with both the natural and unnatural elements. Therefore, the stanza is an example of 'kiyādīpaka'.

An example of गुणवदीपक is 'श्यामला' प्राप्तप्रेक्षणाभिरदिशो जीवितपदिक्रयितुमि । शुभ्र सुकुमाराभिनवचादलराजिमि ॥' काव्यादर्श 100, where श्यामला, which represents a quality, is connected with दिवा (प्रकृत) and शुभ्र (अपकृत)

An example of 'gunādīpaka' is 'Shyāmalā prāptapreksanābhiradiśo jivitapadikrayitum | Śubhra sukumārabhinavachādalrājimi ‖' (Kāvyādarśa 100), where 'Shyāmalā', which represents a quality, is connected with 'divā' (natural) and 'śubhra' (unnatural).

Stanza 67—This is an example कारकदीपक where one कारककारक 1, e a case noun in the nominative viz वधू is connected with many 1 e. eight actions represented by the verbs in the stanza. Or we may say that the one अधिकरणकारक हृदयने is connected with the many actions All the actions, here are प्रकृत Hence the stanza illustrates प्रकृतप्रक्रियारूप कारकदीपकम् 'अत्र अनेकाशु क्रियाशु एकस्य वधू: इति कत्र्तृकारकस्य, 'हृदयने' इति अधिकरणकारकस्य वा, सकृदुपादानमिति कारकदीपकाख्यकारकद्यम् । अत्र मत्वर्थकियाना प्रकृतत्वमेव ।'

Stanza 67—This is an example of 'kārakadīpaka' where one 'kārakakāraka' (a case noun) in the nominative case, viz. 'vadhū', is connected with many (eight) actions represented by the verbs in the stanza. Or we may say that the one 'adhikaranakāraka' 'hrdayane' is connected with the many actions. All the actions here are natural. Hence the stanza illustrates 'prakṛtaprakriyārūpa kārakadīpakam'.

An example of अपकृतक्रियारूप कारकदीपक is 'दूतीकरोति कुमति विमलीकरोति चेतखिरन्तनमर्थ चुलकीकरोति । भूतेभ्य किम्च करुणा बहुलीकरोति सतां किं न मन्त्रमातनोति ॥'

An example of 'aprakṛtakriyārūpa kārakadīpaka' is 'Dūtīkaroti kumati vimalīkaroti cetakṣirantanamartha culakīkaroti | Bhūtebhya kimca karuṇā bahulīkaroti satāṃ kiṃ na mantramātanoti ‖'

An example of प्रकृतापकृतक्रियारूप कारकदीपक is 'बहु दातुं यशो धातु विधातु- मरिमदैनम् । त्रातु च मादृशान् राजन् अतीव निपुणो भवान् ॥' अत्र वसुदान-स्त्राणरुपयो: प्रकृतयो क्रियो अभिमर्दन-यशोधनायोश्च अपकृतयो एकस्य नृपुपकखरस्य अन्य अन्वय । वामनाचाये

An example of 'prakṛtāprakṛtakriyārūpa kārakadīpaka' is 'Bahu dātuṃ yaśo dhātu vidhātu-marimadainam | Trātu ca mādṛśān rājan atīva nipuṇo bhavān ‖' Here, the actions 'to give wealth' and 'to protect' are natural, while 'to crush the enemy' and 'to give fame' are unnatural, and they are all related to the same king.

प्रकृतापकृताभनान्—It is to be noted that the plural here is not significant Thus, if we have one प्रकृत and one अपकृत connected with a common property, दीपक is developed

Prakṛtāprakṛtābhidhānam—it is to be noted that the plural here is not significant. Thus, if we have one 'prakṛta' and one 'aprakṛta' connected with a common property, 'dīpaka' is developed.

Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhata, Vāmana and Rudrata 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 Jagan nātha holds the same view Mammata apparently was of the same opinion That is why we do not find these divisions in the Kāvyaprakāśa

Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhata, Vāmana, and Rudrata divide 'dīpaka' into three kinds according to whether the common property with which many objects are connected occurs at the beginning, middle, or end. Viśvanātha rightly remarks that such divisions are possible in a thousand ways and therefore does not define them. Jagannātha holds the same view. Mammata 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 (तुल्यौपम्यम्) is necesssary for it Bhāmaha,

A somewhat important question connected with 'dīpaka' is whether suggested similarity ('tulyāupamyam') is necessary for it. Bhāmaha,

Page 383

३३०

330

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 67 ]

Dandın, Rudrata, Bhoja and Vıśvanātha are silent on this point. From their silence it may be presumed that they do not regard औपम्य as necessary for this figure Udbhata, Vāmana, Ruyyaka, Vidyādhara, Vidyānātha and Jagannātha definitely lay down that दीपक must be based upon similarity. Mammata seems to waver between the two views. His paraphrase of प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनोः by अर्थान्त ( Note this word has been inadvertently dropped from our text ) उपमानोपमेयानाम् definitely suggests that in his opinion दीपक must have the foundation of औपम्य But he mentions कारकदीपक as a variety of दीपक and in कारकदीपक no similarity can be seen For, the various actions स्त्रियाति, कूणति etc cannot be regarded as mutually similar This shows that Mammata is prepared to admit दीपक without the basis of similarity That is why we remark that Mammata wavers between the two views

Dandin, Rudrata, Bhoja, and Visvanatha are silent on this point. From their silence, it may be presumed that they do not regard similarity (औपम्य) as necessary for this figure. Udbhata, Vamana, Ruyyaka, Vidyadhara, Vidyanatha, and Jagannatha definitely lay down that Dipaka must be based upon similarity. Mammata seems to waver between the two views. His paraphrase of प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनोः by अर्थान्त (note this word has been inadvertently dropped from our text) उपमानोपमेयानाम् definitely suggests that in his opinion, Dipaka must have the foundation of औपम्य. But he mentions कारकदीपक as a variety of दीपक, and in कारकदीपक, no similarity can be seen. For, the various actions like स्त्रियाति, कूणति, etc., cannot be regarded as mutually similar. This shows that Mammata is prepared to admit दीपक without the basis of similarity. That is why we remark that Mammata wavers between the two views.

Those who admit कारकदीपक as a variety of दीपक do not evidently regard औपम्य as a necessary foundation for this figure. According to them the charm of दीपक lies in one thing being connected with many, as a lamp is connected with the many objects that it illuminates.

Those who admit कारकदीपक as a variety of दीपक do not evidently regard औपम्य as a necessary foundation for this figure. According to them, the charm of दीपक lies in one thing being connected with many, as a lamp is connected with the many objects that it illuminates.

Jagannātha criticises Mammata for mentioning कारकदीपक as a separate variety of दीपक Read रसगङ्गाधर pp 324-325

Jagannatha criticizes Mammata for mentioning कारकदीपक as a separate variety of दीपक. Read Rasagangadhar pp. 324-325.

Two Varleties of दीपक

Two Varieties of Dipaka

The two varieties of दीपक should be distinguished from each other in order to grasp correctly their essentials Thus

The two varieties of Dipaka should be distinguished from each other in order to grasp correctly their essentials. Thus,

Resemblance Both possess the characteristic of one thing being connected with many

Resemblance: Both possess the characteristic of one thing being connected with many.

Distinction (1) While in the first variety things connected with one property are mutually similar i e. possess उपमानोपमेयभाव between them, in the second the various actions connected with one Kāraka are not possessed of औपम्य (2) While in the first the things connected with one attribute are both प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत, in the second they are either all प्रस्तुत or all अप्रस्तुत or both प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत.

Distinction: (1) While in the first variety, things connected with one property are mutually similar, i.e., possess उपमानोपमेयभाव between them, in the second, the various actions connected with one Karaka are not possessed of औपम्य. (2) While in the first, the things connected with one attribute are both प्रस्तुत (relevant) and अप्रस्तुत (irrelevant), in the second, they are either all प्रस्तुत or all अप्रस्तुत or both प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत.

( 16 ) मालादीपकम् or Serial Illuminator

(16) Maladipakam or Serial Illuminator

मालादीपक arises when each preceding thing adds quality or excellence to, or distinguishes each succeeding Thus, the essentials of मालदीपक are ( 1 ) Many things are connected with the same attribute ( 2 ) Each preceding thing serves as a qualification of each succeeding. उपक्रियते=उपकारविषयीक्रियते, विशेष्यते, सविशेषणीक्रियते, सोल्कर्षं कियते

Maladipaka arises when each preceding thing adds quality or excellence to, or distinguishes each succeeding. Thus, the essentials of Maladipaka are: (1) Many things are connected with the same attribute. (2) Each preceding thing serves as a qualification of each succeeding. उपक्रियते = उपकारविषयीक्रियते, विशेष्यते, सविशेषणीक्रियते, सोल्कर्षं कियते.

Stanza 68 — This stanza describes to a king what things became connected with what others when he arrived on the battlefield and made ready his bow Here we note that each preceding thing distinguishes

Stanza 68 — This stanza describes to a king what things became connected with what others when he arrived on the battlefield and made ready his bow. Here we note that each preceding thing distinguishes.

Page 384

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 शरा, अरिशिर, 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 मालाहृपक 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 श्रृङ्खला ( chain ) or रशना ( girdle ) The proper title of the figure would, therefore, be श्रृङ्खलादीपक or रशनादीपक

Jagannātha also does not like the title मालादीपक given to this figure, because it lacks both the characteristics of दीपक proper viz साधदय and प्रकृतप्रकतात्मक्त्व 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 मालादिपक as an independent figuere

( 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

Page 385

३३२

332

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ Page 68

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 -

common property mentioned once The one common property 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

Tulyayogita

प्रकृतानाम्

Prakritanam

अपकृतानाम्

Aprakritanam

एकक्रियासबन्ध

Ekakriyasambandha

एकगुणसबन्ध

Ekagunasambandha

एकक्रियासबन्ध

Ekakriyasambandha

एकगुणसबन्ध

Ekagunasambandha

पाण्डु क्षामं बदनं (योगपद्ये जटाजाल )

Pandu kshamam badan (yogapadye jatajal)

अमृतममृतरस्मि ( वदनाभादव दूष्ट )

Amrtamamrtarasmi (vadanabhadava drshta)

The name तुल्ययोगिता is significant It suggests that in this figure things are connected with a common attribute तुल्येन सामान्येन धर्मेण योगप्रकृतानामप्रकृतानां वा संबन्ध स अस्ति येषा ते तुल्ययोगिन , तेषा भाव तुल्ययोगिता

The name Tulyayogita is significant It suggests that in this figure things are connected with a common attribute Tulyena samanyena dharmena yogaprakritanamaprakritanan va sambandha sa asti yesha te tulyayogin, tesa bhavah tulyayogita

Stanza 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 क्षत्रिय means curable in another body, not curable in this birth, but in the next, 1 e incurable

Stanza 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 Kshatriya 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 वेदना Therefore, the stanza is an example of प्रकृतानामेकक्रियासबन्धरुपा तुल्ययोगिता As these three all possess the common property क्षत्रियरोगावेदकत्वम्, 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

Here vadanam, hridayam and vapu, which are all prakrta, are connected with the one property viz the action vedana Therefore, the stanza is an example of prakritanamekakriyasambandharupa tulyayogita As these three all possess the common property kshatriyarogavedakatvam, they are mutually similar and the figure is, therefore, based on gamyopamya For another explanation of how tulyayogita is developed in this stanza read udyota p 68

Stanza 70 — This stanza is addressed to his beloved by a gallant

Here in the first line कुसुम् (a white lotus), कमल (a red lotus) and नीलनीरज (a blue lotus) are connected with the action of being thrown into the back ground (तिरसकृतत्व ), 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 अप्रकृतानामेकक्रियासबन्धरुपा तुल्ययोगिता Further, we suppose that कुसुम् 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

Here in the first line kusuma (a white lotus), kamala (a red lotus) and nillaniraja (a blue lotus) are connected with the action of being thrown into the back ground (tirasakrtatva), which is implied by the word ka All these are aprakrta in so far as they represent upamanas with reference to the eyes (drsh) Therefore, we have here aprakritanamekakriyasambandharupa tulyayogita Further, we suppose that kusuma and others are mutually similar on account of their possessing the characteristic of tiraskrtatva. Thus, the figure has the foundation of gamyopamya Three kinds of lotuses are mentioned as upamanas 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 udyota

Page 386

The second line also contains अप्रकृतानामेकक्रियासंवन्यरूपा तुल्ययोगिता,

The second line also contains a तुल्ययोगिता of the form अप्रकृतानामेकक्रियासंवन्यरूपा,

अमृतम् ( lower lip ), अमृतरश्मि ( the face in general ) and भ्रूजन्म ( eyes ) which as उपमानs are all अप्रकृत, are connected with the one action of प्रतिहतत्व These three are once again similar, because they possess the common property of प्रतिहतत्व and thus the figure has the foundation of गम्यौपम्य

The अमृतम् (lower lip), अमृतरश्मि (the face in general), and भ्रूजन्म (eyes), which as उपमानs are all अप्रकृत, are connected with the one action of प्रतिहतत्व. These three are once again similar because they possess the common property of प्रतिहतत्व, and thus the figure has the foundation of गम्यौपम्य.

सकृद्गम् -The word सकृत् shows that if the common property is mentioned more than once, तुल्ययोगिता does not occur

सकृद्गम् - The word सकृत् shows that if the common property is mentioned more than once, तुल्ययोगिता does not occur.

It must have been noticed that तुल्ययोगिता and the first variety of दीपक are very near each other Both possess the common charm of the once-mentioned common property being connected with many objects The ground of प्रकृताप्रकृतत्व, on which the two are regarded as distinct figures, does not constitute sufficient charm to give them each a separate individuality That is why Jagannātha maintains that these two figures should not be regarded as distinct, but that दीपक should be considered as a variety of तुल्ययोगिता Read रसगङ्गाधर pp 326-327

It must have been noticed that तुल्ययोगिता and the first variety of दीपक are very near each other. Both possess the common charm of the once-mentioned common property being connected with many objects. The ground of प्रकृताप्रकृतत्व, on which the two are regarded as distinct figures, does not constitute sufficient charm to give them each a separate individuality. That is why Jagannātha maintains that these two figures should not be regarded as distinct, but that दीपक should be considered as a variety of तुल्ययोगिता. Read रसगङ्गाधर pp 326-327.

Visvesvara quotes this view of Jagannātha apparently with approval, but controverts it only in this that he considers it proper to regard तुल्ययोगिता as a variety of दीपक and not दीपक of तुल्ययोगीता, because दीपक has been admitted by Bharata Read अलङ्कारकौस्तुभ pp 296–297

Visvesvara quotes this view of Jagannātha apparently with approval, but controverts it only in this that he considers it proper to regard तुल्ययोगिता as a variety of दीपक and not दीपक of तुल्ययोगीता, because दीपक has been admitted by Bharata. Read अलङ्कारकौस्तुभ pp 296–297.

तुल्ययोगिता-दीपकम् and उपमा

The following examples of उपमा satisfy the requirements of तुल्ययोगिता and दीपक ( 1 ) जगत् मानो हृदयादमुष्या विलोचनाभ्यामिव वारिधारा Here both मान and वारिधारा, which are प्रकृत, are connected with one common property viz गमन, which is but once mentioned, as in तुल्ययोगिता ( 2 ) कमलमिव सुन्दरं मुखम् Here a प्रकृत ( मुखम् ), and an अप्रकृत ( कमलम् ) are connected with a common property ( सुन्दर ), which is mentioned only once, as in दीपक How are these two figures then to be distinguished from उपमा ?

The following examples of उपमा satisfy the requirements of तुल्ययोगिता and दीपक. (1) जगत् मानो हृदयादमुष्या विलोचनाभ्यामिव वारिधारा. Here both मान and वारिधारा, which are प्रकृत, are connected with one common property viz गमन, which is but once mentioned, as in तुल्ययोगिता. (2) कमलमिव सुन्दरं मुखम्. Here a प्रकृत (मुखम्), and an अप्रकृत (कमलम्) are connected with a common property (सुन्दर), which is mentioned only once, as in दीपक. How are these two figures then to be distinguished from उपमा?

Distinction (1) In उपमा strikingness lies merely in similarity In तुल्ययोगिता and दीपक similarity may be present, but it does not constitute the charm of the figures The charm lies in the connection of many things with one common property (2) In उपमा similarity is expressed ( वाच्य ) by means of some such word as इव In तुल्ययोगिता and दीपक similarity is गम्य or implied and words like इव never occur

Distinction (1) In उपमा, strikingness lies merely in similarity. In तुल्ययोगिता and दीपक, similarity may be present, but it does not constitute the charm of the figures. The charm lies in the connection of many things with one common property. (2) In उपमा, similarity is expressed (वाच्य) by means of some such word as इव. In तुल्ययोगिता and दीपक, similarity is गम्य or implied, and words like इव never occur.

Page 387

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

( 18 ) व्यतिरेक or Distinction or Excellence

The figure व्यतिरेक consists in the excellence of the उपमेय (अन्यास्य ) over the उपमान स एव स = स व्यतिरेक आधिक्यम् उत्कर्ष एव स व्यतिरेकनामालङ्कार इत्यर्थः

The figure व्यतिरेक consists in the excellence of the उपमेय over the उपमान

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, then 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, रूपं रूपं साधया राग्णु माधव सादरम् । अकलङ्कं 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 point out that the word उपमानात् in the definition excludes such a sentence as 'कमुदादितिरिच्यते मुखम्' from the province of this figure, because कमुद is 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 (विशेषेण अतिरेक आधिक्यम् उत्कर्षः )

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 Mammata criticises the view of Rudrata ( 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

Rudrata gives 'क्षीणक्षीणोदपी' as an example, where उपमेयादुपमानस्य आधिक्यम् or उपमानादुपमेयस्य न्यूनता is established. Rudrata's idea is

Page 388

though the moon wanes, she waxes again and again. But youth, when once gone, returns not. Here the moon is the उपमान and youth the उपमेय As the moon possesses the peculiar characteristic of waxing again even after waning, she is superior to youth, which does not return when once it is gone So here we have the आधिक्य of the उपमान (शशी ) over the उपमेय (यौवनम् ) established Or to put it otherwise we have here the न्यूनता of the उपमेय (यौवनम् ) to the उपमान (शशी ) brought out Hence, the stanza is an example of व्यतिरेक, where उपमेयादुपमानस्य आधिक्यम् or उपमानादुपमेयस्य न्यूनता is established.

इत्यादौ विवक्षितम्

Mammata here controverts the view of Rudrata explained above He points out that though ‘ क्षीण क्षीणोडपि ’ is an example of व्यतिरेक, it is so not because उपमानगत आधिक्यम् or उपमेयगते न्यूनत्वम् is there established, but because as in the usual variety of व्यतिरेक admitted by all, उपमानादुपमेयस्य आधिक्यम् is brought out. He argues that the उपमेय,and the उपमान in this case are not यौवनम् and शशी, but यौवनास्थैर्यम् ( the instability of youth ) and शशिस्थैर्यम् respectively And surely यौवनास्थैर्यम् is greater than शशिस्थैर्यम्, because the moon waxes again after waning Thus, we have उपमानादुपमेयस्य आधिक्यम् established here.

These are then the two views about this stanza According to Rudrata ( केनचित् = रुद्रटेन ) holds that in this stanza the उपमेय and the उपमान are यौवनम् and शशी and as the superiority of the उपमान ( शशी ) over the उपमेय ( यौवनम् ) is here brought out, it is an example of व्यतिरेक. Mammata on the other hand points out that here the उपमेय and the उपमान are यौवनास्थैर्ये and शशिस्थैर्ये and as the superiority of the उपमेय ( यौवनास्थैर्यम् ) over the उपमान ( शशिस्थैर्ये ) is here intended to be stated ( विवक्षित ) , it is an example of व्यतिरेक

By the use of the word विवक्षितम् Mammata draws attention to the context of the stanza and suggests that his view as to what is established there is more favourable to the purpose which the stanza is intended to achieve than Rudrata's The stanza is addressed by a lover to his beloved, who out of pride is'keeping aloof from him It is intended to remove her anger and make her favourable What then would accomplish this purpose ? Surely, if it is impressed upon her that youth is a precious thing or a valued possession as it is the most unstable, and that the utmost possible ahvantage must, therefore, be derived from it as long as it lasts, she would give up her

Page 389

हेतोल्क्तौ त्रिरष्ट तत्—

In the statement of the cause, it is eightfold—

This Kārikā enumerates the divisions of vyatireka, which is stated to be thrice (triṣṭa) i e 24 vyatirek consists in the superiority of the upameya over the upamān. This superiority may arise from two causes (vyatirekasya ādhikyahetu) viz a point of excellence (utkarṣakāraṇam) found in the upameya and a point of inferiority (apakṣṇakāraṇam) found in the upamān. When these two causes are mentioned (hetvoh uktā), we get one variety of vyatireka. When either or both of the causes are not mentioned, three more varieties arise (bhuktitrinām traye). Thus, we get four varieties according as the causes of the superiority of the upameya over the upamān are or are not mentioned. Now, the similarity (sāmyam) or the upamānopameyam, which is at the basis of vyatireka can be either śabda, ārtha or ākṣipta according as it is conveyed respectively by a word such as एव, or by sense or in an implied manner (ārthena krameṇa 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 (ākṣipe ākṣepeṇa vyājñanena pratipādite)

Page 390

Thus the first four varieties being each three fold in this manner we get 12 varieties These 12 varieties are possible in श्लेष also or is based on paronomasia Thus, व्यतिरेक has 24 varieties. According to Viśvanātha additional 24 varieties are possible, when व्यतिरेक consists of उपमानस्य उपमेयाधिक्यम् Thus Viśvanātha's व्यतिरेक has 48 varieties

Thus the first four varieties being each three fold in this manner we get 12 varieties These 12 varieties are possible in śleṣa also or is based on paronomasia Thus, vyatireka has 24 varieties. According to Viśvanātha additional 24 varieties are possible, when vyatireka consists of upamānasyopameyādhikyaṃ Thus Viśvanātha's vyatireka has 48 varieties

Mammata's 24 divisions of व्यतिरेक may thus be shown.

Mammata's 24 divisions of vyatireka may thus be shown.

(1) शाब्दे साम्ये

(1) śābde sāmye

(1) हेतुद्रयौकौ (2) एकहेतु नुच्चौ (3) अपरहेतु नुच्चौ (4) हेतुद्रयानुच्चौ e. g असिमात्रसदृशायास्य

(1) hetudvayoktau (2) ekahētu nūccau (3) aparahētu nūccau (4) hetudvayanūccau e.g. asimātrasadr̥śāyāsya

(11) आर्थे साम्ये (111) आक्षेपे साम्ये (ii) and (iii) have the same four sub-divisions each as (1), which makes a total of 12 In श्लेष there are similar 12 Thus we get 24 in all

(11) ārthe sāmye (111) ākṣepe sāmye (ii) and (iii) have the same four sub-divisions each as (1), which makes a total of 12 In śleṣa there are similar 12 Thus we get 24 in all

Stanza 72—This stanza contains a commonplace description of a king The stanza in an example of अत्येषनिबन्धन हेतुद्रयोकौ शाब्दे साम्ये व्यतिरेक

Stanza 72—This stanza contains a commonplace description of a king The stanza is an example of atyēṣanibandhana hetudvayoktau śābde sāmye vyatireka

अत्र राजा उपमेय, अन्यजन उपमानय, अरिपराभाव साधारणो धर्मः, महाद्युतिलसुपमेयगतसादृश्येनिमित्तम्, तुच्छद्रूपमानगततत्सादृश्येनिमित्तं च इति द्वौ हेतू, उच्चौ, इतिशब्दप्रयोगात् साम्यं शाब्दम्, न कोऽपि शब्दः विशिष्ट इति व्यतिरेकस्य प्रथम-प्रकारोष्यम्

atra rājā upameya, anyajana upamānaya, ariparābhāva sādhāraṇo dharmaḥ, mahādyutilasupameyagatasādṛśyenimittaṃ, tuccadrūpamānagatatsādṛśyenimittaṃ ca iti dvau hetū, uccau, itiśabdaprayogāt sāmyam śābdam, na ko'pi śabdaḥ viśiṣṭa iti vyatirekasya prathama-prakāroṣyam

अत्रैव भेदत्रयम्—Here Mammata points out that by dropping तुच्छ and महाद्युति alternately and simultaneously we shall get the three other divisions included under शाब्दे साम्ये, thus ( 2 ) नूतनन्यजननस्येव न स्मयोदस्य महाद्युतेः, where उपमानगततत्सादृश्येनिमित्तम् is not mentioned, ( 3 ) अन्यतुच्छजनसस्येव न स्मयोदस्य महोपते, where उपमेयगतसादृश्येनिमित्तम् is not mentioned and ( 4 ) नूतनन्यजननस्येव न स्मयोदस्य महोपते, where both the उपमानगततत्सादृश्योनिमित्तम् and उपमेयगतसादृश्येनिमित्तम् are not mentioned Thus, stanza 72 is made to illustrate in all four varieties

atraiva bhedatrayam—Here Mammata points out that by dropping tucca and mahādyuti alternately and simultaneously we shall get the three other divisions included under śābde sāmye, thus (2) nūtananyajanasyeva na smayodasyamahādyuteḥ, where upamānagatatsādṛśyenimittam is not mentioned, (3) anyatucchajanasasyeva na smayodasyamahopate, where upameyagatasādṛśyenimittam is not mentioned and (4) nūtananyajanasyeva na smayodasyamahopate, where both the upamānagatatsādṛśyonimittam and upameyagatasādṛśyenimittam are not mentioned Thus, stanza 72 is made to illustrate in all four varieties

Stanza 73—This stanza serves as illustrations for four more varieties, where similarity is implied ( ध्वरे ) वत् in अन्यतुच्छजनवत् is used in the sense of तुल्य according to ' तेन तुल्यं० ' (for which vide p 371 above ), the common property being the action of defeating the enemies ( अरिपराभव ) If साम्ये he understood to represent the common

Stanza 73—This stanza serves as illustrations for four more varieties, where similarity is implied (dhvare) vat in anyatucchajanavat is used in the sense of tulya according to 'ten tulyaṃ' (for which vide p 371 above), the common property being the action of defeating the enemies (ariparabhava) If sāmye he understood to represent the common

Page 391

३३८

338

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 70

property, we must suppose न सगवों भवति as the proper common property, in order to make it an action as required by वत् in the sense of तुल्य

property, we must suppose 'na sagavāṁ bhavati' as the proper common property, in order to make it an action as required by 'vat' in the sense of 'tulya'

The stanza as it stands illustrates अश्लेषणिबन्धन हेतुद्र्योभौ आर्थे साम्ये व्यतिरेक, which is the fifth variety of व्यतिरेक The three other varieties, falling under आर्थे साम्ये would be illustrated by slightly changing the second line as follows (6) नूतं नैवान्यजनवत् सगवोंधे महाश्रुते:, where उपमानगत अपकर्षे कारण is not mentioned, (7) नैवानुतुच्छजनवत् सगवोंध्ये महीपतिः, where उपमेयगत उत्कर्षे कारण is not mentioned and (8) नूनं नैवान्यजनवत् सगवोंध्ये महीपतिः, where both these are not mentioned

The stanza as it stands illustrates 'aśleṣanibandhana hetudvayor arthasāmye vyatireka', which is the fifth variety of 'vyatireka'. The three other varieties, falling under 'arthasāmye' would be illustrated by slightly changing the second line as follows (6) 'nūtaṁ naivānyajanavat sagavāndhe mahāśruteḥ', where 'upamānagata apakarṣa kāraṇa' is not mentioned, (7) 'naivānucchajana-vat sagavāndhya mahīpatiḥ', where 'upameyagata utkarṣa kāraṇa' is not mentioned and (8) 'nūnaṁ naivānyajanavat sagavāndhya mahīpatiḥ', where both these are not mentioned

Stanza 74—This stanza illustrates the four varieties falling under साम्ये आक्षेपे

Stanza 74—This stanza illustrates the four varieties falling under 'sāmye ākṣepe'

अत्र इवादि 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 अर्थे The verb जयाति only suggests similarity Therefore, the साम्य is suggested here

Here 'iva' etc. 'upama'—This line explains how 'upama' (comparison or similarity) is suggested in stanza 74. Words like 'iva' and 'tulya' are absent. So the 'sāmyam' is neither 'śabda' nor 'artham'. The verb 'jayati' only suggests similarity. Therefore, the 'sāmyam' is suggested here

The stanza, as it stands, is an example of अश्लेषणिबन्धन हेतुद्र्योभौ आक्षेपे साम्ये व्यतिरेक This is thus explained अत्र आननस्युपमेयम्, इन्दु उपमानम्, अनुक्तमाह्लादकत्वं साधारणो धर्मः अकल्कित्स्वुपमानगतसुबर्हणिनिमित्ते, कल्कित्स्वुपमानगतनिमित्त-कर्शनिनिमित्त च इति हेतुद्र्यमुक्तम्, इवादीनां तुल्यादीनां वा पदाना मभावे जयतिपदेन आक्षेपे व्यङ्ग्य साम्यम्, न कोपिपदलक्षित श्रेष्ठ, इति व्यतिरेकस्य नवम प्रकारोऽयम् The three other varieties, falling under आक्षेपे साम्ये are illustrated by changing the second line as (10) आननेन मनोहोन जयतीन्दु कलङ्किनम्, where उपमेयगत उत्कर्षे-निमित्त is not mentioned, (11) आननेनाकलङ्केन जयत्यमृतदीधितिम् where उपमानगत अपकर्षानिमित्त is not mentioned and (12) आननेन मनोहोन जयत्यमृतदीधितिम्, where both these are not mentioned

The stanza, as it stands, is an example of 'aśleṣanibandhana hetudvayor ākṣepe sāmye vyatireka'. This is thus explained 'atra ānanasyupameyam', 'indūp upamānam', 'anuktamāhlādakatvaṁ sādhāraṇo dharmaḥ' 'akalkitsvupamānagatasubr̥ṇhanimitt', 'kalkitsvupamānagatanimittakarṣa-nimittam ca iti hetudvayamu-ktaṁ', 'ivādīnāṁ tulyādīnāṁ vā padānām abhāve jayatipadena ākṣepe vyaṅgya sāmyam', 'na kopipadalakṣita śreṣṭha', 'iti vyatirekasya navamaḥ prakāro'yam'. The three other varieties, falling under 'ākṣepe sāmye' are illustrated by changing the second line as (10) 'ānanena manohona jayatīndū kalankinam', where 'upameyagata utkarṣe-nimittam' is not mentioned, (11) 'ānanenākalankena jatyamr̥tadīdhiti-m', where 'upamānagata apakarṣānimittam' is not mentioned and (12) 'ānanena manohona jatyamr̥tadīdhiti-m', where both these are not mentioned

So far 12 varieties of व्यतिरेक, not based on श्लेष, are illustrated Mammata now proceeds to illustrate varieties of व्यतिरेक, based on श्लेष

So far 12 varieties of 'vyatireka', not based on 'śleṣa', are illustrated. Mammata now proceeds to illustrate varieties of 'vyatireka', based on 'śleṣa'

Stanfa 75—This stanza describes some king, who has conquered his senses, who waits upon those who are eminent in learning and whose virtues ( गुणा ) of a lotus This means that the king's virtues are permanent and not likely to disappear

Stanza 75—This stanza describes some king, who has conquered his senses, who waits upon those who are eminent in learning and whose virtues ('guṇā') are like 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 अङ्जसवत्=अङ्जस्य 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 illustrates the four varieties of 'śleṣanibandhana vyatireka', when the similarity is 'śabda vat' in 'aṅjasavat'='aṅjasya iva', according to 'tatra tasyeva', for which vide p 370 above. Therefore, 'sāmyam' is 'śabda' or expressed. The word 'guṇa' (virtue, fibre) is paronomastic

The stanza as it stands is an example of श्लेषणिबन्धन हेतुद्र्योभौ शब्दे साम्ये व्यतिरेक This may be thus explained अत्र 'अस्य' इत्यनेन निर्दिष्ट कश्चिद्

The stanza as it stands is an example of 'śleṣanibandhana hetu-drayor śabde sāmye vyatireka'. This may be thus explained 'atra 'asya' ityanena nir-diṣṭa kaścid'

Page 392

राजा उपमेय, अञ्जसुपमानम्, गुणवत्सु साधारणो धर्म, गाढगुणत्वसुपमेयगतमपकर्षनिमित्त व च हेतुदयोसुपफम्, इवार्थे वत्प्रतियय तेन औपम्य शब्दम्, गुणवाचक-

The king is the object of comparison, the moon is the standard of comparison, the common quality is beauty, the reason for the comparison is the intense beauty of the king, and the word used is 'upamā', which indicates similarity.

शिष्ट इति अर्थ श्लेषणविनिर्वचन हेतुद्रयोक्तौ शब्दे साम्ये व्यतिरेक The other three varieties, falling under शब्दे साम्ये, are illustrated by slightly changing the second line as (14) सत्कर्मनिरतस्यास्तु नात्ज्जवत् महद्वयशो गणा, where उपमेयवत् नात्ज्जवत् is not mentioned, (15) अतिगाढगुणस्यास्तु नात्ज्जवत् सन्ति वै गुणा, where उपमानगत अपकर्षनिमित्त is not mentioned and (16) सत्कर्मनिरतस्यास्तु नात्ज्जवत् सन्ति वै गुणा, where both these are not mentioned

The other three varieties, where the similarity is in the word, are illustrated by slightly changing the second line as (14) 'The fame of one who is engaged in good deeds is not like that of Nāṭajavat', where 'like the object of comparison' is not mentioned, (15) 'The qualities of one who is extremely beautiful are not like those of Nāṭajavat', where the reason for the comparison is not mentioned, and (16) 'The qualities of one who is engaged in good deeds are not like those of Nāṭajavat', where both these are not mentioned.

Page 71

Stanza 76—This stanza describes a certain king, who possesses a full circle of monarchs and who is not deficient in arts The words मण्डल and कला are paronomastic. मण्डलम् means (1) the circle of a king's near and distant monarchs This is the sense मण्डल has in the science of politics, (2) orb कला (1) arts, which are 64 in number, (2) digits वत् in निशाकरवत् (=निशाकरेण तुल्यम्) is affixed in the sense of तुल्य

Stanza 76—This stanza describes a certain king, who possesses a full circle of monarchs and who is not deficient in arts. The words 'maṇḍala' and 'kalā' are paronomastic. 'Maṇḍalam' means (1) the circle of a king's near and distant monarchs. This is the sense 'maṇḍala' has in the science of politics, (2) orb. 'Kalā' (1) arts, which are 64 in number, (2) digits. 'Vat' in 'niśākaravat' (= 'like the moon') is affixed in the sense of 'similarity'.

अत्र पृथिवीपति उपमेय, निशाकर उपमानम्, मण्डलवत्च व साधारणगुणी, अखण्डमण्डलस्थुपमेयगतमुक्तर्षनिमित्त व हेतुदयसुम्फम्, तुल्यार्थे वत्प्रतियय, तेन औपम्यार्थम् मण्डलकलालाञ्छन्दौ श्लेषौ इति अर्थ श्लेषणविनिर्वचन हेतुद्रयोकौ अर्थे साम्ये, व्यतिरेक सप्तदशम्

Here, the king is the object of comparison, the moon is the standard of comparison, the common quality is the circle, the reason for the comparison is the excellence of the king in the unbroken circle, and the word used is 'vat', which indicates similarity. The two paronomastic words 'maṇḍala' and 'kalā' are used to indicate the similarity in meaning, and the difference is in the seventeenth.

(18) बहुलारिगतोऽप्येष श्रीमानुद्दतविक्रम । न निशाकरवज्जातु कलावैकल्यमागमत् ॥

(18) 'Though surrounded by many enemies, this glorious one with great prowess never suffered a deficiency in his arts, unlike the moon.'

Stanza 77—This stanza compares a certain king with Hara, Hari and the sun by means of paronomastic adjectives with a view to establish his superiority over these gods

Stanza 77—This stanza compares a certain king with Hara, Hari, and the sun by means of paronomastic adjectives with a view to establish his superiority over these gods.

विषमहत्क (3) विषमा असंख्या तिस्र इत्यर्थ दृष्टया विलोकनानि यथा-

'Viṣamahatk' (3) 'Viṣamā' means 'three', and 'drṣṭyā' means 'by the sight' or 'by the glance'.

Page 393

३४०

340

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

साम्यविीहना पक्षपातिनो (partial) हृ्टि· अस्य The idea is the king is not विषमद्टि or partial, as Śiva is विषमद्टि or odd-eyed i e three-eyed

The idea is that the king is not partial, just as Śiva is not odd-eyed, i.e., three-eyed

The comparison is based on वैधर्म्ये and establishes the king to be superior to Śiva विधूतविततदृश (1) विधूत व्याक्षिप्त निधन प्राप्त इत्यर्थ विततो

The comparison is based on the difference and establishes the king to be superior to Śiva

महान् वृष धृषाकार असुर येन The reference here is to Krṣna's slaughter of a demon who appeared in the form of a bull (2) विधूत अनादृत विततो महान् वृष धर्म येन who sets aside or neglects his great Duty Note

The reference here is to Krṣna's slaughter of a demon who appeared in the form of a bull

'धृषो धर्मे बलीवर्दे राक्ष्यां पुराशिमेदयो । श्रेष्ठे स्वादुतररसरक्षा नासमूषकशुक्ले । वृषा मूषिकपत्न्यां च' मेदिनी

In this stanza the उपमेय is the king referred to by विभो, the उपमानs are many viz हर, हरि and रवि, the 'common' properties by way of वैधर्म्ये are suggested by the paronomastic adjectives, the words विषम, वृष and कर are paronomastic, the cause of the inferiority of the उपमानs to the उपमेय viz विषमदृष्टित्वम्, विधूतविततदृशत्वम् and दू सहकारितापितभूलम् are mentioned, the causes of the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमानs समदृष्टित्व are not mentioned and वत् in हरवत्, हरिवत् and रविवत् is used in the sense of तल्य Therefore, the stanza is an example of श्रेष्ठनिवन्धन उपमानगतापकर्षणिनिमित्तको भाध्ये साम्ये माठारूप' व्यक्तिरेकः

In this stanza, the object of comparison is the king referred to by 'Vibho', the subjects of comparison are many, viz., 'Hara', 'Hari', and 'Ravi', the 'common' properties by way of difference are suggested by the paronomastic adjectives, the words 'Viṣama', 'Vṛṣa', and 'Kara' are paronomastic, the cause of the inferiority of the subjects of comparison to the object of comparison, viz., 'Viṣamadṛṣṭitva', 'Vidhūtavitatadrśatva', and 'Dū Sahakāritāpitabhūlam', are mentioned, the causes of the superiority of the object of comparison over the subjects of comparison, 'Samadṛṣṭitva', are not mentioned, and 'Vat' in 'Haravat', 'Harivat', and 'Ravivat' is used in the sense of 'Tatlya'. Therefore, the stanza is an example of 'Śreṣṭhanibandhana Upamānagatāpakarṣaṇinimitta Adhyāya Sāmya Mātrārūpa Vyaktireka'.

Thus, this stanza illustrates one of the 24 varieties which मालाहूप्यतिरेक can possibly have Mammata now proceeds to illustrate the remaining four varieties falling under आक्षेपे साम्ये of श्रेष्ठनिबन्धन व्यतिरेक

Thus, this stanza illustrates one of the 24 varieties which 'Mālāvyatireka' can possibly have. Mammata now proceeds to illustrate the remaining four varieties falling under 'Ākṣepe Sāmya' of 'Śreṣṭhanibandhana Vyatireka'.

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 नित्योदितप्रताप and the king is not नित्यामालीतप्रभ 'The word विनिन्जित suggests साम्य or similarity नित्योदित-

Stanza 78 - This stanza makes out a certain king to be superior to the sun in so far as while the king's valour is always prominent, the sun's lustre is shut during the night. Here the word 'Bhāsvat' is paronomastic, meaning possessed of lustre and the sun. Implied paronomasia is also present in the word 'Pratāpa' and 'Prabhā'. For the suggestion is that the sun is not always radiant and the king is not always lustrous. The word 'Vininjita' suggests similarity or 'Sāmya'.

प्रतापत्वम्, which is उपमेयगतसुत्कर्षणिनिमित्तम् and नित्यामालीतप्रभत्पम्, which is उपमानगतापकर्षणिनिमित्तम्, are mentioned Therefore, the stanza as it stands exemplifies श्रेष्ठनिबन्धन हेतुद्वयोभाक्षिपे साम्ये व्यतिरेक

'Pratāpatva', which is the cause of the superiority of the object of comparison, and 'Nityamālitaprabhātva', which is the cause of the inferiority of the subject of comparison, are mentioned. Therefore, the stanza as it stands exemplifies 'Śreṣṭhanibandhana Hetudvayobhākṣepe Sāmya Vyatireka'.

Page 72

The other three varieties, coming under आक्षिपे साम्ये, can be illustrated by changing the first line as (22) समरासक्तमनसा न्रियामामीलितप्रभं, where उपमेयगतसुत्कर्षकारणम् is not mentioned, (23) नित्योदितप्रतापेन पद्मावलिनन्दन where उपमानगतापकर्षकारणम् is not mentioned, and (24) समरासक्तमनसा

The other three varieties, coming under 'Ākṣepe Sāmya', can be illustrated by changing the first line as (22) 'Samarāsaktamansā Nityamāmīlitaprabham', where the cause of the superiority of the object of comparison is not mentioned, (23) 'Nityoditapratāpena Padmāvalinandanam', where the cause of the inferiority of the subject of comparison is not mentioned, and (24) 'Samarāsaktamansā'.

Page 394

पक्वावलिजिनन्दन*,

where both these are not mentioned Here श्लेषनिबन्धनस्त्व is somehow to be understood by taking भास्वत as the लिष्ट word.

Stanza 79—

We have seen above that साम्य, which is necessary for व्यतिरेकं, is either शब्द or expressed by words like इव, or अर्थ or implied by words like तुल्य, or स्वाधीत or suggested by words like जयति and विनिर्जित Mammata quotes this stanza to show that even when words like इव, तुल्य and जयति are absent, suggested comparison or similarity (आक्षित्सा उपमा ) is apprehended by means of paronomastic adject ives themselves ( लिष्टविशेषणैरैव प्रतीतते )

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 उपमानं is उपमेय, हृद्र is उपमान, the paronomastic adjectives represent the common properties and तृष्णाया सहारणं, which is उपमानगतसाम्यपकारणं, and तृण्णाया हरणं, which is उपमानगतसाम्यपकारणं, are both mentioned The similarity is suggested by means of the paronomastic adjectives Therefore, this stanza is an example of श्लेषनिबन्धन हैदृद्योक्ती लिष्टविशेषणैः भाक्तिते साम्ये व्यतिरेकः

स्वच्छालमना° = स्वच्छात्मता-निर्मलस्वारुपमेव गुण तेन समुज्ज्वलित प्रतीतिमितम् ह्न्दुविम्ब यत्र

This explanation is applicable to both the wine and the mouth. The moon was reflected in the wine standing in a cup and also on the cheeks of the face owing to their clearness or transparency.

विम्बप्रभा धरम् (1) विम्बस्य विम्बफलस्य प्रभां रक्तशोभा धरति इति The wine had the red lustre of the Bimba fruit (2) विम्बप्रभ भ्रर यस्य The face had the lower lip, which was red like the Bimba fruit भ्रक्रुनिमहारगन्धम्—Both wine and mouth possessed natural and attractive fragrance

Here there is only one adjective viz बिम्बप्रमाधरम्, which is properly लिष्ट i e पर्योपरिलक्ष्यसह Yet Mammata speaks of लिष्टविशेषण He apparently takes the other two adjectives also, where a double shade of meaning can be found in स्वच्छात्मतागुण and गन्ध, as paronomastic.

एवंजातीयकं दृष्ट्वा —

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 ( लिष्टोक्तियोग ), is separately mentioned. Mammata evidently borrows this variety from Udbhata,

Page 395

छिद्योपहितयोः्यवधानदस्य प्रयत्नगुरुत्वाह्लादौ । विशेषापादन यत् स्वाद व्यतिरेकः स च स्तुतः ॥

The definition of vyatireka is given as: 'The vyatireka is that which is praised, where there is a difference between two things, and where there is a great effort or joy.'

who defines it as follows

In all the above examples of the व्यतिरेक the superiority of the उपमेय over the उपमान is suggested Sometimes such superiority is actually expressed as in ‘निलोऽपाङ्गाधरे मे प्रियाया बदन मतम् । विलासैरह्नः्यैक शैष मधुरैर्‌ोष्णैस्तथा ॥’ Sometimes व्यतिरेक shines prominent, throwing into the back-ground some other figure. Thus, in ‘निष्कलङ्क निरालङ्क चतु पष्टिकलाधरः ! सदा पूर्ण महीप त्वं चन्द्रोज्ज्वलति मुखा वचः’ we have व्यतिरेक, which throws into the background रूपक In ‘प्रियाया बदनेनैव पहुँजे सहसा नहि । विलासैः शोभमानत्वाद्‌विकसिताद्‌विधूदये’ व्यतिरेक sets aside प्रतिप ( for which see p. 120 ).

In all the above examples of vyatireka, the superiority of the upameya over the upamana is suggested. Sometimes such superiority is actually expressed as in 'The face of my beloved is considered to be the abode of beauty, just like the moon is considered to be the abode of nectar.' Sometimes vyatireka shines prominently, throwing into the background some other figure. Thus, in 'Your face is like the full moon, without any blemish or ornament,' we have vyatireka, which throws into the background rupaka. In 'The face of my beloved is not surpassed by the full moon in beauty, because it is adorned with charm,' vyatireka sets aside pratip (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 उपमेयगतोल्कर्षनिमित्त 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 हेतुहेतुमद्‌व्यान्तर व्यतिरेक especially this becomes very difficult For, हेतु 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 हेतु 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,

Out of the 24 varieties into which, according to Mammata, vyatireka is divided, six (4, 8, 12, 16, 20, 24) occur when neither the upameyagatoktarsanimitta nor the upamanagatapakarsanimitta is mentioned. Here one has to note that it is rather difficult to realize the presence of vyatireka in these cases, when neither of these two characteristics that are responsible for bringing out the superiority of the upameya over the upamana is present. For, in their absence, the stanzas reduce themselves to some negative or positive statement from which the special characteristic of vyatireka cannot be easily had. In the case of hetuhetumad-vyanantara vyatireka especially, this becomes very difficult. For, hetu usually finds a place in the words which bring out upameyotkarsa and upamanapakarsa. But when these are not used, how can there be the basis of hetu for the vyatireka, even supposing that it is there? Therefore, it is contended that these six varieties should somehow be accounted for. Read Rasgangadhar p. 350.

Another point to which attention must be drawn is that the passage on pp. 77–78, which deals with मालव्यतिरेक, has evidently been misplaced there. Treatment to the मात्रा 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 मालव्यतिरेक should be read after प्रतोत्पत्ति on p. 79.

Another point to which attention must be drawn is that the passage on pp. 77-78, which deals with malavyatireka, has evidently been misplaced there. Treatment to the matra 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 malavyatireka should be read after pratipatti on p. 79.

(19) आक्षेप or Paralipsis

(19) Aksepa or Paralipsis

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 प्रधान or relevant As such it does not deserve to be relegated to a subordinate position (अनुपसर्जनीकृत). Consequently if it is denied, that denial cannot in the very nature of things be real, but is only apparent (निषेध हि). This apparent denial has a purpose

The figure aksepa arises when there is a denial of something, which is intended to be said, with a view to express some specialty or special meaning. The thing which is intended to be said is naturally pradhana or relevant. As such, it does not deserve to be relegated to a subordinate position (anupasarjanikrta). Consequently, if it is denied, that denial cannot in the very nature of things be real, but is only apparent (nisedha hi). This apparent denial has a purpose.

Page 396

viz to convey that the thing which is denied is either impossible to express (अशक्यवचकन्यात्व) or too well known The denial may refer either to what is about to be said, but is not actually said (वक्ष्यमाणविषय), or to what has been said

viz to convey that the thing which is denied is either impossible to express or too well known The denial may refer either to what is about to be said, but is not actually said, or to what has been said

आक्षेप is thus of two kinds.

Ākṣepa is thus of two kinds.

It will be seen from the above that the constituents of आक्षेप are four viz (1) There is a certain thing which is intended to be said (2) That thing is denied (3) The denial being improper under the circumstances is only apparent (4) Some special meaning is conveyed by this apparent denial Read 'एवं च आक्षेपे इष्यार्थ, तस्य निषेध, निषेधस्य अनुपपत्तौ मानत्वाद सत्यम्, विशेषप्रतिपादनं च इति चतुर्थ्यसुपपयते' भलेकादारसर्वस्व Page 73

It will be seen from the above that the constituents of Ākṣepa are four viz (1) There is a certain thing which is intended to be said (2) That thing is denied (3) The denial being improper under the circumstances is only apparent (4) Some special meaning is conveyed by this apparent denial Read 'Thus, in Ākṣepa, the intended meaning, its denial, the denial being improper under the circumstances is only apparent, and some special meaning is conveyed by this apparent denial'

अनुपसर्जनीकार्यस्य—उपसर्जन is a technical term in Sanskrit grammar.

Anupasṛjanīkāryasya—Upasarga is a technical term in Sanskrit grammar.

It means a word which either by composition or derivation loses its original independent character, while it also determines the meaning of another word

Thus, in राजपुरष् ‘राजन्’ becomes an उपसर्जन, because having been compounded with पुरष it loses its independent character, or in पाणिनीय (a pupil of Pāṇini) पाणिनी is an उपसर्जन, because the word पाणिनीय is derived from it. उपसर्जन then comes to mean गौण or अप्रधान as opposed to प्रधान.

Thus, in Rājavaṃśa, 'Rājan' becomes an Upasarga, because having been compounded with Purusa it loses its independent character, or in Pāṇinīya (a pupil of Pāṇini) Pāṇini is an Upasarga, because the word Pāṇinīya is derived from it. Upasarga then comes to mean Gauna or Apradhāna as opposed to Pradhāna.

The use of this technical term from grammar shows Mammata's inclination towards that science

अशक्यवचकन्यात्वम् इति प्रसिद्धत्वे वा—Mammata gives these two as the special senses that are conveyed by the apparent denial in आक्षेप But it must not be supposed these are the only two विशेषs that are possible in this figure What the विशेष is in a particular stanza depends on the special circumstances of the case described therein.

Aśakyavacakanyātvam iti prasiddhatve vā—Mammata gives these two as the special senses that are conveyed by the apparent denial in Ākṣepa But it must not be supposed these are the only two Viśeṣas that are possible in this figure What the Viśeṣa is in a particular stanza depends on the special circumstances of the case described therein.

निषेध इति—This represents Mammata's paraphrase of the word निषेध used in the Kārikā.

Niṣedha iti—This represents Mammata's paraphrase of the word Niṣedha used in the Kārikā.

निषेध in the Kārikā thus means निषेधाभास This is certainly loose writing.

आक्षेप: Literally means throwing off or away The figure is so called, because it involves the apparent throwing off of the इष्यार्थे आक्षेप परित्यागः

Ākṣepaḥ: Literally means throwing off or away The figure is so called, because it involves the apparent throwing off of the desired meaning

It is so called, because it involves the apparent throwing off of the इष्यार्थे आक्षेप परित्यागः

Stanza 80 —This is an address to a nāyaka on behalf of a nāyikā,

Stanza 80 —This is an address to a Nāyaka on behalf of a Nāyikā,

In this stanza, the speaker, who is a female messenger, first declares her intention of speaking something for the nāyikā Then she revokes her intention.

In this stanza, the speaker, who is a female messenger, first declares her intention of speaking something for the Nāyikā Then she revokes her intention.

So here we have वक्ष्यमाणविषय आक्षेप: The special meaning intended to be conveyed is अशक्यवचकत्वम् The affliction which the nāyikā is suffering from is so great that it is impossible to describe it.

Page 397

३५८

358

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[Page 73

Stanza 81—This stanza is once more नायिकां प्रति दूत्या उक्तिः The messenger reports to him that love is causing such great torment to the nāyikā that vell-known cool appliances such as the moon-light, the pearl-necklace etc. cause her a burning sensation. Then she remarks ut it is no use saying these things to him. Therefore, she would not. Thus, here as the messenger denies what she has actually said, the stanza is an example of उत्कविषय 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.

Stanza 81—This stanza is once again the messenger's statement to the heroine. The messenger reports to him that love is causing such great torment to the nāyikā that well-known cool appliances such as the moon-light, the pearl-necklace etc. cause her a burning sensation. Then she remarks that it is no use saying these things to him. Therefore, she would not. Thus, here as the messenger denies what she has actually said, the stanza is an example of उत्कविषय 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. वस्यमाणविषय and उत्कविषय According to Viśvanātha each of these varieties is again (1) कविकर्तव्यतापे सामान्यत सूचितस्य निषेधः (2) कविदर्शितोऽज्ञाततरे निपेध हति द्वौ भेदौ। उत्कविषये च (3) कविकृत वस्तुस्वरूपपरतैय निषेध (4) कविकृत वस्त्वन्तर्गतस्य इति द्वौ। इत्थाक्षेप स्पष्टीकारो भेदा १ साहिल्यदर्पणे Stanzas 80 and 81 illustrate (1) and (4) The illustrations of (2) and (3) are (2) तब विदेह हरिणाक्षी निरेक्ष्य नावमालिकां दलिलाम्। हन्त नितान्तमिदानीनीम-आ किं हत जल्पितैरस्या म्रियतेऽङ्गो न किञ्चित्। अत्र 'मरिष्यति' इति अङ्गेऽपि नोक्तिः। अत्र अशक्यकृत्यत्वादिति विशेषः। (३) नाहं दूती तस्याः प्रियोजिताऽस्मि न मम ष्यापारः। सा म्रियष्यति तदायुषा एव धमनीकरे भणाम। अत्र बालक मृत्योलेपि वस्तुनो निपेधः। अथ मृत्योलेपि यथार्थवादित्वं विशेषः। सा दू

Two kinds of आक्षेप have thus been illustrated viz. वस्यमाणविषय and उत्कविषय. According to Viśvanātha, each of these varieties is again divided into (1) कविकर्तव्यतापे सामान्यत सूचितस्य निषेधः and (2) कविदर्शितोऽज्ञाततरे निपेध, making two types. In उत्कविषय, there are also (3) कविकृत वस्तुस्वरूपपरतैय निषेध and (4) कविकृत वस्त्वन्तर्गतस्य, making two more types. Stanzas 80 and 81 illustrate (1) and (4). The illustrations of (2) and (3) are (2) तब विदेह हरिणाक्षी निरेक्ष्य नावमालिकां दलिलाम्। हन्त नितान्तमिदानीनीम-आ किं हत जल्पितैरस्या म्रियते ऽङ्गो न किञ्चित्। Here, 'मरिष्यति' is not mentioned even in the body. The special feature here is that it is impossible to do. (3) नाहं दूती तस्याः प्रियोजिताऽस्मि न मम ष्यापारः। सा म्रियष्यति तदायुषा एव धमनीकरे भणाम। Here, even though the child is destined to die, the object is denied. The special feature here is that it is a statement of fact. सा दू

Considerable difference of opinion is found among rhetoricians regarding the exact nature of आक्षेप Bhāmaha, whom Udbhata (p 29) copies almost verbatim, Mammata and Viśvesvara Paṇḍita define this figure in exactly the same way

Considerable difference of opinion is found among rhetoricians regarding the exact nature of आक्षेप. Bhāmaha, whom Udbhata (p 29) copies almost verbatim, Mammata, and Viśvesvara Paṇḍita define this figure in exactly the same way.

Ruyyaka Viśvanātha, Vidyādhara, define आक्षेप like Mammata, but mention an additional variety which consists in the apparent permission of what is not desired.

Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha, and Vidyādhara define आक्षेप like Mammata, 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

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 निषेध्यप्रतिषेध variety of this figure.

Vāmana defines आक्षेप as 'उपमानादेशवाक्योऽक्षेपः' का सू. 4.3.27 and his आक्षेप would correspond to Mammata's अर्थापत्ति and समाधोक्ति It will thus be seen that Vāmana's आक्षेप has nothing in common with the आक्षेप of Mammata and Viśvanātha except the name.

Vāmana defines आक्षेप as 'उपमानादेशवाक्योऽक्षेपः' in सूत्र 4.3.27, and his आक्षेप would correspond to Mammata's अर्थापत्ति and समाधोक्ति. It will thus be seen that Vāmana's आक्षेप has nothing in common with the आक्षेप of Mammata and Viśvanātha except the name.

Jagamātha 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.

Jagamātha 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.

Page 398

In आक्षेप apparent denial is resorted to in order to convey some special sense (विरोधाभासितस्य). This special sense is only suggested (व्यङ्ग्यार्थे). It is व्यङ्ग्यार्थे, 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 व्यङ्ग्यार्थे. Consequently, आक्षेप is not उत्तम or चानकाव्य, but मध्यम or गुणवृत्तिव्यङ्ग्यच

( 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 उत्पन्नकुसुमस्तबकाद् दृष्टा सा परिकल्पिता। 67' श्लील्यदर्पण x

क्रियाया= The word क्रिया in the Kārikā means just कारण क्रियते उत्क्षयते कार्यमनया इति क्रिया कारणम्. According to the grammarians a cause is always an action ('वैयाकरणमते क्रियैव हेतुरिति क्रियते इति' '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 भाष्यह, उद्दट and वामन use the same term

The name विभावना is significant. It is explained in four ways (1) विभाध्यते अनुमीयते कारणाल्ले प्रसिद्धात कारणाद् अन्यत् कारणं वस्याम् (2) विशिष्टतया कार्यस्य भावनात् (3) विरुद्धेन प्रसिद्धकारणाभावेऽपि भवना कार्यस्य उत्पत्तौ' वस्याम्। (4) विगता भावना कारणं प्रसिद्ध कारण वस्यां सा ।

Stanza 82-This stanza contains the description of a woman in separation.

Here the effects रजस्रत, परिरक्ती ते स्म and अपूर्णत have taken place even when the causes, लताहननच, आलिङ्गने and मलिनीकृतोलेखन respectively are not present. Of couese in all these cases, the special cause is असष्टविरहू Since it is not mentioned, the stanza is an example of अनुज्ञापनिमिता विभावना.

Page 399

३४६

346

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 74

An example of उत्प्रेक्षित्त विभावना is 'भनायासकृशो मध्यमवसक्तरले दृशौ ।

An example of utprekṣita vibhāvanā is 'bhanāyāsakṛśo madhyamavasaktarale dṛśau |

अभूषणमनोहारि वपुरवयसि सुङ्गव ॥' साहिन्यदर्पण Here the real cause viz वयसू ( age 1 e youth ) is mentioned

abhūṣaṇamanoḥāri vapuravayasasi suṅgava ||' sāhityadarpaṇa Here the real cause viz vayasū ( age i.e. youth ) is mentioned

In dealing with the figure अतिशयोक्ति it was pointed out that it is found to be at the basis of many other figures विभावना is one of such

In dealing with the figure atiśayokti it was pointed out that it is found to be at the basis of many other figures vibhāvanā is one of such

Thus, in stanza 82 the रस्ह, which is caused to a विरहिणी by the sight of flowering creepers, is really different from the रस्ह, which is the result of हनन Yet, the two are identified and on this identification the statement that the result ( रस्ह ) has arisen without its cause ( लताहननम् ) is based Thus, here at the basis of विभावना lies भेदेऽपि अभेदरूपा अतिशयोक्ति Similarly, in 'अनायासकृशो मध्यम' the कायस्य of the waist, which is the result of exercise ( आयास ), is different from the कायस्य or slenderness, which is the result of youth. But the two are here identified Hence, there is भेदेऽपि अभेदरूपा अतिशयोक्ति

Thus, in stanza 82 the rasah, which is caused to a virahiṇī by the sight of flowering creepers, is really different from the rasah, which is the result of hanana Yet, the two are identified and on this identification the statement that the result ( rasah ) has arisen without its cause ( latāhananam ) is based Thus, here at the basis of vibhāvanā lies bheda'pi abhedarūpā atiśayokti Similarly, in 'anāyāsakṛśo madhyama' the kāyasya of the waist, which is the result of exercise ( āyāsa ), is different from the kāyasya or slenderness, which is the result of youth. But the two are here identified Hence, there is bheda'pi abhedarūpā atiśayokti

( 21 ) विशेषोक्ति or Speech of Speciality or Peculiar Allegation.

( 21 ) viśeṣokti or Speech of Speciality or Peculiar Allegation.

विशेषोक्ति is the exact opposite of विभावना It consists in the non-statement of the fruit ( फलस्य श्रवणं श्रुतेन ) i e in the statement that an effect does not arise when the causes are unbroken i e are operating properly कारणेषु in the Kārikāi means the ordinary well known causes When such causes properly work, it is natural that the effect should follow When, however, an effect is represented as not following inspite of the causes working, we gather that this must be due to some cause which is not so well-known, but which prevents the production of the effect all the same According as this not-so-well-known cause is not mentioned ( अनुच्यते ), or is mentioned, or is incomprehensible ( अचिन्त्य ) विशेषोक्ति has three varieties. Ruyyaka says that अनुक्तनिमित्ता includes अचिन्त्यानिमित्ता So विशेषोक्तिः, according to him, has only two varieties viz. उक्तनिमित्ता and अनुक्तनिमित्ता Read अलङ्कारसर्वस्व pp 126-127

viśeṣokti is the exact opposite of vibhāvanā It consists in the non-statement of the fruit ( phalasya śravaṇaṃ śrutena ) i.e. in the statement that an effect does not arise when the causes are unbroken i.e. are operating properly kāraṇeṣu in the Kārikāi means the ordinary well known causes When such causes properly work, it is natural that the effect should follow When, however, an effect is represented as not following inspite of the causes working, we gather that this must be due to some cause which is not so well-known, but which prevents the production of the effect all the same According as this not-so-well-known cause is not mentioned ( anucyate ), or is mentioned, or is incomprehensible ( acintya ) viśeṣokti has three varieties. Ruyyaka says that anuktanimittā includes acintyānimittā So viśeṣoktiḥ, according to him, has only two varieties viz. uktanimittā and anuktanimittā Read alankārasarvasva pp 126-127

The name विशेषोक्ति is significant. It is explained as सत्सु अपि कारणेषु कार्याभावरूपस्य विशेषस्य उक्ति अस्यामिति विशेषोक्तिः ।

The name viśeṣokti is significant. It is explained as satsū api kāraṇeṣu kāryābhāvarūpasya viśeṣasya ukti asyāmiti viśeṣoktiḥ |

Stanza 83—This stanza describes how passionately a wanton girl loved her paramour Here निद्रानिमित्ता, गुरुतनोदय, सखीजने प्राप्तिः and भुजङ्गस्य आलिङ्गनं श्लेष शैथिल्यम् are the ordinary causes which should have produced the result viz आलिङ्गनत-छलनम् or आलिङ्गनपरित्याग But this result has not followed. The cause which prevented this result from happening is the girl's intense passion for her lover ( अनुरागातिशय ) This cause has not been mentioned. Therefore, the stanza is an example of अनुक्तनिमित्ता विशेषोक्तिः

Stanza 83—This stanza describes how passionately a wanton girl loved her paramour Here nidrānimittā, gurutanoday, sakhījane prāptiḥ and bhujaṅgasya āliṅganamśleṣa śaithilyam are the ordinary causes which should have produced the result viz āliṅganata-chalanam or āliṅganaparityāga But this result has not followed. The cause which prevented this result from happening is the girl's intense passion for her lover ( anurāgātiśaya ) This cause has not been mentioned. Therefore, the stanza is an example of anuktanimittā viśeṣoktiḥ

Page 400

Stanza 84—Love was burnt down by Śiva. The burning away of the body is the ordinary cause, which produces the effect viz the loss of strength But this effect did not follow in the case of Love. For, Love .is ever so powerful in every individual ( जने जने = प्रतिजनं प्रतिपुरुषमित्यर्थ ) Here, the cause why गक्तिनाश did not follow शरीरदाह is the irresistible power of Cupid That has been mentioned in the expression अवार्यवीर्योक्तौ Hence, the stanza is an example of उत्तानिमित्ता विशेषोक्ति अत्र शरीरदाह शक्तिनाशो कारणं, सत्यपि तस्मिन् कारणे शक्तिव्यसनुपकार्यनुत्प्रणत्ति विशेषोक्तिः । सा च निमित्तस्य अवार्यवीर्यत्वात् उक्तत्वात् उक्तनिमित्ता

This stanza is राजशेखर's बालरामायण III, 11, where the second line reads ' नम रक्षारविजाय तस्मै कुसुमधन्वने ' ( जीवानन्द's edition 1884 p 117 ) कपूर इव दग्ध - This suggests complete burning away When camphor is burnt up, it leaves no trace behind Even so was Cupid burnt by Śiva. Thus, the comparison in ' कपूर इव दग्ध ', extends up to दग्ध: only and not up to शक्तिमान् as pointed out by प्रदीप

This stanza is Rājaśekhara's Bālarāmāyaṇa III, 11, where the second line reads ' nama rakṣāravijāya tasmai kusumadhanvane ' ( Jīvananda's edition 1884 p 117 ) kapūra iva dagdha - This suggests complete burning away When camphor is burnt up, it leaves no trace behind Even so was Cupid burnt by Śiva. Thus, the comparison in ' kapūra iva dagdha ', extends up to dagdhaḥ only and not up to śaktimān as pointed out by Pradīpa

This stanza is भामह III 28 It illustrates अविनिमित्ता विशेषोक्ति अविन्यस्त्वं lies in the fact that though Śiva deprived Cupid of his body, he did not rob him of his strength

This stanza is Bhāmaha III 28 It illustrates avinimittā viśeṣoṅkti avinyastvaṃ lies in the fact that though Śiva deprived Cupid of his body, he did not rob him of his strength

We have seen before that Ruyyaka remarks that अविनिमित्ता विशेषोक्ति, is included under अनुक्तानिमित्ता Though this is true in a way, a distinction between the two can be made अनुक्तानिमित्ता is that in which the cause, though known, is not mentioned अविनिमित्ता on the other hand is that in which the cause is not mentioned, because it cannot be known

We have seen before that Ruyyaka remarks that avinimittā viśeṣoṅkti, is included under anuktānimittā Though this is true in a way, a distinction between the two can be made anuktānimittā is that in which the cause, though known, is not mentioned avinimittā on the other hand is that in which the cause is not mentioned, because it cannot be known

It will be recalled that the figures विभावना and विशेषोक्ति were referred to in the explanation of ' अत्र सुप्तो न कविलदकार ' occurring on p 4 There we realized that though Mammata does not say so definitely, his opinion is that विभावना and विशेषोक्ति require, in order that they should be स्पष्ट or distinct, that the कारणाभाव in विभावना and the कार्याभाव in विशेषोक्ति should be stated as such i e by the use of a negative particle. If the कारणाभाव and कार्योभाव are conveyed, not by a regular negative statement of their absence, but by a positive statement of the presence of something which is opposed to them, the figures become indistinct. We then pointed out that Viśvanātha does not agree with this view According to him even if कारणाभाव and कार्योभाव are stated positively by mentioning the presence of something which is opposed to them, the figure is equally स्पष्ट. In this connection it may be noted that Jagannātha recognizes the distinction between the स्पष्टतর and the

It will be recalled that the figures vibhāvanā and viśeṣoṅkti were referred to in the explanation of ' atra supto na kaviladakāra ' occurring on p 4 There we realized that though Mammata does not say so definitely, his opinion is that vibhāvanā and viśeṣoṅkti require, in order that they should be spaṣṭa or distinct, that the kāraṇābhāva in vibhāvanā and the kāryābhāva in viśeṣoṅkti should be stated as such i e by the use of a negative particle. If the kāraṇābhāva and kāryobhāva are conveyed, not by a regular negative statement of their absence, but by a positive statement of the presence of something which is opposed to them, the figures become indistinct. We then pointed out that Viśvanātha does not agree with this view According to him even if kāraṇābhāva and kāryobhāva are stated positively by mentioning the presence of something which is opposed to them, the figure is equally spaṣṭa. In this connection it may be noted that Jagannātha recognizes the distinction between the spaṣṭatara and the

Page 401

अत्र काव्यप्रकाशः

Here is the Kavyaprakasha

अत्स्कृटत्व of these figures. Only he calls them शाब्दत्व and आर्थत्व respectively Read रसगंगाधर pp 438-439

The ats'kṛtatva of these figures. Only he calls them śabdvatva and arthvatva respectively Read Rasagangadhar pp 438-439

We remarked above that विरोधोक्ति is the exact opposite of विभावना The result of this is that in the case of a given stanza it is possible to argue that both the figures are present therein by looking at it from two different points of view That is exactly the reason why in 'ग- कौमारहर ' both विभावना and विरोधोक्ति are considered to be present, in a distinct form by Viśvanātha and in an indistinct form by Mammata. Similarly, in stanza 83 we may say that the result आलिङ्गनत भवत्न् has arisen though its usual causes viz निद्राप्रबोध, शुरता|नुदय, सखीजनेप्राप्ति and मुग्धाल्लेपदार्ह्ये are not present Such reasoning makes this stanza an example of विभावना

We remarked above that virodhokti is the exact opposite of vibhāvanā The result of this is that in the case of a given stanza it is possible to argue that both the figures are present therein by looking at it from two different points of view That is exactly the reason why in 'ga-kumārahara' both vibhāvanā and virodhokti are considered to be present, in a distinct form by Viśvanātha and in an indistinct form by Mammata. Similarly, in stanza 83 we may say that the result āliṅganagnta bhavat has arisen though its usual causes viz nidrāprabodha, śrutānudaya, sakhījaneprāpti and mugdhāllepadāhrtye are not present Such reasoning makes this stanza an example of vibhāvanā

It is probably from this point of view that some people hold that विभावना and विरोधोक्ति do not deserve to be independent figures Read अलंकारकैस्तुभ p 316 This, however, is refuted by अलंकारकौस्तुभ (p 317)

It is probably from this point of view that some people hold that vibhāvanā and virodhokti do not deserve to be independent figures Read Alaṅkārakaistubha p 316 This, however, is refuted by Alaṅkārakauśtuba (p 317)

विरोधोक्तिः and विभावनाI

Virodhokti and Vibhavana

Resemblance Both involve contradiction in the form of the violation of the law of causation

Distinction (1) While in विभावना an effect arises without its cause, in विरोधोक्ति though the causes are present, the effect does not arise (2) In विभावना the effect which arises without its cause appears incongruous (बाध्य ), while in विरोधोक्तिः the causes which do not produce the effect appear incongruous Vide below the distinction between विरोध and विभावना-विरोधोक्ति.

Distinction (1) While in vibhāvanā an effect arises without its cause, in virodhokti though the causes are present, the effect does not arise (2) In vibhāvanā the effect which arises without its cause appears incongruous (bādhy), while in virodhokti the causes which do not produce the effect appear incongruous Vide below the distinction between virodha and vibhāvanā-virodhokti.

Page 75

( 22 ) यथासंख्यम् or Respectivity

(22) Yathāsankhyam or Respectivity

When things, which are mentioned in a certain order (क्रमिक) are again connected (समन्वय ) or referred to in the same order, यथासंख्य arises e g शत्रुं मित्रं विपत्ति च जय रजय भजय ( चन्द्रालोक ) Here शत्रु, मित्र and विपत्ति are mentioned in a certain order and they are connected in the same order with जय, रजय and भजय Thus, the sense that we get is शत्रु जय, मित्रं रजय and विपत्ति भजय

When things, which are mentioned in a certain order (kramika) are again connected (samanvaya) or referred to in the same order, yathāsankhya arises e.g. śatruṁ mitraṁ vipatti ca jaya rajaya bhajaya (Candrāloka) Here śatru, mitra and vipatti are mentioned in a certain order and they are connected in the same order with jaya, rajaya and bhajaya Thus, the sense that we get is śatru jaya, mitraṁ rajaya and vipatti bhajaya

यथासंख्यम् is an अव्ययीभाव compound formed in the sense of यथाऽनुपूर्वी-स्थितिः or non-violation of the sense of a word, according to 'अव्ययं विभक्ति-समीप-...

Yathāsankhyam is an avyayībhāva compound formed in the sense of yathā-anupūrvi-sthitih or non-violation of the sense of a word, according to 'avyayaṁ vibhakti-samīpa-...

such a manner as not to violate or go beyond the number 1 e. the विभक्तिव्रीह्याद्दितः०' पा 2. 1 6 It is explained as एकैकशःअनतिक्रम्य यथा तथा इ

such a manner as not to violate or go beyond the number 1 e. the vibhaktivrīhyaddhitah..' pā 2. 1 6 It is explained as ekaiśaḥ-anatikramya yathā tathā iti

Page 402

order of the things mentioned Thus, the name of the figure is significant

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 द्रि॒षा, विदुषाम् and मृगौदृशाम् are in the same order or respectively concerned with ताप, सेन्दारसम् and रतिम् and with शौयेँषमगा, विनयेन and लीलया Thus, the ideas we get are द्रिषा चेतसि शौयेषमगा ताप पुष्णन्, विदुषां चेतसि विनयेन सेन्दारसं पुष्णन् and मृगौदृशां चेतसि लीलया रतिम् पुष्णन् Hence, we have यथासङ्ख्य in this stanza

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 द्रिषा, विदुषाम् and मृगौदृशाम् are in the same order or respectively concerned with ताप, सेन्दारसम् and रतिम् and with शौयेँषमगा, विनयेन and लीलया. Thus, the ideas we get are द्रिषा चेतसि शौयेषमगा ताप पुष्णन्, विदुषां चेतसि विनयेन सेन्दारसं पुष्णन् and मृगौदृशां चेतसि लीलया रतिम् पुष्णन्. Hence, we have यथासङ्ख्य in this stanza.

यथासङ्ख्य is rather a prosaic figure Though ancient rhetoricians like Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Vāmana, Rudrata 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 ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्वविमर्शिनी pp 149-150 ) and Jagannātha ( रसगङ्गाधर p 748 ) It is contended that यथासङ्ख्य does not contain any special charm arising from the exercise of the poet's genius, which is essential for an alamkāra It represents nothing but the absence of the poetical defect called अपक्रम or violation of order such as is found in ‘ रथाङ्गहस्ते विप्राणि पाता व रससुशृङ्गारेभिः ’ or ‘ कीर्तिप्रतापौ भवत स्फुरोच्चन्द्रमसाविव ’ Nāgeśabhatta admits that यथासङ्ख्य 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

यथासङ्ख्य is rather a prosaic figure. Though ancient rhetoricians like Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Vāmana, Rudrata 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 (अलङ्कारसर्वस्वविमर्शिनी pp 149-150) and Jagannātha (रसगङ्गाधर p 748). It is contended that यथासङ्ख्य does not contain any special charm arising from the exercise of the poet's genius, which is essential for an alamkāra. It represents nothing but the absence of the poetical defect called अपक्रम or violation of order such as is found in ‘रथाङ्गहस्ते विप्राणि पाता व रससुशृङ्गारेभिः’ or ‘कीर्तिप्रतापौ भवत स्फुरोच्चन्द्रमसाविव’. Nāgeśabhatta admits that यथासङ्ख्य 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 ( असदृशमेताम् ), Vāmana lays down that they should be related to one another as उपमेय's and उपमान's Mammata and others do not restrict the scope of the figure either way यथासङ्ख्य it also known by the terms सङ्ख्यान and क्रम

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 (असदृशमेताम्), Vāmana lays down that they should be related to one another as उपमेय's and उपमान's. Mammata and others do not restrict the scope of the figure either way. यथासङ्ख्य is also known by the terms सङ्ख्यान and क्रम.

( 23 ) अर्थान्तरन्यास or Corroboration

(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 विशेषेण विरोषादनेन सामान्चेन वा । इतरेण = साधर्म्येदितरेण वैधम्येंण । अर्थान्तरन्यास has thus four varieties, which can be thus represented

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 विशेषेण विरोषादनेन सामान्चेन वा। इतरेण = साधर्म्येदितरेण वैधम्येंण। अर्थान्तरन्यास has thus four varieties, which can be thus represented.

Page 403

काव्यप्रकारा:

अर्थान्तरन्यास

( 1 ) सामान्यस्यविशेषण ( 2 ) विशेषस्य सामान्येन ( 3 ) सामान्यस्य विशेषण ( 4 ) विशेषस्य समर्थनम् e g निजदोष- समर्थनम् e g सुसित- समर्थनम् e g सामान्येन समर्थनम् वसनालङ्कारायाम् गुणानामेव e g अहो हि मे

Jagannātha 'समर्थने च 'इदमेवसनेऽपि वा स्त्रात्' इति वृत्तौयस्य प्रतिभन्धक 'इतिमिथ्यम्' इति डहप्रतय । निश्चय इति इत्याह । 'रसगङ्गाधर p 471

The name अर्थान्तरन्यास is significant It is thus explained अध्येते वर्णनीयत्वेन हृश्यते इति अर्थः प्रस्तुतम् । अन्य अर्थः अर्थान्तरम् अप्रस्तुतम् । तस्य प्रस्तुत- समर्थनरूपत्वेन न्यासः अर्थान्तरन्यास ।

Page 76

Stanza 87 — This stanza illustrates सामान्यस्य विशेषेण साधर्म्येण समर्थनरूप अर्थान्तरन्यास । 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 विशेषण साधर्म्येण समर्थनरूप अर्थान्तरन्यास One may note by the way that in शाब्दिकश्रृङ्खल we have समासगा वादिकृत उपमा.

Stanza 88 — This stanza is an example of विशेषस्य सामान्येन साधर्म्येण समर्थनरूप अर्थान्तरन्यास 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 नोऽत्र शङ्का' = सर्वत्र शङ्का सहायदायक अस्ति' is a general proposition, which supports the particular case of the king's help to the girl through his fame The general proposition is similar to the particular Therefore, the figure here is विशेषस्य सामान्येन साधर्म्येण समर्थनरूप अर्थान्तरन्यास

This stanza is also an example of the figure सामान्य

Stanza 89—This stanza exemplifies सामान्यस्य विशेषण वैधर्म्य समर्थनरूप अर्थान्तरन्यास । 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

Page 404

It is strengthened by a particular dissimular 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 is not धुरि नियुक्त, the stanza becomes an example of सामान्यस्य विशेषवैधर्म्येण समर्थनरूप अर्थान्तरन्यास

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 quality, which makes him fit for bearing the yoke. As the particular proposition which is not appointed to the pole, the stanza becomes an example of supporting a general proposition with a specific dissimilarity.

धुर्यः = धुरं वहति इति The word literally means a bull who bears the yoke, then a leader who bears the yoke of responsibility गल्ले 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.

Dhuryah = Dhuraṃ vahati iti. The word literally means a bull who bears the yoke, then a leader who bears the yoke of responsibility. Galle 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.

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

Stanza 90 — This stanza illustrates supporting a particular proposition with a general dissimilarity. It is uttered by some old man who has the misfortune to convey 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 supporting a particular proposition with a general dissimilarity.

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 समर्थ्येसमर्थकभाव existing between the two propositions, which comprise this figure, may either be directly expressed by such words as हि, यत् and यत् or may be left to be inferred On these grounds it is possible to have further varıetı of this figure. But as Ruyyaka observes there is not much of a charm in such divisions. It is, therefore, well that Mammata does not go in for them It may, however, be pointed out that ancient rhetoricians like Bhāmaha and Udbhata refer to these characteristics of अर्थान्तरन्यास in their definitions

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 relationship between the two propositions, which comprise this figure, may either be directly expressed by such words as hi, yat, and yata 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 charm in such divisions. It is, therefore, well that Mammata does not go into them. It may, however, be pointed out that ancient rhetoricians like Bhāmaha and Udbhata refer to these characteristics of Arthāntaranyāsa 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

Viśvanātha, following Ruyyaka, mentions four more varieties of Arthāntaranyāsa. 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.

Page 405

३५२

352

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 76

Thus view of Ruyyaka is controverted by Jayaratha, Jagannātha and Nāgeśabhatta. They maintain that when an effect is corroborated by a cause or a cause by an effect, that becomes the province of the figure काव्यलिङ्ग Read 'रसगङ्गाधर p 474

Thus the view of Ruyyaka is controverted by Jayaratha, Jagannātha and Nāgeśabhatta. They maintain that when an effect is corroborated by a cause or a cause by an effect, that becomes the province of the figure काव्यलिङ्ग Read 'रसगङ्गाधर p 474

A word must be said about two figures viz उदाहरण and विस्वर which come very near अर्थान्तरन्यास, but which have not been admitted by Mammata उदाहरण occurs in the रसगङ्गाधर, while विस्वर is found in the कवल्यानन्द

Jagannātha defines उदाहरण as 'सामान्येन निरूपितस्य अर्थस्य सुखप्रतिपत्तये तदेकदेशे निवेश्य तदोरवसायविभाव उच्चमान उदाहरणम्' रसगङ्गाधर p 213 When a particular case is quoted in order to make a general proposition already stated, easy of comprehension and when the general proposition relates between अवयव and अवयविन् जगन्नाथ, tacitly include it under उपमा

According to Nāgeśa उदाहरण is nothing but अर्थान्तरन्यास itself

The figure विस्वर occurs when a particular case is supported by a general proposition, which is once again illustrated by an example. कवल्यानन्द p 134

Jagannātha of course cannot allow this figure admitted by Appaya Dīkṣita. He points out that विस्वर represents संशय of two अर्थान्तरन्यास or of an अर्थान्तरन्यास and an उपमा Read रसगङ्गाधर p p. 474-75.

अर्थान्तरन्यास and निर्देशना (Second Variety)

Resemblance In both there is सामान्यविशेषभाव and समभ्येसमर्थैकभाव. Thus, in stanza 47, p 58 the first half contains a general proposition which is supported by the particular illustration in the second The same is the case in stanza 87, p 76

Distinction In निर्देशना the कार्यकारणभाव which is at the basis of both the general proposition and the particular illustration is identical. In अर्थान्तरन्यास on the other hand the underlying कार्यकारणभाव takes two different forms in the two propositions. This point will be clear from the following 'इह (उन्नत पद्म) हि पूर्ववाक्यार्थप्रतिपाद्य-कार्यकारणभावे उन्नतप्रतिपत्तये कारणतश्च्छेदकम्' द्वितीयेऽपि तदेव । 'निजदोषाक्तो' इत्यादौ तु पूर्वोत्तरप्रतिपाद्ये कार्यकारणभावे दोषत्वं कारणताश्छेदकम्, विपरीतस्मान्तं कार्यतावच्छेदकम् । द्वितीयार्थे तु पित्र्यं कारणतावच्छेदकम्, विपरीतचाङ्गुप्तं कार्यतावच्छेदकमिति भेदात् । एवं च पूर्वोत्तरवाक्यार्थकार्यकरणभावद्वये यत्र सामान्यविशेषलवपथम्॑च्छिद्यते तत्रै-वार्थान्तरन्यास इति फलितम् ।' अलङ्कारकौस्तुभ p 265.

Page 406

Page 76] NOTES • Tenth Flash ३५३

Page 76] NOTES • Tenth Flash 353

अर्थान्तरन्यास and प्रतिवस्तूपमा

Arthāntaranyāsa and Prativastūpamā

Resemblance In both the two propositions are such that one helps us to understand the other better Both thus have समर्यैसमर्थक-भाव in them.

Resemblance In both the two propositions are such that one helps us to understand the other better Both thus have a supportive relationship in them.

Distinction ( 1 ) In प्रतिवस्तूपमा the two propositions are either both general or both particular, in अर्थान्तरन्यास one is general and the other particular ( 2 ) In प्रतिवस्तूपमा the main idea is साम्य or उपमानोपमेय-भाव, technically called वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव, between the two sentences The समर्यैसमर्थकभाव is only implied In अर्थान्तरन्यास समर्यैसमर्थकभाव is the chief thing, on which the figure is founded

Distinction (1) In Prativastūpamā, the two propositions are either both general or both particular; in Arthāntaranyāsa, one is general and the other particular. (2) In Prativastūpamā, the main idea is similarity or the relationship between the object and its counterpart, technically called Vastupratīvastubhāva, between the two sentences. The supportive relationship is only implied. In Arthāntaranyāsa, the supportive relationship is the chief thing, on which the figure is founded.

अर्थान्तरन्यास and दृष्टान्त

Arthāntaranyāsa and Drṣṭānta

Resemblance. In both there is समर्येसमर्थकभाव between the two sentences that constitute them. The etymological meaning of दृष्टान्त shows that the original proposition is there strengthened by the illustration.

Resemblance. In both, there is a supportive relationship between the two sentences that constitute them. The etymological meaning of Drṣṭānta shows that the original proposition is strengthened by the illustration.

Distinction ( 1 ) In दृष्टान्त the two propositions are either both general or both particular, in अर्थान्तरन्यास one is general and the other particular In दृष्टान्त there is no सामान्यविशेषभाव between.the two proposition, in अर्थान्तरन्यास there is (2) In दृष्टान्त the main idea is साम्य or विम्बप्रतिविम्बभाव between the two sentences सामान्यविशेषकभाव comes afterwards and is only implied, in अर्थान्तरन्यास on the other hand समर्येसमर्थकभाव is the principal thing and it is with पूर्व समर्येसमर्थक भाव that the figure starts.

Distinction (1) In Drṣṭānta, the two propositions are either both general or both particular; in Arthāntaranyāsa, one is general and the other particular. In Drṣṭānta, there is no relationship of generality and particularity between the two propositions; in Arthāntaranyāsa, there is. (2) In Drṣṭānta, the main idea is similarity or the relationship between the image and its reflection between the two sentences. The relationship of generality and particularity comes afterwards and is only implied. In Arthāntaranyāsa, on the other hand, the supportive relationship is the principal thing, and it is with the prior supportive relationship that the figure starts.

अर्थान्तरन्यास is a figure of common occurrence. Sanskrit kāvyas and nātakas contain numerous examples of this figure Though traditionally known for his उपमा Kālidāsa appears to us to be even better known for his अर्थान्तरन्यासs The Sātakas of Bhart hari can also supply many beautiful examples See enter abhi शाकुन्तल 1 2, 20, 22 , iv 3, v 26, vi 31 , vii 4 , मेघदूत 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 20, 28, 38 41, 53, 54, 91, 97, 109 , महावीरचरित 1 33, उत्तररामचरित vi 12

Arthāntaranyāsa is a figure of common occurrence. Sanskrit kāvyas and nātakas contain numerous examples of this figure. Though traditionally known for his similes, Kālidāsa appears to us to be even better known for his Arthāntaranyāsas. The Sātakas of Bhartṛhari can also supply many beautiful examples. See, for example, Abhiṣeka 1.2, 20, 22; IV.3, V.26, VI.31, VII.4; Meghadūta 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 20, 28, 38, 41, 53, 54, 91, 97, 109; Mahāvīracarita 1.33; Uttararāmacarita VI.12

( 24 ) विरोध or Contradiction

(24) Virোধ or Contradiction

When two things are stated ( वस्तु ) to be as though opposed or contradictory to each other ( विरुद्धवत् ), though there is really ( वस्तुतस्तेन ) no contradiction between them, the figure विरोध arises The essentials of this figure are (1) There are two things which are usually connected with different abodes ( भिन्नतया प्रसिद्धौ व्यधिकरणौ वा ) (2) These two things are represented as connected with one abode and thus a contradiction results ( 3 ) This contradiction is not real, but only apparent and hence can be removed If the contradiction

When two things are stated to be as though opposed or contradictory to each other, though there is really no contradiction between them, the figure Virোধ arises. The essentials of this figure are: (1) There are two things which are usually connected with different abodes. (2) These two things are represented as connected with one abode, and thus a contradiction results. (3) This contradiction is not real, but only apparent and hence can be removed. If the contradiction

का २३

Kā 23

Page 407

३४८

348

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 76

were real, it would constitute a defect As it is only apparent, the figure is also known as विरोधाभास Read रसगङ्गाधर p 427

were real, it would constitute a defect As it is only apparent, the figure is also known as Virōdhābhāsa Read Rasagangadhar p 427

The apparent contradiction is usually expressed by the word अपि. When अपि is thus used, the figure is शब्द Otherwise it is अर्थ Jagannatha, however, does not accept this distinction

The apparent contradiction is usually expressed by the word api. When api is thus used, the figure is shabda Otherwise it is artha 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.

The name Virōdha is significant, because the figure contains an ( apparent ) contradiction The name Virōdhābhāsa would have been still more significant.

जातिधुमिं ददृ—These lines enumerate the 10 division of विरोध. In the second Ullāsa we saw that according to the grammarians 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 ( जात्यादै चतुभि ) 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

Jātidhumi dadr̥—These lines enumerate the 10 division of Virōdha. In the second Ullāsa we saw that according to the grammarians words are of four kinds viz Jātivācaka, Guṇavācaka, Kriyāvācaka Dravyavācaka according as their primary or conventional sense is Jāti, Guṇa, Kriya and Dravya The ten divisions of Virōdha are based on these four kinds of words. Thus, a Jāti may be opposed to four beginning with Jāti ( Jātyādai catubhi ) viz Jāti, Guṇa, Kriya and Dravya Virōdha based on Jāti, is therefore, of four kinds Similarly, a Guṇa, may be opposed to three viz Guṇa, Kriya and Dravya, a Kriya to two viz Kriya and Dravya and a Dravya to Dravya only, thus giving rise respectively to three, two and one division, when Virōdha is based on Guṇa, Kriya and Dravya These divisions in all number 10, which may be thus shown

विरोध

Virōdha

(1) जातिमूलक- (11) गुणमूलक (111) क्रियामूलक- (1v) द्रव्यमूलक-

(1) Jātimūlaka- (11) Guṇamūlaka (111) Kriyamūlaka- (1v) Dravyamūlaka-

( 4 kinds ) ( 3 kinds ) ( 2 kinds ) ( 1 kind )

(1) जातिजात्योर्विरोध (5) गुणगुणयोर्विरोध (8) क्रियाक्रिययोर्विरोध (10) द्रव्यद्रव्योर्विरोध

(1) Jātijātyorvirōdha (5) Guṇaguṇayorvirōdha (8) Kriyākriyayorvirōdha (10) Dravyadravyōrvirōdha

e. g. अभिनवगिरिवल्ली e. g सततं मुसलमस्फुटा* e g परिच्छेदवतीत e. g. समदमतङ्कज

e. g. Abhinavagirivalli e. g Satatam Musalamasphutā* e g Paricchedavatiita e. g. Samadamatankaja

(2) जातिगुणयोर्विरोध (6) गुणक्रिययोर्विरोध (8) क्रियाद्रव्ययोर्विरोध

(2) Jātiguṇayorvirōdha (6) Guṇakriyayorvirōdha (8) Kriyādravyayorvirōdha

e g गिरयोग्नज्वलति e. g पेसलाभपि खलवचनम e. g अम वद्रामेषु

e g Giryoghnajwalati e. g Pesalābhapi khalavachanam e. g Ama vadrāmeshu

(3) जातिक्रियोर्विरोध (7) गुणद्रव्ययोर्विरोध

(3) Jātikriyorvirōdha (7) Guṇadravyayorvirōdha

e. g येषां कल्पतरू रिह e. g कैश्चिद्विरिद्राराम

e. g Yesham Kalpatarū riha e. g Kaishcidviridrārāma

(4) जातिद्रव्योर्विरोध

(4) Jātidravyōrvirōdha

e g शुनती व जगद्विद

e g Shunati va Jagadvid

It may here be noted that when जातिगुणयोर्विरोध is included under जातिमूलक, it is not necessary to include जातिगुणयोर्विरोध under गुणमूलक For, the twc mean the same thing The same applies to the विरोध of क्रिया and गुण and to the विरोध of द्रव्य with जाति, गुण and क्रिया Read

It may here be noted that when Jātiguṇayorvirōdha is included under Jātimūlaka, it is not necessary to include Jātiguṇayorvirōdha under Guṇamūlaka For, the twc mean the same thing The same applies to the Virōdha of Kriya and Guṇa and to the Virōdha of Dravya with Jāti, Guṇa and Kriya Read

Page 408

जातेरुणेण सह विरोधे उक्ते ' विरोधगुणैरप्यनङ्गकल्पनम् ' इति तत्र तैलं गुणस्यापि जात्या सह विरोध सिद्ध । अत एव गुणस्य जातिवर्जं नायो मेता । ' उपमानगुणभावी हि कामः ' इति जयरथः विमर्शीनी P 122

When there is a contradiction with the genus, it is said 'opposition is also conceived with qualities'. There, along with the genus, the quality is also proved to be contradictory. Therefore, the quality is not excluded from the genus by the hero. Jayaratha comments on this in his Vimarsini P 122

Mammata's classification of विरोध on the basis of the four kinds of words confirms, as has been already noted, the conclusion that out of the two views regarding the convention of words mentioned in सकलिताखण्डितु भेदो जातिद्रव्यादितदेव वा', he favours the first. This is again an additional proof of Mammata's partiality towards the grammarians

Mammata's classification of विरोध on the basis of the four kinds

Mammata's classification of contradiction on the basis of the four kinds

of words confirms, as has been already noted, the conclusion that out of the two views regarding the convention of words mentioned in सकलिताखण्डितु भेदो जातिद्रव्यादितदेव वा', he favours the first. This is again an additional proof of Mammata's partiality towards the grammarians

It may be noted that Jagannātha rightly observes that these divisions based on जाति and others are not charming He would have only two vaneties of विरोध viz गुण or that which is not based on शेष and शेषमूल or that which is so based Read ' वक्ष्यतो जात्यादिमेदानाम महत्त्वात् । गुदत्वंल शेषमूलत्वाञ्च भिनिम्नो हेतोः ' रसगङ्गाधर P 428

It may be noted that Jagannatha rightly observes that these divisions based on genus and others are not charming. He would have only two varieties of contradiction, viz. quality or that which is not based on residual and residual root or that which is so based. Read 'the greatness of the distinctions of genus etc. is about to be told. The cause of distinction is due to the presence of subtlety and the root of residual'. Rasgangadhar P 428

Stanza 91—This stanza describes the condition of a lady in separation When the thunderbolt of separation fell on her, cool things such as fresh leaves of lotus-plants ( अमिनवपलि नलिन्या कमलिन्या किसल्यपलि पर्णपलि ) and coils of lotus-fibres ( मृणालमयी कमलतन्त्री वल्यानि कहुणानि ) become to her a heap of forest-fire ( दवदहनस्य अरण्याग्नि राक्षि समूह )

Stanza 91—This stanza describes the condition of a lady in separation. When the thunderbolt of separation fell on her, cool things such as fresh leaves of lotus-plants and coils of lotus-fibres become to her a heap of forest-fire

Here किसल्यपलि and वल्यानि are said to have become दवदहन In this there is विरोध or contradiction. For, the जाति of किसल्यपलि-दवदहनत्व and वल्यत्न-दवदहनत्व, which usually reside in different places, are here described as residing in one. The contradiction is removed by saying that किसल्यपलि and वल्यानि do not actually become दवदहन, but are felt by the lady as such owing to the terrible pain which is caused to her by the separation. As the contradiction here lies between जातीयक words, the stanza is an example of जातिजात्यो विरोध In this stanza the word अपि dose not occur. Therefore, विरोधालङ्कार here is आर्थी

By the way we may note that in लक्मीयोगसमविपाते ( तद्दियोग एक पति तस्य पाते ) there is the figure युक्त

By the way, we may note that in laksmiyogasamvipate (tad-dyoga eka pati tasya pate) there is the figure yukti

Stanza 92—This stanza describes a king, who is said to be more lofty or eminent than mountains, swifter than the wind, deeper than the ocean and greater than the earth. Here there is a contradiction between मही, मरुत्, अभ्रि and क्षोभमात्रा, which are all जातिवाचक words, and अतिमहीयुज्, उच्चक, अगम्भीर and अतिलयु, whch are all गुणवाचक words. The contradiction is removed by saying that the four expressions are

Stanza 92—This stanza describes a king, who is said to be more lofty or eminent than mountains, swifter than the wind, deeper than the ocean and greater than the earth. Here there is a contradiction between mahi, marut, abhri and ksobhamatra, which are all genus-denoting words, and atimahiyuj, uccaka, agambhira and atilayu, which are all quality-denoting words. The contradiction is removed by saying that the four expressions are

Page 409

३५६

356

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ Page 78

intended to bring out the king's औत्रत्यातिशय, चलत्वातिशय or वेगवत्त्वातिशय, गाम्भीर्योतिशय and गौरवातिशय Thus, the stanza is an example of जातिगुणयो विरोध* As the word अपि is used, विरोध here is शाब्द

intended to bring out the king's extraordinary prowess, mobility or swiftness, depth and grandeur. Thus, the stanza is an example of contradiction between genus and quality. As the word 'api' is used, the contradiction here is verbal.

In connection with this stanza three points deserve note ( 1 ) It is contended that the negative particle in अनुग्रतियुज, अचञ्चल and अगम्भीरा should be interpreted in the sense of अल्प so as to make the words mean अल्पोन्नतियुज, किंचित्चञ्चल and किंचिद्गम्भीर respectively Only in these senses would the words be गुणवाचक If they are understood in their proper sense of उन्नतिभावयुज etc, they would not be गुणवाचक, in as much as they would not predicate any quality about the moun tains etc Against this it is pointed out that अभाव is also a गुण Therefore, there is nothing objectionable in taking the words in their literal sense

In connection with this stanza, three points deserve note: (1) It is contended that the negative particle in 'anugratiyuja', 'achanchala', and 'agambhira' should be interpreted in the sense of 'alpa' so as to make the words mean 'alponnatiyuja', 'kincitcancala', and 'kincidgambhira' respectively. Only in these senses would the words be qualitative. If they are understood in their proper sense of 'unnatibhavayuja' etc., they would not be qualitative, as they would not predicate any quality about the mountains etc. Against this, it is pointed out that 'absence' is also a quality. Therefore, there is nothing objectionable in taking the words in their literal sense.

( 2 ) 'विश्वभरा अपि अतिलघु' cannot properly be an instance of जातिगुणयो विरोध , because विश्वम्भरा is not a जातिवाचक word, but a द्रव्यवाचक, in as much as the earth is one So 'विश्वम्भरा अपि अतिलघु ' would illustrate गुणवृत्त्योिरोध' Against this Kamalākarabhatta points that विश्वम्भरा may be regarded as a जातिवाचक word in view of different creations or of the different continments of which the earth is made As regards मस्तृ 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 Purānas (3) It should be noted that विरोध here is based on श्लेष For, the words उन्नति, चल, गम्भीर and रसु possess two senses according as they are construed with the king and with mountains etc

(2) 'Visvambhara api atilaghu' cannot properly be an instance of contradiction between genus and quality, because 'visvambhara' is not a generic term, but a substantive, inasmuch as the earth is one. So 'visvambhara api atilaghu' would illustrate contradiction between quality and action. Against this, Kamalakara Bhatta points out that 'visvambhara' may be regarded as a generic term in view of different creations or of the different continents of which the earth is made. As regards 'mastŗ', there is no difficulty about its being a generic term, for winds are said to be 49 in number according to the statements in the Puranas. (3) It should be noted that the contradiction here is based on paronomasia, for the words 'unnati', 'cala', 'gambhira', and 'rasa' possess two senses according as they are construed with the king and with mountains etc.

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

Stanza 93—This stanza is addressed to a king and describes what happens when he goes to the battlefield to fight with his enemies.

Here घोराघोर, which is a जातिवाचक word, is connected with the actions अनुरज्यते and स्नेहे परमोति This involves a contradiction, be cause it is not possible for the inanimate sword to become affectionate ( अनुरज्यते ) and develop love ( स्नेहे परमोति ) The contradiction is removed by understanding अनुरज्यते and स्नेहे परामोति in the sense of ' becomes red ' and ' attains greasiness ' on account of paronomasia Similarly, there is a contradiction between the जातिवाचक word पांशु and the action of decorating For, dust is not an article used for decoration The contradiction is removed by understanding प्रसाधन in the sense of भूसरीकरण Thus, this stanza is an example of जातिक्रिययो विरोध

Here 'ghoraghora', which is a generic term, is connected with the actions 'anurajyate' and 'snehe paramoti'. This involves a contradiction, because it is not possible for the inanimate sword to become affectionate ('anurajyate') and develop love ('snehe paramoti'). The contradiction is removed by understanding 'anurajyate' and 'snehe paramoti' in the sense of 'becomes red' and 'attains greasiness' on account of paronomasia. Similarly, there is a contradiction between the generic term 'pamsu' and the action of decorating, for dust is not an article used for decoration. The contradiction is removed by understanding 'prasadhana' in the sense of 'bhusarıkarana'. Thus, this stanza is an example of contradiction between genus and action.

Page 78

Stanza 94—This stanza expresses surprise that Lord Viṣṇu, who creates, protects and destroys the world with ease, became a fish

Stanza 94—This stanza expresses surprise that Lord Vishnu, who creates, protects, and destroys the world with ease, became a fish.

Page 410

( शफर मत्स्या जात इति पूरणीयमन्त्र ),

(śaphara matsya jāta iti pūranīyamantra),

when an occasion demanded such an incarnation The reference is to मत्स्यावतार Here contradiction exists between जनार्दन, which is a द्रव्यवाचक or सक्षावाचक word, and शफर, which is a जातिवाचक.word For, how can Janārdana be a fish ? The contradiction is removed by referring to the supernatural divine power of the Lord by means of which be allows himself to be born in any form. Hence, the stanza is an example of जातिद्रव्ययोर्विरोध

Stanza 95—This stanza describes how the hands of Brāhmaṇa ladies, that had grown rough owing to incessant house hold work, become soft when the king, who is the addressee, is the donor ( सति कठनिा दातरि सति इत्यर्थे ) Here there is a contradiction between कठिन and चुकुमारा, which both are गुणवाचक words How can the rough hands be delicate ? The contradiction is removed by saying that roughness and softness belong to two different periods of time. Thus, here we have गुणवयो विरोध

Stanza 95—This stanza describes how the hands of Brāhmaṇa ladies, that had grown rough owing to incessant household work, become soft when the king, who is the addressee, is the donor (sati kathinī dātari sati ityarthe). Here there is a contradiction between kaṭhina and cukumarāra, which both are Guṇavācaka words. How can the rough hands be delicate? The contradiction is removed by saying that roughness and softness belong to two different periods of time. Thus, here we have Guṇaguṇayor virodha.

Stanza 96—सतत्चविदाम-तत्चविदाम् । तत्त्वसतत्त्वशब्दौ पर्य्यौ गोत्रशब्दवत् । Here, there is a contradiction between मृदुलत्व ( tenderness ), which is a गुण and दहतीराम् which is a क्रिया For, how can the tender word burn ? The contradiction is removed, when we remember that the tender word of the wicked is intended to lure us into placing confidence in them with a view to work our destruction in the end That is how it burns the mind of those who know the truth. Similarly, there is contradiction between परुषत्व ( harshness ), which is a गुण and प्रमोदयति which is a क्रिया For, how can the harsh sentence give delight ? The contradiction is removed when we realize that the harsh sentence is intended for our ultimate good. That is how it gives us delight. Thus, this stanza is an example or गुणक्रिययोर्विरोध,

Stanza 96—satattvavidām-tattvavidām. tattvasatattvaśabdau paryau gotraśabdavat. Here, there is a contradiction between mṛdutva (tenderness), which is a guṇa and dahatīram which is a kriyā. For, how can the tender word burn? The contradiction is removed, when we remember that the tender word of the wicked is intended to lure us into placing confidence in them with a view to work our destruction in the end. That is how it burns the mind of those who know the truth. Similarly, there is contradiction between paruṣatva (harshness), which is a guṇa and pramodayati which is a kriyā. For, how can the harsh sentence give delight? The contradiction is removed when we realize that the harsh sentence is intended for our ultimate good. That is how it gives us delight. Thus, this stanza is an example of Guṇakriyayorvirodha.

Stanza 97—The stanza refers to the story, many a time found referred to in literature, that Paraśurāma shot an arrow right through the Krauñca mountain in order to prove himself equal to Kārtikeya, who has performed the feat before. Here कोमल, which is a द्रव्यवाचक word, is opposed to अमिजात or कोमल, which represents a गुण, For, how can the Krauñca mountain, which was hard on account of huge rocks ( उद्गमा महत्यो या हृदय शिलाः ताभि हृद कठिन ), be tender like the petal of a new lotus ? The contradiction is removed by remembering that Paraśurāma shot the arrow with such extraordinary force that it easily pierced through the mountain as though it was made of lotus.petals. Thus, the stanza is an example of गुणद्रव्ययोर्विरोध

Stanza 97—The stanza refers to the story, many a time found referred to in literature, that Paraśurāma shot an arrow right through the Krauñca mountain in order to prove himself equal to Kārtikeya, who has performed the feat before. Here komala, which is a Dravyavācaka word, is opposed to abhijāta or komala, which represents a guṇa. For, how can the Krauñca mountain, which was hard on account of huge rocks (udgama mahatyō yā hṛdaya śilāḥ tābhi hṛda kaṭhina), be tender like the petal of a new lotus? The contradiction is removed by remembering that Paraśurāma shot the arrow with such extraordinary force that it easily pierced through the mountain as though it was made of lotus-petals. Thus, the stanza is an example of Guṇadravyayorvirodha.

Page 411

Stanza 98—This stanza is मालतीमाधव 1 30, wherein Mādhava describes to his friend Makaranda the emotion that has been agitating his heart since he saw Malati in the मद्देवायनन It contains a beautiful description of love as it first overpowers a young man's mind Here there is contradiction between the two actions of gladdening and afflicting. For, how can an emotion gladden and torment simultaneously? ( च-च-These show simultaneity of actions ). The contradiction is removed when we recall that love gladdens us when the object of love is near and torments us when we are in separation Therefore, this stanza is an example of क्रियाद्ययोर्विरोधः

Stanza 98—This stanza is Malatimadhava 1 30, wherein Madhava describes to his friend Makaranda the emotion that has been agitating his heart since he saw Malati in the Maddevayatanan. It contains a beautiful description of love as it first overpowers a young man's mind. Here there is contradiction between the two actions of gladdening and afflicting. For, how can an emotion gladden and torment simultaneously? (These show simultaneity of actions). The contradiction is removed when we recall that love gladdens us when the object of love is near and torments us when we are in separation. Therefore, this stanza is an example of Kriyaadyayorvirodhah.

Stanza 99—This stanza is भवभूतिकृत 108 It describes the ocean The poet looked upon the ocean as the one reservoir of water and as a mine of jewels. But he was surprised to learn that it had been drunk by the sage Agastya, who first placed it in the hollow of his hand Here there is contradiction between अगस्त्य, which is a क्रियावाचक word and आपास्यति, which represents a क्रिया For, how can Agastya drink the ocean? The contradiction is removed by saying that owing to the prowess of his penance Agastya could perform superhuman feats Thus, here we have क्रियाद्वयोरिविरोधः

Stanza 99—This stanza is Bhavabhutikrit 108. It describes the ocean. The poet looked upon the ocean as the one reservoir of water and as a mine of jewels. But he was surprised to learn that it had been drunk by the sage Agastya, who first placed it in the hollow of his hand. Here there is contradiction between Agastya, which is a Kriyaavachak word and Apasyati, which represents a Kriya. For, how can Agastya drink the ocean? The contradiction is removed by saying that owing to the prowess of his penance Agastya could perform superhuman feats. Thus, here we have Kriyaadvyorvirodhah.

Please note that in the stanza मुनि stands for अगस्त्य as आपास्यति stands for समुद्रपान

Please note that in the stanza Muni stands for Agastya as Apasyati stands for Samudrapaan.

Stanza 100—This stanza describes the vast elephant-army which a certain king had. Here contradiction exists between two दृश्य’s viz. गङ्गाच्छायापगा (गङ्गा) and कालिन्दी (यमुना) For, how can the Ganges be the Jamna? It is removed by taking कालिन्दी in the sense of 'of dark appearance'

Stanza 100—This stanza describes the vast elephant-army which a certain king had. Here contradiction exists between two Drishyas viz. Gangachchhaayapaga (Ganga) and Kaalindi (Yamuna). For, how can the Ganges be the Jamna? It is removed by taking Kaalindi in the sense of 'of dark appearance'.

It may be noted by the way that the stanza is an example of विरोध and रूपक्

It may be noted by the way that the stanza is an example of Virodha and Rupaka.

Resemblance : The first (जातिनाम्यो विरोध ) , fourth (जातिद्रव्ययोर्विरोध ) and tenth (द्रव्यद्रव्ययोर्विरोधः ) divisions of विरोध show remarkable similarity with रूपक. For, 'नलीनीदलवलयमाल्यमलयादि वसुधावधूने:' , 'जनार्दन शर’, and ‘शैकरचुमापगा कालिन्दी’ appear almost on a par with ‘मुख चन्द्र . For all these are based on अभेद or identity What is the distinction between विरोध and रूपक then?

Resemblance: The first (Jaatinaamyovirodha), fourth (Jaatidravyayorvirodha) and tenth (Dravyadravyayorvirodhah) divisions of Virodha show remarkable similarity with Rupaka. For, 'Naliniidalavalayamalyaamalayaadi vasudhaavadhuneh', 'Janaardana shar', and 'Shaikarachumaapaga Kaalindi' appear almost on a par with 'Mukha Chandra'. For all these are based on Abheda or identity. What is the distinction between Virodha and Rupaka then?

Distinction. (1) It is true that both विरोध and रूपक are based on अभेद or identity But while in विरोध अभेद is only a means to an end, in

Distinction. (1) It is true that both Virodha and Rupaka are based on Abheda or identity. But while in Virodha Abheda is only a means to an end, in

Page 412

एषक it is the end itself

This 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 'मुख चन्द्र:' 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 एषक the charm lies in the similarity of the two objects concerned

(3) In विरोध the sense of अपि, whether mentioned as in धिक्कृत्यापगापि कलिन्द्यो, or implied as in नलिनीकिसलयमृणाल्यादि ( वपि ) दृबदहनराशि, which ( sense ) brings out the contradiction, is always present In एषक the sense of अपि has no scope, as contradiction is by no means prominent

विरोध and विभावना-विरोधोक्ति

Resemblance All the three figures contain an apparent contradiction, which is capable of being explained away

Distinction (1) विरोध is the widest in extent and embraces all kinds of contradiction. विभावना and विरोधोक्ति cover a narrower field and are restricted to only one particular kind of contradiction viz the violation of the law of causation.

विरोध represents the genus, while विभावना and विरोधोक्ति are the species. विरोध is the उत्सर्ग or the general rule, while विभावना and विरोधोक्ति are the अपवाद or exceptions Hence according to the rule 'अभेदविधयपरिहारेण उत्सर्गस्य व्यवस्थितिः' विरोध is to be understood in all those cases of contradiction that do not refer to the law of causation.

(2) In विभावना as the cause is absent, it is the result which appears incongruous ( वाध्य ) Thus, in विभावना कारणाभाव is वाचक and कार्य is वाध्य Similarly, in विरोधोक्ति as the cause is present and yet the result does not follow, it is the cause which seems incongruous Thus, in विरोधोक्ति कारणसद्भाव is वाचक and कार्य is वाध्य.

But in विरोध both the things, between which contradiction is represented as existing, are equally powerful and are hence mutually incongruous.

It should here be noted that in determining the relation of वाचक and वाध्य, that which strikes us as being more powerful or prominent is regarded as वाचक and the other वाध्य Thus, in विभावना कारणाभाव and

Page 413

काव्यप्रकाशः

[ Page 80

in विशेषोक्ति कार्याभाव appear more powerful Hence, they are regarded as बाधक

It should be noted that रस्यक and विश्ननाथ think that in विशेषोक्ति, कार्याभाव is बाधक and कारण is बाध्य जयরথ and जगन्नाथ on the other hand, hold that in विशेषोक्ति, कार्याभाव is बाध्य and कारण is बाधक. we feel that the latter view is more reasonable Read साहित्यदर्पण under x 68 ab and रसगङ्गाधर p 432 and p 438

( 25 ) स्वभावोक्ति or Description of Nature

स्वभावोक्ति or Natural Description consists in the description of the peculiar action and form of a child and others स्व in the Kārıkā means तदेकाभ्रय 1 e belonging to them alone 1 e peculiar to them and रूप signifies colour and form or appearance भादि includes a young woman, an innocent person etc

In connection with this figure two points deserve note (1) The peculiar action or movement and colour, posture or characteristics that form the object of description in this figure must be such as are not observed by the ordinary people, but as attract the attention of men of poetical tendencies alone (2) Strikingness or charm, which is a common characteristic of all figures of speech, is especially required for this figure Otherwise, the description would be bald and uninteresting Thus, the following stanza is not an example of स्वभावोक्ति गोरपत्ये बलवर्दो घासमाति मुखेन स । मूत्रं मुञ्चति मिल्लेन अपानेन तु गोमयम् ॥

The name स्वभावोक्ति is significant, because in this figure we have the description of the nature of various entities like the child etc , because we have here natural description as opposed to artificial, which we find in other figures

Page 80

Stanza 101—This stanza occurs in the third Ucchvāsa of Bāna's Harsacarita and describes a horse, which has just risen up from his nocturnal rest and with a gentle neigh is scratching the ground with his hoof The first half describes certain characteristic movements, which are meant to shed off lethargy Thus, the horse first stretched out his hinder legs (पश्चादद्ग्री परिमिपादौ प्रसार्ये प्रसृतौ कृत्वा) Then, he elongated (द्राघयित्वा दीर्घं कृत्वा) his body at full length in such a manner that his spine (‘पृष्ठवशाधरे त्रिकम् ’ भमर ) was first bent (नति ) and then spread out (वितत ) This is a very realistic description of a characteristic action and its beauty will be appreciated by those who have actually observed a horse going through it. निष्क्रम्य पृष्ठास्थ्ना नति ऊर्ज्ज

Page 414

वक्षोभवन् विततं विस्तृतस्थ यस्मिन् कर्मणि यथा तथा

Then he bent his neck

वक्त्रं कण्ठ ग्रीवा यस्य ), leaned his mouth on his chest and tossed his mane

which was smoky with dust All this made him fresh He now was

feeling hungry and longed for mouthfuls of fodder (घासस्य तृणस्य प्रासा

कवलौ तेषामभिलाष वान्छा तस्मात् ) That was why his nostrils (ग्रेय' नासिका )

were incessantly throbbing

The Stanza contains a very striking description of various characteristic movements of a horse It is, therefore, an example of

स्वभावोक्ति

स्वभावोक्ति is really an important figure It is a good test of a poet's powers of observation and expression as apart from his power of imagination Descriptions of nature fall under this figure But Sanskrit rhetoricians usually neglect them They also do not seem to assign to this figure the importance it deserves Bhāmaha admits

स्वभावोक्ति as a figure only grudgingly Note 'स्वभावोक्तिलेखर इति केचित्

प्रचक्षते । अर्थस्य तदवस्थात्व ल्लभावोक्तिमिहितो यथा॥ 11 93

स्वभावोक्ति is called by other names also It is designated स्वभाव

by Bhāmaha ( 1 93 ) and Keśavamiśra (अलंकाररहस्य p 35 ) and

स्वरूप by the Agnipurāṇa ( 344 3) Dandin gives it the name

जाति in addition Rudrata ( vii 30 ), Bhoja ( iii 4 ), Hemacandra ( p 275 ) and Vāgbhata (वामभटालंकार iv 47 ) style it जाति Bāṇa mentions जाति prominently in two places viz introductory stanza 9 of the Kādambarī and stanza 5 of the Harsa-carita.

( 26 ) व्याजस्तुति or Artful Praise

व्याजस्तुति occurs when there is censure or praise on the face or surface (मुखे), but when the conclusion or ultimate purpose (हृदि

पर्यवसानम् ) is otherwise ( 1 e praise or censure respectively व्याजस्तुति is thus of two kinds ( 1 ) मुखे निन्दा पर्यवसाने स्तुति , स्तुतिपर्यवसायिनी निन्दा इत्यर्थ

where there is censure on the surface, but praise in the end 1 e where from apparent censure praise is understood, ( 2 ) मुखे स्तुति पर्यवसाने निन्दा

निन्दापर्यवसायिनी स्तुति इत्यर्थ where there is praise on the surface, but censure in the end 1 e where from apparent praise censure is conveyed

Mammata's definition of this figure is not well worded The use of the word हृदि in the sense of ultimate sense or purpose is unusual. Viśvanātha gives a clear and easily understandable definition

in 'उक्ता व्याजस्तुति पुन । निन्दास्तुतिभ्यां वाच्याभ्यां गम्यत्वे स्तुतिनिन्दयो । 60 '

साहित्यदर्पण x

व्याजेन व्याजरूपा वा स्तुति—Here Mammata explains the name

व्याजस्तुति in two ways so as to make it applicable to its

Page 415

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

two varieties. (1) व्याजेन निन्दामिषेण स्तुति व्याजस्तुति । निन्दैवातदुप्रक्

two varieties. (1) Praise through a guise or artifice

praise through a guise or artifice i e through apparent censure This explanation is applicable to the first variety where there is मुखे निन्दा पर्यवसानेऽस्तु स्तुति

(2) व्याजरूपा स्तुति व्याजस्तुति । श्लेषपार्यन्तवादिमध्यमपक्षलोपी वा समासः । अर्थ व त समास कर्मधारयात्नर्मत एष । praise of the form of an artifice i e praise which is not real praise, but is censure This explanation is applicable to the second variety, which consists in मुखे स्तुति पर्यवसानेऽस्तु निन्दा

The printed editions here read 'व्याजरूपा व्याजेन वा स्तुति ।' 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 Mammata originally wrote 'व्याजेन व्याजरूपा वा स्तुति ' This is clear from the fact that the Pradipa 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 'स्थितत्वे गतार्थत्वनिवृत्तिः' commentators point out that Mammata placed व्याजरूपा first deliberately, because the कर्मधारय compound occurs to us first and is to be preferred Read साहिल्यपृथ्वीजामणि

Stanza 102—This stanza exemplifies the first variety of व्याजस्तुति viz व्याजेन स्तुति । e मुखे निन्दा पर्यवसानेऽस्तु स्तुति 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 आाश्रितपरित्याग 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 exam ple of व्याजेन स्तुति ।

Stanza 103—This stanza illustrates the second variety of व्याजस्तुति viz. व्याजरूपा स्तुति । e मुखे स्तुति । पर्यवसानेऽस्तु निन्दा It is addressed to the ocean. The desert of Marwar (मड) 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

Page 416

Page 80 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash

water to thirsty people to quench their thirst. Thus, there is apparent praise for the ocean in this that it is represented as a very obliging person, because it helps Maru to bear the burden of infamy The help of course consists in just this that the ocean himself incurs similar infamy When we find others in the same predicament as ourselves, we are a bit buoyed up But the apparent praise of the ocean is really intended to convey censure in so far as it is not able to satisfy the thirst of people inspite of the vast masses of water which it possesses Thāt is how we have here व्याजस्तुति 1 e praise of the form of an artifice 1 e praise which is not real, but censure in disguise

water to thirsty people to quench their thirst. Thus, there is apparent praise for the ocean in this that it is represented as a very obliging person, because it helps Maru to bear the burden of infamy The help of course consists in just this that the ocean himself incurs similar infamy When we find others in the same predicament as ourselves, we are a bit buoyed up But the apparent praise of the ocean is really intended to convey censure in so far as it is not able to satisfy the thirst of people inspite of the vast masses of water which it possesses Thāt is how we have here vyājastuti 1 e praise of the form of an artifice 1 e praise which is not real, but censure in disguise

हैलया लील्या जित बोधिसत्त्व (बोधि ज्ञानं सत्कं सारं यस्य) युघ्घ धेन The one great quality for which Lord Buddha is famed is compassion The ocean is stated to have vanquished him in that quality

Hailayā līlyā jita bodhisattva (bodhi jñānaṃ satkaṃ sāraṃ yasya) yuddha dhena The one great quality for which Lord Buddha is famed is compassion The ocean is stated to have vanquished him in that quality

One important point to note in connection with this figure is that it occurs when the apparent censure or praise of an object leads ultimately to the praise or censure of the same object. Read रसगङ्गाधर p 419, Consequently, when the praise or censure understood from apparent censure or praise belongs to a different object, व्याजस्तुति is not regarded as being present

One important point to note in connection with this figure is that it occurs when the apparent censure or praise of an object leads ultimately to the praise or censure of the same object. Read rasagaṅgādhar p 419, Consequently, when the praise or censure understood from apparent censure or praise belongs to a different object, vyājastuti is not regarded as being present

Consider the following stanzas. (1) कस्त्व वानर रामराजभवने केमार्यस्ववाहको जात' कुन्त पुरागत सहनुमान निरीक्ष्यघलकूपार । वक्षो राक्षससूनुनेति कपिभि सताडितो भर्त्सित स व्रीडातपराभवो वनस्थ कुतेली न झायते ॥ Here from the censure of हनुमत we understand the praise of other monkey-chiefs (2) यद् वक्त्र शशुरोक्षसे न धनिना शुंभे न चादत्त नैषा गरेभवच ऋणभोषि न च तान् प्रत्या स्रयाद धावसि । काश्चे बालतृणानि खादसि परे निद्रासि निद्रागमे तस्मै शुधि कुरङ कुत भवता किं नाम तस्मै तप ॥ Here from the praise of the deer the censure of one who has to dance attendance on the rich is understood These are not proper examples of व्याजस्तुति, because the apparent censure and praise and the subsequent praise and censure belong to different individuals Besides we have to note here that the apparent censure and praise are not वाधित or stultified, when the subsequent praise and censure are understood. But accord ing to Appaya Dikșita these are proper examples of व्याजस्तुति, for he holds that समानाचिकरण्य of वाच्यानिन्दास्तुति and गम्यस्तुतिनिन्दा is not necessary

Consider the following stanzas. (1) kastva vānara rāmarājabhavane keśmāryasvavāhako jāta' kunta purāgata sahanumāna nirīkṣyaghalakūpār । vakṣo rākṣasasūnuneti kapibhi saṭāḍito bhartsita sa vrīḍātaparābhavo vanastha kuteli na jhāyate ॥ Here from the censure of hanumad we understand the praise of other monkey-chiefs (2) yad vakra śaśurīkṣase na dhaninā śumbhe na cādattaiṣā garebhavaca rṇabhoṣi na ca tān pratyā srayād dhāvasi । kāśce balatṛṇāni khādas ipare nidrāsi nidrāgame tasmai śudhi kuraṅga kuta bhavatā kiṃ nāma tasmai tapa ॥ Here from the praise of the deer the censure of one who has to dance attendance on the rich is understood These are not proper examples of vyājastuti, because the apparent censure and praise and the subsequent praise and censure belong to different individuals Besides we have to note here that the apparent censure and praise are not bādhita or stultified, when the subsequent praise and censure are understood. But according to Appaya Dikṣita these are proper examples of vyājastuti, for he holds that samānācikaranya of vācyānindāstuṛi and gamyastutinindā is not necessary

व्याजस्तुति and अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

vyājastuti and aprastutapraśaṃsā

Resemblance In both from the expressed sense, a sense different from it is understood.

Distinction (1) While अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा has five definite varieties such as 'कार्यान्त निमित्तम्', the cases of 'निन्दा या स्तुति' and 'स्तुति या निन्दा',

Distinction (1) While aprastutapraśaṃsā has five definite varieties such as 'kāryānta nimittam', the cases of 'nindā yā stuti' and 'stuti yā nindā',

Page 417

which form the province of व्याजस्तुति, cannot be made to go under any of these five varieties This means that though the two figures resemble in their general form, their provinces are different ( 2 ) Though the charm in both takes the common form of a प्रस्तुत being understood from an अप्रस्तुत, व्याजस्तुति has a specialized charm in so far as here from अप्रस्तुत निन्दा we understand प्रस्तुत स्तुति and vice versa Read 'न चात्र अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसैवास्तु । स्तुतिनिन्दात्मकतया विच्छित्तिविशेषात् । कार्यकारणभावादिसवन्धाभावाच्च ।

which form the province of vyājastuti, cannot be made to go under any of these five varieties This means that though the two figures resemble in their general form, their provinces are different ( 2 ) Though the charm in both takes the common form of a pratīyamāna being understood from an aprastuta, vyājastuti has a specialized charm in so far as here from aprastuta nindā we understand pratīyamāna stuti and vice versa Read 'na cātra aprastutapraśaṃsaivāstu । stutinindātmakatayā vicchittiviśeṣāt । kāryakāranabhāvādisambandhābhāvācca ।

Page 81

( 27 ) साहोक्ति or Speech with ' With '

( 27 ) sāhoktī or Speech with ' With '

When one word, though expressive of one sense i e though naturally connected with one entity, conveys two senses i e becomes connected with another entity through the force of the sense of सह, that is साहोक्ति For example 'सहाऽऽरक्तदृशेनास्या यौवने रागभाजौ प्रिय ' Here रागभाजौ is एकार्थाभिधायक i e expresses one entity viz the lover, who is possessed of affection (रागमनुराग भजति असौ ) But owing to the force of सह it is connected with रक्तदृश as well and then expresses that it is possessed of redness (राग रक्तिमान भजति तत्.) Hence, this line is an example of साहोक्ति

When one word, though expressive of one sense i e though naturally connected with one entity, conveys two senses i e becomes connected with another entity through the force of the sense of saha, that is sāhoktī For example 'sahāraktadarśenāsyā yauvane rāgabhājau priya ' Here rāgabhājau is ekārthābhidhāyaka i e expresses one entity viz the lover, who is possessed of affection (rāgamanurāga bhajati asau ) But owing to the force of saha it is connected with arunadarśa as well and then expresses that it is possessed of redness (rāga raktimān bhajati tat.) Hence, this line is an example of sāhoktī

साहोक्ति requires that the two entities that are connected by means of सह or its equivalent should have गुणवधानभाव between them This happens when सह is joined with an instrumental laid down by 'सहयुक्तेऽप्रधाने' पा २ ३ १९ (सहार्थेन युक्ते अप्रधाने तृतीया स्यात् । पुत्रेण सह आगत पिता । एवं सातत्यार्थसमयोदयेऽपि । स तु कौ ) Here आगत is connected with both पितृ and पुत्र owing to the force of सह पितृ, occurring in the nominative case and directly connected with आगत, is principal and पुत्रेण, which is in the instrumental case and thus indirectly connected with आगत by means of सह is subordinate It should be noted that the गुणवधानभाव, which सह, indicates, exists between the words and not necessarily between the entities 'पुत्रेण सह आगत पिता' thus satisfies all the requirements of साहोक्ति The expression cannot, however, be an example of the figure, because it does not possess the characteristic required for all figures viz strıkingness.

sāhoktī requires that the two entities that are connected by means of saha or its equivalent should have guṇapradhānabhāva between them This happens when saha is joined with an instrumental laid down by 'sahayukte'pradhāne' pā 2 3 19 (sahārthena yukte apradhāne tṛtīyā syāt । putreṇa saha āgata pitā । evaṃ sātattyārthasamayodaye'pi । sa tu kau ) Here āgata is connected with both pitṛ and putra owing to the force of saha pitṛ, occurring in the nominative case and directly connected with āgata, is principal and putreṇa, which is in the instrumental case and thus indirectly connected with āgata by means of saha is subordinate It should be noted that the guṇapradhānabhāva, which saha, indicates, exists between the words and not necessarily between the entities 'putreṇa saha āgata pitā' thus satisfies all the requirements of sāhoktī The expression cannot, however, be an example of the figure, because it does not possess the characteristic required for all figures viz strīkatva.

The following stanza is not an example of साहोक्ति, because the two persons mentioned therein are not related to each other by गुणवधानभाव 'अनुकूलभावमपवा पराङ्मुखस्त्वं सहैव नरोत्तमे । अन्योन्यविहितमन्युत्रौ विधिदैवकृतौ किमौ वहत '।।' रसगङ्गाधर p 358

The following stanza is not an example of sāhoktī, because the two persons mentioned therein are not related to each other by guṇapradhānabhāva 'anukūlabhāvamapavā parāṅmukhastvaṃ sahaiva narottame । anyonyavihitmanyutrau vidhidaivakṛtau kimau vahat '।।' rasagaṅgādhar p 358

Stanza 104—This stanza is कर्णमजरी 2 9 and contains a description of the Nāyikā in separation Here दीर्घा is directly connected with

Stanza 104—This stanza is karṇāmajarı̄ 2 9 and contains a description of the Nāyikā in separation Here dīrghā is directly connected with

Page 418

Page 81 ] NOTES • Tenth Flash

श्वासदण्डा and indirectly with दिवसानिशाभि through the force of the sense of सह दीर्घो', which is एकार्थाभिधायंक 1 e expresses the length belonging to श्वासदण्डा, thus becomes द्विवाचक 1 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 (ग्राम्य) 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

Though Mammata does not say so definitely, सहोक्ति must be based on अतिशयोक्ति Thus, in the present stanza दीर्घेत्व, which belongs to sighs, is really different from that which belongs to days and nights

But the two are regarded as one and on this identity the use of सह is based The same is the case with the action गलन the quality दुर्बलत्व अभेदरूपा वा अतिशयोक्ति Similarly, in 'सहाङ्गरागदर्शनस्य यौवनेऽङ्गमभवक्रिय:' राग, which belongs to प्रिय, is different from राग, which is found in अङ्गराग So here also सहोक्ति is founded on भेदेऽपि अभेदरूपा अतिशयोक्ति Viśvanātha puts this requirement of अतिशयोक्ति as the basis of सहोक्ति in his definition, which runs 'सहार्थस्य बलादेकं यत्र स्याद् वाचकं द्वयोः । सा सहोक्तिरिति लभ्यमातिशयोक्तियद्भवेत् ॥' सा द × 55

In the case of Mammata we may say that the basis of अतिशयोक्ति is presumed by the general requirement of strikingness सहोक्ति in order to be striking, should be based on अतिशयोक्ति.

The following stanza is not an example of सहोक्ति, because there is no अतिशयोक्ति at the basis 'अनने सार्ध विहरामरशोस्तीरेऽसु तालीवनमर्मरेषु । द्वीपान्तरीतलवणपुपैैरपाङ्गस्खेदलक्ष्मेदव मृदुकी ॥' रघुवंश 6 57

अतिशयोक्ति, which is at the basis of सहोक्ति, may either be (1) अभेदाध्यवसायमूल or (2) कार्यकारणपौर्वापर्यविपर्ययमूल

The former may again be (1a) श्लेषणनिबन्धन or (1b) अश्लेषणनिबन्धन सहोक्ति thus has three varieties 'सहाङ्गर प्रिय' is an example of (1a) and 'सह दिवसानिशाभि:' of (1b)

An example of (2) is 'सममेव नराधिपेन सा गुरुसमोहविलासचेतना । अगमत् सह तैलविन्दुना नतु दीपार्चिषि क्षितेशलम् ॥' साहित्यदर्पण

Here the fall of the lady is the cause of the fall of the king But the two are declared to be simultaneous and on this कार्यकारणपौर्वापर्यविपर्यय the figure सहोक्ति in this stanza is based Jagannātha does not admit सहोक्ति as the figure in such stanzas He believes that अतिशयोक्ति is here the proper figure and सहोक्ति is only nominal

Read 'इत्यादौ पौर्वापर्यविपर्ययाजुप्राणिता सहोक्तिरलङ्कार इति न

Page 419

युक्तिभ् । अतिशयोक्केरेष अन्य नमद्धेत्याधायकत्वेन सहेत्केनैव मात्रत्वात् ' रसगङ्गाधर p. 361

By reasoning. Because it is only with a hetu that it serves as a hetu and is connected together by 'saha' in 'sahokti', as stated by some rhetoricians to stand to each other in the relation of उपमान and उपमेय. For all these ideas read 'अलङ्कारसर्वस्व p' 81

Then again, the two things connected together by सह in सहोक्ति are stated by some rhetoricians to stand to each other in the relation of उपमान and उपमेय.

( 28 ) विनोक्ति or Speech with 'Without'

(28) Vinokti or Speech with 'Without'

विनोक्ति occurs in two ways viz (1) यत्र धन्येन बिना अन्य सन् शोभन 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;

Vinokti occurs in two ways viz (1) 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 धन्येन बिना अन्य इतर असन् अशोभन न, किं तु शोभन एव where a thing is represented as not being otherwise i e as not being not good

and (2) where a thing is represented as not being otherwise i.e. as not being not good

1 e as being good or agreeable in the absence of another Thus, यत्र च केनचिद् बिना कस्यचिद् विनोक्तिः । यत्र च केनचिद् विना कस्यचिद् अशोभनत्वं प्रतिपाद्यते सा एका विनोक्तिः । यत्र च केनचिद् विना कस्यचिद् शोभनत्वं प्रतिपाद्यते सा द्वितीया विनोक्तिः।

i.e. as being good or agreeable in the absence of another. Thus, where something is represented as being good or bad without something else, it is called Vinokti.

It will be noticed that in the second variety the idea of शोभनत्व is expressed in a negative manner 1 e as 'इतर = असन् = अशोभन न ' The purpose of this is to suggest that if that thing becomes अशोभन, it is due to the presence of something else

It will be noticed that in the second variety the idea of being good is expressed in a negative manner i.e. as 'other = not being = not being bad'. The purpose of this is to suggest that if that thing becomes bad, it is due to the presence of something else

Page 82

Stanza 105—This stanza illustrates the first variety of विनोक्ति, three examples of which occur herein First, the moon is represented as being lustre-less (अशोभि अदोक्षि, from रत्न to shine) without the night अन्य अन्येन (राङी) अन्येन (निशया) बिना सन् न, शोभन न, अशोभन' अशोभनत्वं इति प्रथमा विनोक्तिः ।

Stanza 105—This stanza illustrates the first variety of Vinokti, three examples of which occur herein. First, the moon is represented as being lustre-less without the night.

Secondly, the night is represented as being darkness (अशोभन) without the moon and thirdly the working of love is also described as not shining (अशोभन) with out both the moon and the night So we get two more examples of विनोक्ति

Secondly, the night is represented as being darkness without the moon and thirdly the working of love is also described as not shining without both the moon and the night. So we get two more examples of Vinokti.

Stanza 106—This stanza describes a certain prince who is represented as विचित्र प्रगल्भ i e शोभन in the absence of a certain woman and once again as अमृत रासय i e शोभन in the absence of a certain friend The suggestion here is that the prince himself is शोभन and whatever अशोभनत्व belongs to him is due to his evil associates

Stanza 106—This stanza describes a certain prince who is represented as wonderful and bold i.e. good in the absence of a certain woman and once again as nectar-like i.e. good in the absence of a certain friend. The suggestion here is that the prince himself is good and whatever badness belongs to him is due to his evil associates.

The stanza contains two examples of the second variety of विनोक्ति अन्य (नरेन्द्रसखु) अन्येन (मुग्धलोचनया शुध्दया च ) बिना इतर अशोभन न किंतु शोभन एव, इति प्रतिपादित । तेन द्वितीयाया विनोक्त उदाहरणद्वयमेवेतत् ।

The stanza contains two examples of the second variety of Vinokti. It is suggested that without another (the king's friend) and without another (the lady with beautiful eyes), the prince is not bad but good.

विप्रगेपु व्यापकृतेषु कमेण्डु या प्रभेभा कान्तितिस्सूर्तः: तस्या प्रभया प्रगल्भ भृशम् ।

When the lady was not near him, he became prominent with flashes of

Page 420

अस्मृतयुवति चन्द्र इव सुन्दर आशयेऽन्त करण यस्य

genius in manifold activities

In the absence of his friend the prince exhibited a mind beautiful like the moon.

विना निरर्थक जन्म गते नलिन्या यथा न दृष्टा तुहिनाद्रविम्बम्। उत्पत्तिरिन्दोरपि निष्फलैव दृष्टा नलिनी न येन साहियत्परुषं तुहिनाद्रदर्शनेन विना नलिनीजन्म अशोभनमु, विनिद्रनलिनीदर्शनेन विना च इन्दुदुर्लत्पत्तिरपि अशोभना

An example of विनोक्‍ति without the word विना is 'निरर्थक जन्म गते नलिन्या यथा न दृष्टा तुहिनाद्रविम्बम्। उत्पत्तिरिन्दोरपि निष्फलैव दृष्टा नलिनी न येन साहियत्परुषं तुहिनाद्रदर्शनेन'

Here the idea is विनोक्‍ति

नित्यसंवद्धनमसदन्थ वच्‍नम् । विनोक्षणलं च द्रुतशुक्‍ त्वां विना ज्योत्स्ना पुष्टयार्द्र सैरभं विना । ( 29 ) परिक्‍ृति or Barter

Example of this विनोक्ति is तथा चोक्तं 'विना ज्योत्स्ना पुष्टयार्द्र सैरभं विना ।'

परिक्‍ृति or Barter is defined as exchange ( विनिमय ) of things with equals or unequals

समस्य समेन विनिमय 1 e when we exchange a thing for its equal, ( 2 ) न्यूनस्य उत्तमेन विनिमय 1 e when we part with an inferior thing and receive a superior one in return, and ( 3 ) उत्तमस्य न्यूनैन विनिमय when we give a superior thing and receive an inferior one in its place

According to the nature of the thing received परिक्‍ृति is of three kinds viz (1) समस्य समेन विनिमय 1 e when we exchange a thing for its equal, (2) न्यूनस्य उत्तमेन विनिमय 1 e when we part with an inferior thing and receive a superior one in return, and (3) उत्तमस्य न्यूनैन विनिमय when we give a superior thing and receive an inferior one in its place

परिक्‍ृतिलकार —

This is intended to show that परिक्‍ृति in the Kārikā is the name of the figure and विनिमयः is the definition

Stanza 107—Here we have a description of flowering creepers in some garden, which were being shaken by the wind. As travellers looked at these creepers, they were apparently reminded of their beloveds at home and experienced various kinds of emotions.

The first half says that the wind gave dance to the creepers and received from them fragrance ( आामोद ) in return So here there is the exchange of an equal with an equal In the second half the creepers

Page 421

३६८

368

काव्यप्रकारः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 83

receive the glances ( हस्यम् ) of travellers in return the mixture ( व्यतिकर ) of pang ( आाधि ), disease ( व्याधि ), delusion ( भ्रम ), weeping ( हदितम् ) and swoon ( मोह ) As this mixture which is given by the creepers to the travellers is inferior, the second half illustrates न्यूनस्य ( आाध व्यतिकरस्य ) उत्तमेन ( हसा ) विनिमय

receive the glances (hasyaṁ) of travellers in return the mixture (vyatikara) of pang (ādhi), disease (vyādhi), delusion (bhrama), weeping (haditam) and swoon (moha) As this mixture which is given by the creepers to the travellers is inferior, the second half illustrates the exchange of an inferior (ādhi vyatikarasya) with a superior (hasā)

Page 83

Stanza 108—This stanza describes how a certain king kalled his enemies in batte ( संप्रहारे = युद्धे ) and conquered their lands Here hostule warriors receive from the king strokes ( प्रहारान् ), which represent a न्यून वस्तु, and give to him बहुन्वर्या, which is उत्तमस्य ( बहुन्वर्याया:) न्यूनेन ( प्रहारे ) विनिमय

Stanza 108—This stanza describes how a certain king killed his enemies in battle (saṁprahāre = yuddhe) and conquered their lands Here hostile warriors receive from the king strokes (prhārān), which represent a lesser thing, and give to him bahunvaryā, which is superior (bahunvaryāyāḥ) nyūnena (prahāre) vinimaya

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 स्वकीयं किचित् परस्मै दत्वा तस्मात् परस्मात् तदीयस्य कस्यचिदादानम् 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 परिद्वत्ति is quite definite on this point. Read रसगङ्गाधर, p 481

Vinimaya 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 vinimaya is giving something of one's own to another and receiving something from that other 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 parivṛtti is quite definite on this point. Read Rasagangaadhar, p 481

Dandin, Rudrata and Viśveśvara also hold the same view

The opposite view is held by Bhāmaha, Udbhata, Vāmana, Bhoja, Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha. According to them mere परिवर्तन or व्यत्यय i e the giving up of a certain thing and the taking of another is enough to constitute परिद्वत्ति 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 ‘विनिमयोज्ज्वल किचित्कस्यचिदानम्’ अलङ्कारसर्वस्व p 152 Bhāmaha further lays down that परिद्वत्ति should also be accompanied by अर्थोन्नतर्यम् According to these writers परिद्वत्ति covers a wider field As such it will extend not only to those cases which contain a proper exchange and which, therefore, are परिद्वत्ति 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 परिद्वत्ति would not be present One such case is

The opposite view is held by Bhāmaha, Udbhata, Vāmana, Bhoja, Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha. According to them mere parivartana or vyatyaya i e the giving up of a certain thing and the taking of another is enough to constitute parivṛtti 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 'vinimayojjvala kicitkasyacidānam' Alankarasarvasva p 152 Bhāmaha further lays down that parivṛtti should also be accompanied by arthonnataryam According to these writers parivṛtti covers a wider field As such it will extend not only to those cases which contain a proper exchange and which, therefore, are parivṛtti according to Mammata, Jagannātha and others, but also to those others where there is a vinimaya as defined by Ruyyaka and where according to Mammata the figure parivṛtti would not be present One such case is

तस्य च प्रवयसो जटायुष स्वर्गेण किमिव शोच्यते बुधे । येन जर्जरकलेवरव्ययात् कीतमिन्दु-किरणोज्ज्वलं यशः ॥ अलङ्कारसर्वस्व Here Jatāyu 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.

tasya ca prayaso jaṭāyuṣa svargaṇa kimiva śocyate budhe | yena jarjarakalevaravyayāt kītamindu-kiraṇojjvalaṁ yaśaḥ || Alaṅkārasarvasva Here Jatāyu 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.

Page 422

Therefore, this is not परिकल्पिति according to Mammata and others But according to Ruyyaka and others it is, because here there is विनियोग in the sense of 'कींचित् तर्क्या कस्यचिदानम् '

Therefore, this is not परिकल्पिति according to Mammata and others. But according to Ruyyaka and others it is, because here there is विनियोग in the sense of 'कींचित् तर्क्या 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, 'कीर्णानि प्राविककलेचना' समन्तान्मुखाम्बर-फलानि यत्र बाल्या ' is not an example of परिकल्पिति, because here the barter is real

(30) भाविकम् or vision

भाविक occurs when things past and future are depicted as though present It has thus two varieties viz (1) यत् भूतं (पूर्वकालिक्क ) भाषा प्रत्यक्षा इव कियन्ते प्रतिपाद्यते । (2) यत् भावि (उत्तरकालिक्क ) भाषा प्रत्यक्षा इव कियन्ते ।

भाविक occurs when things past and future are depicted as though present. It has thus two varieties viz (1) यत् भूतं (पूर्वकालिक्क ) भाषा प्रत्यक्षा इव कियन्ते प्रतिपाद्यते । (2) यत् भावि (उत्तरकालिक्क ) भाषा प्रत्यक्षा इव कियन्ते ।

The name भाविक is significant and is explained in four ways according to the sense given to the word भाव viz (1) भाव कवेरमिप्रायभूतभाविनामर्थानां प्रत्यक्षतया प्रतिपादनेऽस्ति अर्थः (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 अर्थ कवे भाव आमिप्राय उपमानोपमेययो साधर्म्यप्रतिपादनेऽस्ति (2) भाव कवेरमिप्राय यत्र वाचके श्रोतृ वा प्रतिभिमित अस्ति Here the description is so vivid that the intention of the poet is actually reflected in the reader or hearer Vide प्रतीहारेन्द्रराज's लघुवृत्ति on उद्धृत 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 साक्षात्करण प्रभवतीति भाविकम्' आशाधरभट्ट In this figure the reader obtains realization of past and future things as present owing to the vividness of the description.

The name भाविक is significant and is explained in four ways according to the sense given to the word भाव viz (1) भाव कवेरमिप्रायभूतभाविनामर्थानां प्रत्यक्षतया प्रतिपादनेऽस्ति अर्थः (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 अर्थ कवे भाव आमिप्राय उपमानोपमेययो साधर्म्यप्रतिपादनेऽस्ति (2) भाव कवेरमिप्राय यत्र वाचके श्रोतृ वा प्रतिभिमित अस्ति. Here the description is so vivid that the intention of the poet is actually reflected in the reader or hearer. Vide प्रतीहारेन्द्रराज's लघुवृत्ति on उद्धृत 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 साक्षात्करण 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 (दर्शनम्) as present Thus, we have here भूतस्य (अजनस्य ) भाविनो (भूषण-समारस्थ ) च प्रत्यक्षकरण प्रत्यक्षतया प्रतिपादनम्, अतो भाविकालंकार is that the absence of collyrium and ornaments does not in any way lessen the attraction of the girl

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 (दर्शनम्) as present. Thus, we have here भूतस्य (अजनस्य ) भाविनो (भूषण-समारस्थ ) च प्रत्यक्षकरण प्रत्यक्षतया प्रतिपादनम्, अतो भाविकालंकार. 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

क्रो. २४

Page 423

भाविक does not occur. Therefore, the following is not an example of भाविक, because it contains a description of present things अनतप्रोद्यतयमत्र लक्षिते सतात्पतैरिव सर्वतो हृृत । अचामरोप्येष सदैव वीज्यते विलासवालव्यजननकोड्ययाम् ॥

A point to note in connection with this figure is that Bhāmaha and Dandin (II 364-366) consider it to be a प्रबन्धविषय गुण or an attribute belonging to a whole composition. That is why they do not give any examples for this figure. It may be pointed out that Jagannātha does not mention भाविक among the 70 figures that he treats of. Hemacandra thinks that it belongs to drama and that when it is found in stray stanzas, it is not charming. Rudrata also does not treat of भाविक.

भाविकम् and प्रसादो गुण

We have seen above that poetical qualities are three and that प्रसाद is that quality by which words at once convey their meaning to our mind and make the scene described stand before our eyes. The गुण प्रसाद is common to all rasas and compositions cf. काव्यप्रकाश उल्लास VIII. Resemblance: The essence of both lies in making scenes appear vividly before our eyes. Distinction: The special charm of भाविक lies in making past and future things as present, while प्रसाद is of general application and as such possesses even the present for its province.

(31) काव्यलिङ्गम् or Poetical Cause

काव्यलिङ्ग arises when the reason for a certain thing is contained in वाक्यार्थे or the sense of a sentence, or in पदार्थे or the sense of words or a word. The पदार्थता of a reason may either be अनेकपदार्थता or एकपदार्थता. काव्यलिङ्ग is thus of three kinds viz: when there is (1) हेतु-वाक्यार्थता, (2) हेतोरेनेकपदार्थता and (3) हेतोरेकपदार्थता.

The word लिङ्ग is technical in न्यायशास्त्र. It means a logical reason. In such a syllogism as 'पर्वतो वह्निमान् धूमवत्त्वात्, धूमवद्रव is a लिङ्ग A logical reason is of three kinds and must possess certain characteristics such as पक्षधर्मत्वम् in order to be valid. For all this vide 'एतेषां च अन्वयव्यतिरेकि-कैवल्यन्वयी केबलव्यतिरेकिहेतवस्त्र त्रयाणा मध्ये यो हेतुर्न युक्तितिरेकी स पदार्थोपपत्त्या एव हेतुसामर्थ्याद् यतते । न तु एकेनापि रूपेण हीन । तस्मिन् पक्षधर्मे सप्रपक्षे सत्स्वभिपक्षाद् व्यावृत्ति: अभासितविषयत्वम् असत्प्रतिपक्षत्वं चेति । तर्कभाषा 24'

The name काव्यलिङ्ग is significant. It means that the reason (लिङ्ग = हेतु) that we have to deal with in this figure is a poetical one.

Page 424

and not the logical one with rigid requirements of five or less characteristics

Page 84

Stanza 110—This stanza is addressed to Śiva by devotee who has become मुक्त owing to salutation (नमन मुक्तः) to the great god The devotee requests that Śiva should forgive him his two faults arising from non-salutation in any former birth and non-salutation in future. Here the last line contains the statement that the poet has committed two faults and the reason for these two faults (अपराधद्वये हेतु:*) viz non-salutation in former and future births (पूर्वापरजननोन्मुखमनम्) is supplied by the two sentences, which form the first three lines Thus, the stanza is an example of हेतूद्बोध्यार्थतारूपं काव्यलिङ्गम्

and not the logical one with rigid requirements of five or less characteristics Page 84 Stanza 110—This stanza is addressed to Śiva by a devotee who has become liberated (mukt) owing to salutation (namana muktah) to the great god. The devotee requests that Śiva should forgive him his two faults arising from non-salutation in any former birth and non-salutation in the future. Here, the last line contains the statement that the poet has committed two faults and the reason for these two faults (apara-dvaya hetuh) viz. non-salutation in former and future births (pūrvāpara-janana-unmukha ananam) is supplied by the two sentences, which form the first three lines. Thus, the stanza is an example of hetudvodyārthatā-rūpaṁ kāvyaliṅgam.

As its name shows काव्यलिङ्ग is based on हेतुहेतुमद्‌द्राव or कार्यकारणभाव Thus, here अनमन is हेतु or कारण and अपराधद्वय is हेतुमत् or कार्य But really अनमन itself is अपराधद्रव्य The two are identical There is no अपराध different from अनमन How can हेतुहेतुमद्‌द्राव exist between them then ? In this connection the Udyota and the Prabhā point out that अपराध must be understood in the sense of अननमनरूपापराधनिदानुरूपम् Then, हेतुहेतुमद्‌द्राव would exist between अनमन and अपराध Read उद्योत p 94 and प्रभा pp 423-424

As its name shows, kāvyaliṅga is based on hetuhetumad-dravya or kāryakāraṇabhāva. Thus, here, ananam is hetu or kāraṇa and aparāddhva is hetumat or kārya. But really, ananam itself is aparādhadrvya. The two are identical. There is no aparādha different from ananam. How can hetuhetumad-dravya exist between them then? In this connection, the Udyota and the Prabhā point out that aparādha must be understood in the sense of ananaman-rūpāparādha-nidānurūpam. Then, hetuhetumad-dravya would exist between ananam and aparādha. Read Udyota p. 94 and Prabhā pp. 423-424.

Stanza 111—This stanza is मालतीमाधव v 31 It is addressed by Madhava to Aghoraghanta, who was about to strike Mālati with a weapon Mādhava wants to let his arm fall on Aghoraghanta's head like the rod of Death Here the last line speaks of मुक्तपात is made of many words that being incomplete do not form a sentence Therefore, the stanza is an example of हेतोरनेकपदार्थतारूपं काव्यलिङ्गम्

Stanza 111—This stanza is Mālatīmādhava v. 31. It is addressed by Madhava to Aghoraghanta, who was about to strike Mālati with a weapon. Mādhava wants to let his arm fall on Aghoraghanta's head like the rod of Death. Here, the last line speaks of mukta-pāta. The reason for that viz. शस्त्रोपदेश is contained in the third line, which is made of many words that being incomplete do not form a sentence. Therefore, the stanza is an example of hetor-aneka-padārtha-tā-rūpaṁ kāvyaliṅgam.

Stanza 112—This stanza contains the utterance of a devotee, who has become मुक्त through the propitiation of Lord Śiva As a मुक्त he feels no necessity of smearing his body with ashes (भस्मोद्‌धूलन भस्मना मूर्छा उद्धूलनम् आलेपनं तत्सदृशौ ), or of wearing a garland of berries ( रुदाक्षमाला ), or of going up the flight of stairs ( सोपानपरंपरा ) that leads to the temple of Śiva. He, therefore, takes leave of all these

Stanza 112—This stanza contains the utterance of a devotee, who has become liberated (mukt) through the propitiation of Lord Śiva. As a mukt, he feels no necessity of smearing his body with ashes (bhasmod-dhūlana bhasmanā mūrchhā uddhūlanam ālepanaṁ tatsadṛśau), or of wearing a garland of berries (rudrākṣamālā), or of going up the flight of stairs (sopānparamparā) that leads to the temple of Śiva. He, therefore, takes leave of all these.

Page 85

The last line speaks of release or salvation as a great swoon ( महामोह ) The reason for that is contained in one word (एकपदम् ) viz. युगपत्स्पयोः च्छेदिनि, which states that the release uproots or shuts out the light in the form of the pleasure of worship or service to भस्मोद्‌धूलन, रुदाक्षमाला and सोपानपरंपरा As a swoon shuts out the light of senses,

The last line speaks of release or salvation as a great swoon (mahāmohah). The reason for that is contained in one word (ekapadam) viz. yugapat-spayoh chedini, which states that the release uproots or shuts out the light in the form of the pleasure of worship or service to bhasmod-dhūlana, rudrākṣamālā, and sopānparamparā. As a swoon shuts out the light of senses,

Page 425

३७२

372

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ Page 85

even so thus swoon called release shuts out the light of the pleasure of resort to these things The idea is a released person has no necessity of indulging in विस्मोदलून, or of wearing the रुद्राक्ष garland or of visiting the temple of Siva, So as the reason कुलालोकेच्छेदित्यम् of महामोह is here contained in one word viz युष्मत्परयो छेदिनि, the stanza is an example of हेतोरेकपदार्थतारूप काव्यलिङ्गम्

even so, thus swoon called release shuts out the light of the pleasure of resorting to these things. The idea is that a released person has no necessity of indulging in vismodaluna, or of wearing the rudraksha garland or of visiting the temple of Siva. So, as the reason kulalokecchheditvam of mahamohan is here contained in one word viz. yushmatparayo chedini, the stanza is an example of heterekapadarthatarupa kavyalingam.

A point to note in connection with this figure is that the reason must not be directly expressed by means of the ablativeor instrumental case, but must be implied Therefore, ‘प्रजाना विनयाधनाद रक्षणाद भरणादपि । स पिता पितरस्तासां केवलं जन्महेतुक ’ रघुवंशा 1 24 is not an example of काव्यलिङ्गम्, because the reasons are here directly expressed by the ablative case Read रसगङ्गाधर p 466 For some adverse criticism on Jagannātha see भलोक्तिकौस्तुभ pp 338-339

A point to note in connection with this figure is that the reason must not be directly expressed by means of the ablative or instrumental case, but must be implied. Therefore, 'prajana vinayadhanad rakshanad bharanadapi | sa pita pitrastasam kevalam janmahetuk' Raghuvaṃśa 1.24 is not an example of kavyalingam, because the reasons are here directly expressed by the ablative case. Read Rasagangadhar p. 466. For some adverse criticism on Jagannatha, see Aloktikautsubh pp. 338-339.

हेतु in poetry is two fold viz कारक ( productive ) and ज्ञापक ( indicative or informative ) A कारक हेतु actually brings into existence or produces a certain thing or a certain state of affairs, while a ज्ञापक हेतु merely informs us of a certain thing or a certain state of affairs In ‘सुवर्णेन अलकारं करोति’ gold represents a कारक हेतु, but in ‘धूमेन पर्वते वह्निमन्तं जानाति’ धूमेन is a ज्ञापक हेतु, because it merely informs us that the mountain possesses fire

Hetu in poetry is two-fold viz. karaka (productive) and jnapaka (indicative or informative). A karaka hetu actually brings into existence or produces a certain thing or a certain state of affairs, while a jnapaka hetu merely informs us of a certain thing or a certain state of affairs. In 'suvarnena alankaramm karoti' gold represents a karaka hetu, but in 'dhumen parvati vahnimantam janati' dhumen is a jnapaka hetu, because it merely informs us that the mountain possesses fire.

For poetical examples of कारक हेतु see काव्यादर्शा II 236 and काव्यादर्शी II 238

For poetical examples of karaka hetu, see Kavyadarsa II.236 and Kavyadarsa II.238.

And for poetical examples of ज्ञापक हेतु see 244 and 245 काव्यादर्शी II

And for poetical examples of jnapaka hetu, see 244 and 245 Kavyadarsa II.

The relevancy of explaining these two kinds of हेतु is to point out that a कारक or निष्पादक हेतु is the proper province of काव्यलिङ्गम्, while a ज्ञापक हेतु is that of अनुमान ( which is defined below )

The relevancy of explaining these two kinds of hetu is to point out that a karaka or nispadaka hetu is the proper province of kavyalingam, while a jnapaka hetu is that of anumana (which is defined below).

It may here be noted that to these two kinds of हेतु Viśvanātha adds a third viz समर्थक ( justificative or confirmatory ) We have seen before that Viśvanātha, following Ruyyaka, maintains that अर्थान्तरन्यास occurs when an effect is supported by a cause or a cause by an effect and that these cases are by other rhetoricians included under काव्यलिङ्गम् Viśvanātha now maintains that while कारक and ज्ञापक हेतुs form the proper of काव्यलिङ्गम् and अनुमान respectively समर्थक हेतु is the province of अर्थान्तरन्यास Read साहित्यदर्पण under x 63ab

It may here be noted that to these two kinds of hetu, Visvanatha adds a third viz. samarthaka (justificative or confirmatory). We have seen before that Visvanatha, following Ruyyaka, maintains that arthantarnvayas occurs when an effect is supported by a cause or a cause by an effect and that these cases are by other rhetoricians included under kavyalingam. Visvanatha now maintains that while karaka and jnapaka hetus form the proper province of kavyalingam and anumana respectively, samarthaka hetu is the province of arthantarnvayas. Read Sahityadarpana under x.63ab.

It may here be remarked that the distinction between कारक or निष्पादक हेतु and समर्थक हेतु is by no means definite and that what is regarded as a समर्थक हेतु can easily be shown to be कारक Further, no other rhetorician mentions a समर्थक हेतु It is, therefore, proper to hold

It may here be remarked that the distinction between karaka or nispadaka hetu and samarthaka hetu is by no means definite and that what is regarded as a samarthaka hetu can easily be shown to be karaka. Further, no other rhetorician mentions a samarthaka hetu. It is, therefore, proper to hold.

Page 426

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 अर्थानुमान

that Arthāntaranyāsa occurs in those cases only, which are based on Sāmānya-Viśeṣabhāva and that all cases of causation should be relegated to either Kāvyalinga or Arthānumāna

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin and Vāmana do not mention this figure Udbhata ( p 75 ) is the first writer who defines it. Jagannātha refers to a view according to which काव्यलिङ्ग does not deserve to be a figure, because it has no distinctive charm of its own. It merely represents the absence of the defect called निर्हेतुकत्वम् For this view read रसगङ्गाधर p 470

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin and Vāmana do not mention this figure. Udbhata (p. 75) is the first writer who defines it. Jagannātha refers to a view according to which Kāvyalinga does not deserve to be a figure, because it has no distinctive charm of its own. It merely represents the absence of the defect called Nirhetukatva. For this view, read Rasagangādhar p. 470

काव्यलिङ्गम् and अर्थान्तरन्यास

Kāvyalingam and Arthāntaranyāsa

Resemblance वाक्यार्थोः काव्यलिङ्ग resembles अर्थान्तरन्यास, because both are based on समर्य्यसमर्य्यभाव 1 e in both one proposition corroborates the other

Resemblance: Vākyārthoh Kāvyalinga resembles Arthāntaranyāsa, because both are based on Samaryyasamaryyabhāva, i.e., in both, one proposition corroborates the other

Distinction (1) While the समर्य्यसमर्य्यभाव 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

Distinction: (1) While the Samaryyasamaryyabhāva in Kāvyalinga proceeds from Kāryakāraṇabhāva, that in Arthāntaranyāsa proceeds from Sāmānyaviśeṣabhāva. (2) In Kāvyalinga, the two sentences are interdependent and the sense of the one is not properly understood without that of the other. In Arthāntaranyāsa, on the other hand, the two sentences are independent and each is complete in sense by itself. (3) In Kāvyalinga, a productive cause is understood from the sense of the sentence. In Arthāntaranyāsa, one proposition is used for the purpose of making the other thoroughly understood

( 32 ) पर्यायोक्तम् or Round about Speech or Circumlocation

(32) Parayāyoktām or Round about Speech or Circumlocation

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 )

Parayāyoktām is defined as the statement of a certain thing without the relation of Vācya and Vācaka existing between it and the words which convey it. This means that the thing is conveyed by the words, not through the process of Abhidhā, which necessitates Vācyavācakabhāva, but through the process of suggestion (Avagamanavyāparen = Vyañjanāvyāparen)

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 ( अन्यापन्तरम् ), 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

In Parayāyokta, there is a certain thing, which is intended to be expressed or conveyed. We may call this Paramārthato Vācya. Now, in order to express this Vācya, we do not adopt the usual procedure of using words which can express it by means of Abhidhā, but resort to a different mode (Anyāpantarām), 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 Paramārthato Vācya, not by means of Abhidhā, but by means of Vyañjanā. The Paramārthato Vācya thus becomes Vyanga on

Page 427

१८५

185

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 85

account of the भक्त्यन्तर resorted to and is conveyed without वाच्यवाचकभाव existing between it and the other words which are used to convey it.

account of the other meaning resorted to and is conveyed without the speaker-listener relationship existing between it and the other words which are used to convey it.

Further, as the other words, employed to convey the परमार्थतो वाच्य by means of व्यञ्जना, represent merely a भक्त्यन्तर, their proper expressed sense, which वे may style आपाततो वाच्य, is practically the same as परमार्थतो वाच्य, though expressed in a different manner But परमार्थतो वाच्य, is व्यक्तव्य in this भक्त्यन्तर Hence, it follows that in पर्यायोक्त the वाच्य (it does not matter whether we understand वाच्य in the sense of परमार्थतो वाच्य or आपाततो वाच्य, because both are practically the same) is the व्यक्तव्य, though differently expressed

Further, as the other words, employed to convey the literal meaning by means of suggestion, represent merely a different interpretation, their proper expressed sense, which they may style apparent meaning, is practically the same as the literal meaning, though expressed in a different manner. But the literal meaning is the intended meaning in this different interpretation. Hence, it follows that in the figure of speech called 'periphrasis' the literal meaning (it does not matter whether we understand the literal meaning in the sense of the ultimate meaning or the apparent meaning, because both are practically the same) is the intended meaning, though differently expressed.

Let us take an illustration We want to ask some one to our place 'Requesting him to come to our place' is, therefore, our परमार्थतो वाच्य In order to express it we do not use the words 'भवद्रि अस्मदृपे आगन्तव्यम्' which would express our परमार्थतो वाच्य directly by means of अभिधा or वाच्यवाचकभाव, but resort to a different mode (भक्त्यन्तरम्) and use the words 'भवद्भि निजचरणधूलिना अस्मदृशं पावनीयम् '

Let us take an illustration. We want to ask someone to our place. 'Requesting him to come to our place' is, therefore, our literal meaning. In order to express it, we do not use the words 'You should come to our place' which would express our literal meaning directly by means of denotation or the speaker-listener relationship, but resort to a different mode (other interpretation) and use the words 'You should purify our house with the dust of your feet'.

Now, between our परमार्थतो वाच्य and these words, वाच्यवाचकवृत्तिः does not exist, for 'भवद्भि पावनीयम्' cannot by means of अभिधा express 'भवद्रि अस्मदृपे आगन्तव्यम् ' Therefore, they convey this idea by means of असङगमनवापरो. अस्मदृपे आगन्तव्यम् ' suggestion. On account of our having resorted to a भक्त्यन्तर our परमार्थतो वाच्य has become व्यक्तव्य and is conveyed by the words 'भवद्भि निजचरण-धूलिना अस्मदृशं पावनीयम्' without वाच्यवाचकभाव ie by means of अवगमनव्यापारो.

Now, between our literal meaning and these words, there is no speaker-listener relationship, for 'You should purify' cannot by means of denotation express 'You should come to our place'. Therefore, they convey this idea by means of suggestion. On account of our having resorted to a different interpretation, our literal meaning has become the intended meaning and is conveyed by the words 'You should purify our house with the dust of your feet' without the speaker-listener relationship, i.e., by means of the suggestive power.

Further, the words 'भवद्भि निज पावनीयम्' properly express the idea ' you should hallow our house with the dust of your feet' This is आपाततो वाच्य and is practically the same as परमार्थतो वाच्य, because it ultimately conveys the same idea. Hence, in पर्यायोक्त वाच्य and व्यक्तव्य are identical

Further, the words 'You should purify our house with the dust of your feet' properly express the idea 'You should hallow our house with the dust of your feet'. This is the apparent meaning and is practically the same as the literal meaning, because it ultimately conveys the same idea. Hence, in the figure of speech called 'periphrasis', the literal meaning and the intended meaning are identical.

Thus, the figure पर्यायोक्त occurs when we use the words 'भवद्भि निजचरण-धूलिना अस्मदृशं पावनीयम् ', to convey the idea 'भवद्रि अस्मदृपे आगन्तव्यम् ' पर्यायोक्त in short consists in a roundabout or indirect method of conveying our meaning. This is really a simple matter But the elaborate explanation given above is necessitated by the fact that Mammata emphasizes this peculiarity of पर्यायोक्त that in it वाच्य and व्यक्तव्य are identical, though differently conveyed.

Thus, the figure of speech called 'periphrasis' occurs when we use the words 'You should purify our house with the dust of your feet' to convey the idea 'You should come to our place'. Periphrasis, in short, consists in a roundabout or indirect method of conveying our meaning. This is really a simple matter. But the elaborate explanation given above is necessitated by the fact that Mammata emphasizes this peculiarity of periphrasis, that in it the literal meaning and the intended meaning are identical, though differently conveyed.

The name पर्यायोक्तम् is significant. परे अन्य mode.

The name 'periphrasis' is significant. 'Paryāya' means 'other mode' or 'different mode'.

As the intended sense is here conveyed by a different mode, the figure is called पर्यायोक्त अन्य पर्यायेन भक्तान्तरेण प्रकटितार्थत्वात् विशिष्टत्व अर्थस्य उक्तम् उक्तं

As the intended sense is here conveyed by a different mode, the figure is called 'periphrasis', because the meaning is expressed by another mode or different interpretation.

कथनमात्रं हि अत्र अन्यप्रकारेणाभिधानमात्रं उक्तम् उक्तिर्वा पदार्थस्य अन्यप्रकारेण कथनम्

Page 428

Page 85 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash ३४५

Page 85 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash 345

Stanza 113—This stanza is supposed to come from a drama, called हयग्रीववध, by the Kashmīrian poet रुष्ट. Here the poet wants to tell us that at the sight of Hayagriva Indra lost his pride and his elephant Airāvana its ichor i e both of them were humbled But instead of expressing this idea directly by using words which would convey it by means of अभिधा, the poet resorts to a different mode and says that at the sight of Hayagriva ( ये हयग्रीववधनमाने दैत्यराजम् ) ichor gave up its love of residence on the face of Airāvana and pride its love of residence in the heart of Indra So, as the intended sense is here conveyed by means of a different mode without वाच्यवाचकभाव of पर्यायोक्तकम्

Stanza 113—This stanza is supposed to come from a drama, called Hayagrivavadha, by the Kashmīrian poet Rukṣa. Here the poet wants to tell us that at the sight of Hayagriva Indra lost his pride and his elephant Airāvana its ichor i e both of them were humbled But instead of expressing this idea directly by using words which would convey it by means of Abhidhā, the poet resorts to a different mode and says that at the sight of Hayagriva (which means the demon king) ichor gave up its love of residence on the face of Airāvana and pride its love of residence in the heart of Indra So, as the intended sense is here conveyed by means of a different mode without Vācya-vācaka-bhāva of Paryāyokta

व्यक्तमपि शब्देन उच्यते (अभिधया प्रतिपाद्यते)—This seems to involve a contradiction If a certain thing is व्यक्त, how can it be expressed ? The contradiction is removed as follows - In this stanza the परमार्थतो वाच्य is ‘ऐरावणशक्कौ इदमाश्रयितुं जातौ ’ But in order to express it the poet uses the words ‘मदमानौऽमैरावणाक्षस्युबहृदयकोविदवासप्रतिरुचिक्षिता ’ These words cannot properly express the परमार्थतो वाच्य, but they only suggest it. Therefore, ‘ऐरावणशक्कौ मदमानसुखौ जातौ’, though our परमार्थतो वाच्य, is व्यक्त from the point of view of the actual words used At the same time this व्यक्त is declared to have been expressed ( उच्यते = अभिधया बोध्यते ) by those words, because their actual वाच्य or what we have called आपाततो वाच्य viz मदमानौऽमैरावणाक्षस्सबहृदयकोविदवासप्रतिरुचिक्षिता is practically the same as their व्यक्त viz ऐरावणाक्षौमदमाने बिभोज. It will thus be seen that in पर्यायोक्त the व्यक्त and वाच्य are identical, because the व्यक्त (परमार्थतो वाच्य) and वाच्य (आपाततो वाच्य) of the actual words used are practically the same. That is why Mammata says ‘तेन कदेव उभयेऽपि तदेव व्यक्तम्’ But Mammata at the same time points out that the व्यक्त and वाच्य, though thus practically identical, are not exactly of the same form ( यथा तु व्यक्तं तथा उच्यते ) For the form of the व्यक्त is ‘ऐरावणशक्कौ मदमानसुखौ जातौ’ and that of the वाच्य is ‘मदमानौऽमैरावणाक्षस्युबहृदयकोविदवासप्रतिरुचिक्षिता’

Vyaktamapi śabdena ucyate (abhidhayā pratipādyate)—This seems to involve a contradiction If a certain thing is vyakta, how can it be expressed ? The contradiction is removed as follows - In this stanza the paramārthato vācya is ‘Airavanaśakau idamāśrayituṁ jātau ’ But in order to express it the poet uses the words ‘Madamanau-mairāvaṇākṣasyu-bahṛdaya-kovidavāsa-pratirucikṣitā ’ These words cannot properly express the paramārthato vācya, but they only suggest it. Therefore, ‘Airavanaśakau madamanasukhau jātau’, though our paramārthato vācya, is vyakta from the point of view of the actual words used At the same time this vyakta is declared to have been expressed (ucyate = abhidhayā bodhyate) by those words, because their actual vācya or what we have called āpātato vācya viz madamanau-mairāvaṇākṣasya-bahṛdaya-kovidavāsa-pratirucikṣitā is practically the same as their vyakta viz airavanaśakau-madamanau bibhraj. It will thus be seen that in paryāyokta the vyakta and vācya are identical, because the vyakta (paramārthato vācya) and vācya (āpātato vācya) of the actual words used are practically the same. That is why Mammata says ‘Tena kadev ubhaye'pi tadev vyaktam’ But Mammata at the same time points out that the vyakta and vācya, though thus practically identical, are not exactly of the same form (yathā tu vyaktaṁ tathā ucyate) For the form of the vyakta is ‘Airavanaśakau madamanasukhau jātau’ and that of the vācya is ‘Madamanau-mairāvaṇākṣasyu-bahṛdaya-kovidavāsa-pratirucikṣitā’

यथा हि श्रुते विकलप्यते—We have seen above that the peculiarity of पर्यायोक्त is that व्यक्त and वाच्य are therein identical. But here one may object, How can one and the same thing be both व्यक्त and वाच्य ? Mammata answers this objection by adducing an example from the theory of perception held by the Naiyāyīka-Vaiśeṣikas and the Bauddhas.

Yathā hi śrute vikalpate—We have seen above that the peculiarity of paryāyokta is that vyakta and vācya are therein identical. But here one may object, How can one and the same thing be both vyakta and vācya ? Mammata answers this objection by adducing an example from the theory of perception held by the Naiyāyīka-Vaiśeṣikas and the Bauddhas.

The cognition of गो or गोज्ञान is made of two elements viz, गोत्व and गोव्यक्ति गोत्र is विशेषण and गोव्यक्ति is विशेष्य. गोज्ञान thus represents a विशिष्ट-

The cognition of Go or Gojñāna is made of two elements viz, Gotva and Govyakti Gotva is Viśeṣaṇa and Govyakti is Viśeṣya. Gojñāna thus represents a Viśiṣṭa-

Page 429

ज्ञान or qualified cognition. Now, there is a rule which says that a qualified cognition is always preceded by the cognition of the विशेषण as dissociated from the विशेष्य which it qualifies. Note the maxim नाय्यीतोत-विशेषणा बुद्धिविशेष्यस्युपसंक्रमति ' For example, the qualified cognition दण्डी is preceded by the separate cognition of the दण्ड, which is the विशेषण of the दण्डी, which is the विशेष्य. Surely, a man who does not possess any idea of what a दण्ड is cannot have the qualified cognition दण्डी. Similarly the qualified cognition गोश्ञान must be preceded by the cognition of the विशेषण गोत्व as dissociated from the गोव्यक्ति which it qualifies.

Knowledge or qualified cognition. Now, there is a rule which says that a qualified cognition is always preceded by the cognition of the qualifier as dissociated from the qualificand which it qualifies. Note the maxim 'विशेषणा बुद्धिविशेष्यस्युपसंक्रमति'. For example, the qualified cognition 'दण्डी' is preceded by the separate cognition of the 'दण्ड', which is the qualifier of the 'दण्डी', which is the qualificand. Surely, a man who does not possess any idea of what a 'दण्ड' is cannot have the qualified cognition 'दण्डी'. Similarly, the qualified cognition 'गोश्ञान' must be preceded by the cognition of the qualifier 'गोत्व' as dissociated from the 'गोव्यक्ति' which it qualifies.

But the cognition of गोत्व alone is not possible as apart from that of गोव्यक्ति. Under these circumstances the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika thinkers argue that the cognition गौ must have been preceded by another cognition in which गोत्व and गोव्यक्ति were perceived separately, not as connected with each other by the relation of विशेषण and विशेष्य. This cognition in which a जाति, गुण and क्रिया and their respective substrates are apprehended separately but not as connected, with each other, is styled निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष or indeterminate perception by the Naiyāyika-Vaiśeṣikas. It is defined as knowledge which does not extend to संबन्धानवगाहि ज्ञाने निर्विकल्पकम्) On the other hand that perception in which such relation is apprehended is called सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष or determinate perception.

But the cognition of 'गोत्व' alone is not possible as apart from that of 'गोव्यक्ति'. Under these circumstances, the Nyāya and Vaiśeṣika thinkers argue that the cognition 'गौ' must have been preceded by another cognition in which 'गोत्व' and 'गोव्यक्ति' were perceived separately, not as connected with each other by the relation of qualifier and qualificand. This cognition in which a universal, quality, and action and their respective substrates are apprehended separately but not as connected with each other, is styled 'निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष' or indeterminate perception by the Naiyāyika-Vaiśeṣikas. It is defined as knowledge which does not extend to the relation of the qualified and the qualifier. On the other hand, that perception in which such relation is apprehended is called 'सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष' or determinate perception.

It will be seen from the above that in such a cognition as ' गौः गृः भाति ' both निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष and सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष possess the same विषय or object viz. गोव्यक्ति and गोत्व-शुक्ल-चलन, but not exactly in the same form, The object of निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष is गोव्यक्ति and गोत्व-शुक्ल-चलन as dissociated from each other i. e as not connected with each other by विशेष्यविशेषण भाव, but the object of सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष is the same गोव्यक्ति and गोत्व-शुक्ल-चलन related to each other as विशेष्य and विशेषण. Thus, as निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष and सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष possess the same विषय but in different forms, even so the वाच्य and वाचक in पर्यायोक्त convey the same विषय or idea, but expressed in different forms.

It will be seen from the above that in such a cognition as 'गौः गृः भाति', both 'निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष' and 'सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष' possess the same object, viz., 'गोव्यक्ति' and 'गोत्व-शुक्ल-चलन', but not exactly in the same form. The object of 'निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष' is 'गोव्यक्ति' and 'गोत्व-शुक्ल-चलन' as dissociated from each other, i.e., as not connected with each other by the relation of qualificand and qualifier. But the object of 'सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष' is the same 'गोव्यक्ति' and 'गोत्व-शुक्ल-चलन' related to each other as qualificand and qualifier. Thus, as 'निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष' and 'सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष' possess the same object but in different forms, even so the denoted and the denoter in 'पर्यायोक्त' convey the same object or idea, but expressed in different forms.

We have remarked above that it is not possible to perceive गोव्यक्ति and गोत्व-शुक्ल-चलन as dissociated from each other. The Naiyāyika Vaiśesikās, therefore, hold निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष is अतिनिद्रिय or supersensuous, but as it is necessary in view of the argument stated above, its presence is proved by means of अनुमान

We have remarked above that it is not possible to perceive 'गोव्यक्ति' and 'गोत्व-शुक्ल-चलन' as dissociated from each other. The Naiyāyika Vaiśesikās, therefore, hold that 'निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष' is supersensuous, but as it is necessary in view of the argument stated above, its presence is proved by means of inference.

It must be noted that Mammata does not use the terms निर्विकल्पक and सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष. He uses instead धर्मादि (निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष) and विकल्प: (सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष).

It must be noted that Mammata does not use the terms 'निर्विकल्पक' and 'सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष'. He uses instead 'धर्मादि' (निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष) and 'विकल्प:' (सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष).

Page 430

( सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष ) Therefore, his words 'यथा मति शुक्ले चलति हृ्टे गौः शुक्लव्वलति' इति विकल्प' mean यथा गोपी गोले तदाश्रये गोत्वक्तौ, शुक्ले शुक्लत्वगुणे तदाश्रये गोव्यक्तौ च, चलति चलनक्रियायां तदाश्रये गोव्यक्तौ च, हृ्टे परस्परासंबद्वत्लेन निर्विकल्पकप्रत्यक्षविषयीभूते, 'गौः शुक्लव्वलति' इति विकल्पः गोत्वजाति-शुक्लत्वगुण-चलनक्रियाविशिष्टगोव्यक्ती इति सविकल्पकप्रत्यक्षं जायते

(Savikalpaka Pratyakṣa) Therefore, his words 'yathā mati śukle calati hṛṣṭe gauḥ śuklatvalati' iti vikalpaḥ mean yathā gauḥ gole tadāśraye govṛttau, śukle śuklatvaguṇe tadāśraye govṛttau ca, calati calanakriyāyāṃ tadāśraye govṛttau ca, hṛṣṭe parasparāsambaddhatvena nirvikalpaka pratyakṣaviṣayībhūte, 'gauḥ śuklatvalati' iti vikalpaḥ gotvajāti-śuklatvaguṇa-calanakriyāviśiṣṭagovṛtti iti savikalpakapratyakṣaṃ jāyate

Page 86

यदेव हृ्टे तथा —This sentence explains how दर्शन् (निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष) and विकल्प (सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष) possess the same विषय but in a different form (न तु यथा हृ्टे तथा) Explain this sentence as यदेव (यानी गोव्यक्तिः-गोत्वजातिः-शुक्लत्वचलनादि एतत्) हृ्टं (परस्परासंबद्वत्लेन निर्विकल्पकप्रत्यक्षविषयीभूतानि) तदेव (तानी गोव्यक्तिः-गोत्वजातिः-शुक्लत्वचलनादि एतत्) विकल्पयति (परस्परासंबद्वत्लेन सविकल्पकप्रत्यक्षविषयीकरोति), न तु यथा (परस्परासंबद्वत्लेन) हृ्टं तथा (विकल्पयति, विकल्पे परस्परसंबद्वत्लेन तेषां प्रतीतिः.)

Yadeva hṛṣṭe tathā—This sentence explains how darśana (Nirvikalpaka Pratyakṣa) and vikalpa (Savikalpaka Pratyakṣa) possess the same viṣaya but in a different form (na tu yathā hṛṣṭe tathā) Explain this sentence as yadeva (yānī govṛttiḥ-gotvajātịḥ-śuklatvacalanādi etat) hṛṣṭaṃ (parasparāsambaddhatvena nirvikalpaka pratyakṣaviṣayībhūtāni) tadeva (tānī govṛttiḥ-gotvajātịḥ-śuklatvacalanādi etat) vikalpayati (parasparāsambaddhatvena savikalpaka pratyakṣaviṣayīkaroti), na tu yathā (parasparāsambaddhatvena) hṛṣṭaṃ tathā (vikalpayati, vikalpe parasparasambaddhatvena teṣāṃ pratītiḥ.)

यतो विकल्पयति—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 हृ्टं तथा) This latter statement is being explained in this sentence

Yato vikalpayati—It was said in the preceding sentence that the viṣaya of darśana (Nirvikalpaka Pratyakṣa) and vikalpa (Savikalpaka Pratyakṣa) was the same, but not of the same form (na tu yathā hṛṣṭaṃ tathā) This latter statement is being explained in this sentence

This sentence 'यथा विकल्पयति' refers to two different views regarding the relation that exists between व्यक्ति and its attributes जाति-गुण-क्रिया According to the Bauddhas this relation is भेद or distinction When we say गौः or शुक्लो गौः, or गौः चलति, what we really do is to disting-uish the bull from all those objects which are not bulls, or from all those bulls which are not white, or from all those bulls which are not moving This भेद or distinction, which by the way is the same as अपोह mentioned earlier, is not perceived in दर्शन् or निर्विकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष as qualifying a thing But in विकल्प or सविकल्पक प्रत्यक्ष it is cognized as connected with it. This means that according to the Bauddhas the विषय of दर्शन् is वस्तु and भेद as unconnected with each other i e अभिन्नं वस्तु or an undistinguished entity and that of विकल्प is वस्तु and भेद as connected with each other i e मिश्रं वस्तु or a distinguished entity This is the idea in Mammata's statement (यदेव वस्तु) अभिन्नत्वेन हृ्टं (तदेव भेदेन विकल्पयति)

This sentence 'yathā vikalpayati' refers to two different views regarding the relation that exists between vyakti and its attributes jāti-guṇa-kriyā According to the Bauddhas this relation is bheda or distinction When we say gauḥ or śuklo gauḥ, or gauḥ calati, what we really do is to distinguish the bull from all those objects which are not bulls, or from all those bulls which are not white, or from all those bulls which are not moving This bheda or distinction, which by the way is the same as apoha mentioned earlier, is not perceived in darśana or nirvikalpaka pratyakṣa as qualifying a thing But in vikalpa or savikalpaka pratyakṣa it is cognized as connected with it. This means that according to the Bauddhas the viṣaya of darśana is vastu and bheda as unconnected with each other i.e. abhinnam vastu or an undistinguished entity and that of vikalpa is vastu and bheda as connected with each other i.e. miśram vastu or a distinguished entity This is the idea in Mammata's statement (yadeva vastu) abhinnatvena hṛṣṭaṃ (tadeva bhedena vikalpayati)

The Naiyāyika-Vaiśeṣikas on the other hand hold that संयोगी (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. This सयोगी or विशेष्यविशेषणभाव is not perceived in दर्शन्, but is cognized in विकल्प Thus, according to them the object of दर्शन् is व्यक्ति and (जातिगुणक्रियाभिः) सयोगी as unconnected with each other i. e. जातिगुण-क्रियाभिसंयोग्रैः वस्तु and that of विकल्प is व्यक्ति and (जातिगुणक्रियाभिः.) सयोगी as

The Naiyāyika-Vaiśeṣikas on the other hand hold that saṃyogī (connection or association) is the relation between vyakti and jāti-guṇa-kriyā govṛttiḥ is the viśeṣya and jāti, guṇa and kriyā are associated with it as its viśeṣaṇas. This saṃyogī or viśeṣyaviśeṣaṇabhāva is not perceived in darśana, but is cognized in vikalpa Thus, according to them the object of darśana is vyakti and (jātiguṇakriyābhiḥ) saṃyogī as unconnected with each other i.e. jātiguṇa-kriyābhisamyograiḥ vastu and that of vikalpa is vyakti and (jātiguṇakriyābhiḥ.) saṃyogī as

Page 431

३७८

378

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

connected with each other 1 e जातिगुणक्रियाभि संश्रष्ट वस्तु This is what Mammata means when he says (यद्वस्तु) असंश्रष्ट्वेन ऋष्ट (तदु) संसर्गे विकलपयति

Connected with each other, i.e., the object is related through its class, quality, or action. This is what Mammata means when he says that an object not related in such a manner is considered related.

It will thus be seen that according to Mammata the peculiarity of पर्यायोक्त lies in this that here words convey the intended sense without वाच्यवाचकभाव 1 e by means of व्यंजनव्यापार, because a different mode is adopted to express it, and that the expressed and the suggested senses are practically the same. In this Mammata follows the ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Udbhata and especially Udbhata from whom he borrows some of his phraseology

It will thus be seen that according to Mammata, the peculiarity of 'paryāyokta' lies in this: that here words convey the intended sense without the speaker-listener relationship, i.e., by means of suggestion, because a different mode is adopted to express it, and that the expressed and the suggested senses are practically the same. In this, Mammata follows the ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, and Udbhata, and especially Udbhata, from whom he borrows some of his phraseology.

By the way it may be noted here that the ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Udbhata do not admit ध्वनि They include all suggestive poetry under पर्यायोक्त and three other figures Mammata on the other hand admits ध्वनि Jagannātha points out that though Bhāmaha and others do not specifically recognize ध्वनि, they admit it in an implied manner in some of their figures Read रसगङ्गाधर ( Pp. 414-415 )

By the way, it may be noted here that the ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, and Udbhata do not admit 'dhvani'. They include all suggestive poetry under 'paryāyokta' and three other figures. Mammata, on the other hand, admits 'dhvani'. Jagannātha points out that though Bhāmaha and others do not specifically recognize 'dhvani', they admit it in an implied manner in some of their figures. Read 'Rasagangadhar' (Pp. 414-415).

We have noted above that पर्यायोक्त essentially consists in conveying our meaning in an indirect or roundabout manner This roundabout manner may take a variety of forms. But Ruyyaka, Vidyādhara, Vidyānātha and Viśvanātha lay down that पर्यायोक्त arises when the प्रकृत cause is suggested by describing the effect which is also प्रकृत. These writers thus limit the scope of पर्यायोक्त to this one form of a roundabout manner viz the suggestion of the प्रसृत cause through the description of the effect, which is also प्रकृत This latter characteristic viz that the effect which is described to suggest the cause, is also प्रकृत even like the cause itself, distinguishes पर्यायोक्त from आरोपणो

We have noted above that 'paryāyokta' essentially consists in conveying our meaning in an indirect or roundabout manner. This roundabout manner may take a variety of forms. But Ruyyaka, Vidyādhara, Vidyānātha, and Viśvanātha lay down that 'paryāyokta' arises when the actual cause is suggested by describing the effect, which is also actual. These writers thus limit the scope of 'paryāyokta' to this one form of a roundabout manner, viz., the suggestion of the cause through the description of the effect, which is also actual. This latter characteristic, viz., that the effect which is described to suggest the cause is also actual, even like the cause itself, distinguishes 'paryāyokta' from 'āropo'.

It must be remarked that Ruyyaka and others unnecessarily restrict the province of this figure Jagannātha points out that पर्यायोक्त arises mainly in three ways viz. ( 1 ) when from a cause which is expressed, the effect is suggested, ( 2 ) when from an effect which is expressed the cause is suggested and ( 3 ) when from a certain thing another connected with it, but not by कारणभाव, is suggested.

It must be remarked that Ruyyaka and others unnecessarily restrict the province of this figure. Jagannātha points out that 'paryāyokta' arises mainly in three ways, viz., (1) when from a cause which is expressed, the effect is suggested, (2) when from an effect which is expressed, the cause is suggested, and (3) when from a certain thing, another connected with it, but not by causal relationship, is suggested.

Jagannātha further remarks that though पर्यायोक्त is in the manner stated above three-fold, there is no end of the modes in which a thing may be conveyed.

Jagannātha further remarks that though 'paryāyokta' is in the manner stated above three-fold, there is no end to the modes in which a thing may be conveyed.

पर्यायोक्तकप and ध्वनि

Paryāyoktakapa and Dhvani

Resemblance : पर्यायोक्त consists in the adoption of a different mode to convey the intended sense. The different mode possesses both a

Resemblance: 'Paryāyokta' consists in the adoption of a different mode to convey the intended sense. The different mode possesses both

Page 432

वाच्यार्थ and a व्यङ्ग्यार्थ In ध्वनि or उत्तम काव्य also there is a वाच्यार्थ and a व्यङ्ग्यार्थ Hence, the two resemble.

In dhvani or the best poetry, there is also a literal meaning and a suggested meaning. Hence, the two resemble.

Distinction (1) In पर्यायोक्त though the भङ्ग्यन्तर technically possesses two senses, these two are practically one, as the वाच्य represents merely another way of expressing the व्यङ्गय In ध्वनि, the two are distinct

Distinction: (1) In पर्यायोक्त, although the underlying meaning technically possesses two senses, these two are practically one, as the literal meaning represents merely another way of expressing the suggested meaning. In ध्वनि, the two are distinct.

( 2 ) In पर्यायोक्त out of the two senses वाच्य and व्यङ्गय, the वाच्य, which is expressed by the भङ्ग्यन्तर, is striking and contains the charm of the figure The व्यङ्गय is a mere plain statement and has no importance In ध्वनि on the other hand the charm lies in the व्यङ्गय sense, which subordinates the वाच्य

(2) In पर्यायोक्त, out of the two senses, the literal and the suggested, the literal meaning, which is expressed by the underlying meaning, is striking and contains the charm of the figure. The suggested meaning is a mere plain statement and has no importance. In ध्वनि, on the other hand, the charm lies in the suggested sense, which subordinates the literal meaning.

Resemblance पर्यायोक्त resembles कारणे प्रस्तुतेऽप्रस्तुतस्य कार्यस्य वाचो रुपा अप्रस्तुतप्रकिसा, such as is exemplified in ‘राजन् राजसुताह’ ( stanza 49 ). For, in the present example of पर्यायोक्त viz ‘ये प्रेष्य चिरुन्ध्रादपि’ one can easily say that what is प्रस्तुत is the fear created in Sakra and Airāvana at Hayagrīva'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

Resemblance: पर्यायोक्त resembles अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा where the effect is described in terms of the cause, as exemplified in 'राजन् राजसुताह' (stanza 49). For instance, in the example of पर्यायोक्त, 'ये प्रेष्य चिरुन्ध्रादपि', one can easily say that what is presented is the fear created in Sakra and Airāvana at Hayagrīva's sight, and that this fear is suggested to us by describing its effect, viz., the loss of pride and ichor by Indra and the elephant.

Distinction While in अप्रस्तुतप्रकिसा 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

Distinction: While in अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, the cause is presented and the effect is not presented, in पर्यायोक्त, the effect along with the cause is presented, 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 अप्रस्तुतप्रशसा 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 राजसुताह' as an example of पर्यायोक्ती on this very ground

It will thus be seen that in an अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा of this kind, if one argues that the effect is presented because it is more charming, 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 राजसुताह' as an example of पर्यायोक्ती on this very ground.

Note न चेद ( पर्यायोक्ती ) काव्यंते कारणप्रतीतिरूपा अप्रस्तुतप्रश्सा । तत्र कार्यस्य अप्रस्तुतत्वात् । इह तु वर्णनीयस्य प्रभावातिशयबोधकत्वेन कार्यमपि कारणवत् प्रस्तुतम् ।' साहित्यदर्पण under x 61 ab

Note: 'If it is not पर्यायोक्ती, it is अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा where the cause is understood. There, the effect is not presented. But here, the effect is presented like a cause, as it serves to bring out the greatness of the subject under description.' (Sāhityadarpana under X 61ab)

( 33 ) उदात्तम् or the Exalted

(33) The Exalted or उदात्तम्

उदात्त occurs in two ways viz. ( 1 ) when there is a description of the prosperity or abundance ( संपत् ) of a certain thing and ( 2 ) when the great are subordinated ( उपलक्षितम् = अत्कृष्टभाव गुणवत्त ) to the object which is to be indicated i e. which is the matter under description

उदात्त occurs in two ways: (1) when there is a description of the prosperity or abundance (संपत्) of a certain thing, and (2) when the great are subordinated (उपलक्षितम् = उत्कृष्टभाव or गुणवत्त) to the object which is to be indicated, i.e., which is the matter under description.

Page 433

३८२

382

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 87

the second kind of उदात्त In that case महताम् in ' महता चोपलक्ष्यमाण् ' must be explained as ' महता पुरषाणां रसानां च '

the second kind of Udātta. In that case mahatām in 'mahatā copalakṣyamāṇam' must be explained as 'mahatā puruṣāṇāṃ rasānāṃ ca'

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

Though it is possible to interpret Mammata's words in this manner and make his second kind of Udātta wide enough to include the Rasavat of other rhetoricians, we do not think such a meaning is intended. We think by 'aṅgatvāt' 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 Udātta.

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.

With reference to the two kinds of Udātta, 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 Udātta, 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 उदार and अवसर respectively Hemacandra does not admit it as an independent figure at all He remarks that it is included in अतिशयोक्ति, जाति or ध्वनि

By the way, it may be noted that Bhatti (10.51-53) and Rudrata (VII.103-105) designate this figure by the terms Udāra and Avāsara respectively. Hemacandra does not admit it as an independent figure at all. He remarks that it is included in Atiśayokti, Jāti or Dhvani.

उदात्त and स्वभावोक्ति - भाविकम्

Udātta and Svabhāvokti - Bhāvikaṃ

Resemblance - The first kind of उदात्त resembles स्वभावोक्ति and भाविक because all three contain simple descriptions of things

Resemblance - The first kind of Udātta resembles Svabhāvokti and Bhāvika 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 ' स्वभावोक्ती भाविके च यथावद्वस्तुवर्णनम् । तत्रापेक्ष्यतेन आरोपितवस्त्वलंकारन उदात्तस्य अवसर । ततस्त्वभाव्यमानविभूतियुक्तस्य वस्तुनो वर्णने कविभिस्समयप्रतिपादनायोगात् ।' अलंकारसर्वस्व pp 183 184

Distinction - While Svabhāvokti and Bhāvika contain descriptions of things as they are, Udātta consists of an imaginative description of some impossible kind of prosperity. Read 'Svabhāvokti bhāvike ca yathāvad vastuno vrṇanamm. Tatrapekṣyate'nāropitavastv alañkāro na udāttasya avasaraḥ. Tataḥ svabhāvyamānavibhūtiyuktasya vastuno vrṇane kavibhis samayapratipādanāyogāt.' Alaṅkārasarvasva pp. 183-184.

(34) समुच्चय or Conjunction

(34) Samuccaya or Conjunction

समुच्चय occurs where one cause sufficient for the accomplishment or production of a certain effect, which is relevant ( तस्मिद्धेतौ तस्य प्रस्तुतस्य कार्यस्य सिद्धे उत्पते । हेतौ साधके कारणे सिथते सति इर्यर्थः ), being present, another capable of producing the same effect ( तत्र तस्य कार्यस्य साधक मन्यत 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, समुच्चय arises समुच्चय thus consists in the simultaneous operation of many causes, each of which is severally capable of producing the intended result.

Samuccaya occurs where one cause sufficient for the accomplishment or production of a certain effect, which is relevant (tasmiddhetau tasya prastutasya kāyasya siddhe utpate. Hetau sādhake karane sithate sati iryarthaḥ), being present, another capable of producing the same effect (tatra tasya kāyasya sādhaka manyat karanam) 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, Samuccaya arises. Samuccaya thus consists in the simultaneous operation of many causes, each of which is severally capable of producing the intended result.

Page 434

अन्यत् तत्करम्

The singular here must be understood to be a collective singular, as indicated by Mammata's paraphrase 'सङ्कान्तराणि' in the Vṛtti For, in this figure many causes operate to produce the result

सङ्कान्तराणि

Simultaneous operation of many causes is a characteristic of this figure To express this idea many rhetoricians use the word खलेखपोतिक्रम् or खलेपोतन्याय 1 e the maxim of the pigeons on the threshing floor Just as many pigeons simultaneously alight on a threshing floor and vie with one another in picking up the grains scattered there, even so in this figure many causes simultaneously begin to operate in order to produce the same result

The name समुच्चय is significant. It means conjunction. The figure is so called, because here many causes conjoin to produce a certain result

Stanza 116—This stanza occurs in the शाङ्गधरपद्धति No 3753

The stanza represents the utterance of a virahinii, who finds separation exceedingly unbearable विरहस्य असहत्वम् is thus the effect intended to be described here For this effect no less than eleven causes such as स्मरसमागमेन दुर्वारत्वम् are mentioned Each of these causes is capable of producing the effect 1 e of making the separation unbearable. Yet so many of them are mentioned simultaneously That is how the figure समुच्चय arises

अत्र उपपत्तम्

This sentence states how the figure समुच्चय is developed in the above stanza

एष एव लक्षणते

We have seen that the essence of समुच्चय consists in the conjunction or combination of many things According as these things which are combined are either good ( सद्योगे ), or bad ( असद्योगे ) or both good and bad ( सदसद्योगे ) समुच्चय has three varieties Rudrata definitely says that समुच्चय is thus three fold Read काव्यालङ्कार vii 19

Mammata apparently wants to controvert this view He says that this very समुच्चय viz the one which has been defined and illustrated above as distinguished from the other which will be defined below ( एष एव =उक्तलक्षणोदाहरण प्रत्यम एव, न तु द्वितीय ) ultimately results in 1 e leads to or involves ( पर्यवस्यति ) संयोग, असंयोग and सदसद्योग That is why it has not been separately defined by him in the Kārikā

Mammata's argument here is absolutely unconvincing If this समुच्चय leads to संयोग, असंयोग and सदसद्योग, as he definitely says and

Page 435

अत्न असतां योग — Mammata here points out that stanza 116

Now, the combination of good and bad — Mammata here points out that stanza 116

'दुर्वारा स्मरमार्गणा' is an example of असद्योगे समुच्चय . It is to be noted here that the word असत् is to be understood in the sense of disagreeable or unacceptable to the person concerned and not in that of 'bad' intrinsically. That is why स्मरमार्गणा , प्रियतम etc are regarded as असत् . For, these are all disagreeable or unacceptable to the virahinī, who is the speaker

Stanza 118—This stanza comes from Bhartṛhari's Niṩśataka

It enumerates seven things, which have been declared to be the darts i e the tormentors of the mind. Here though one thing is enough to torment the mind, the other six are mentioned. That is how समुच्चय is developed

Thus stanza has been quoted to illustrate सदसद्योगे समुच्चय . We have explained above how समुच्चय is present here. The presence of सदसद्योग is thus explained

This stanza has been quoted to illustrate सदसद्योगे समुच्चय. We have explained above how समुच्चय is present here. The presence of सदसद्योग is thus explained.

The compound सदसद्योग is dissolved either as (1) सन्तक्ख असन्तक्ख ( ग्रन्धे ) तेषां योग , or as (2) सन्तक्ख ते असन्तक्ख ( कमेधारय ) तेषां योग . According to the first dissolution सदसद्योग occurs when there is a combination of good and bad things. Thus, in 'शशी दिवसघूसरो' , six good things viz शशी, कामिनी, सर , स्वच्छते मुखम् , प्रसू, and सज्जन are

Page 436

combined with one bad thing viz शल्. 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 रशी, कामिनी etc are good in themselves, but become bad when they grow दिवससंध्यसूर्, गलितयौवन etc

The first is the view of the Pradipa, the second that of the Udyota and the Prabhā Mammata does not say definitely which variety of समुचयय

Ruyyaka favours the interpretation, which involves कर्मधारय Visvanātha 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 सहरचरविभ्रता 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 द्वन्द्ध compound is not intended For, if रशी, कामिनी etc are good and शल् is bad, how can they all be declared as mental darts? The last line thus shows that रशी etc cannot be regarded as good. Hence, the interpretation with the द्वन्द्ध compound must be rejected (3) As Visvanātha points out the charm of सदसद्योग समुचयय 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 ‘दुबारा स्मरामि न.’ we find that पयतम्, even like रशी, 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 असद्योग or सदसद्योग

The answer is that the two examples can be easily distinguished as follows (1) What is intended to be conveyed in ‘दुबारा स्मरामि न.’ 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

Page 437

३८६

386

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[Page 88

particular individual, while in ‘शशो दिवसघूसरो’ what the poet wants to convey is that objects, which ordinarily are good, become bad, when associated with certain conditions. Thus, the charm in these two stanzas lies in two different regions (2) In ‘शशो दिवसघूसरो’ all the six objects such as शशो, कामिनो etc. are good in themselves, but become bad when associated with certain conditions. In ‘दुवारो स्मरमार्गणा.’ on the other hand only प्रियतम, like शशो, etc., is good in himself and becomes bad, when associated with the condition of being away मन, वय, प्राणा, कुळम्, वोतलम् and सत्य are in themselves matters of indifference, being intrinsically neither good nor bad and thus stand on a different footing from शशो, कामिनो etc स्मरमार्गणा, प्रेम and काल (वसन्त) are definitely bad in the case of the particular विरहिणो कृतान्त is bad altogether It would thus appear that the things mentioned in ‘दुवारो स्मरमार्गणा’ do not resemble those that occur in ‘शशो दिवसघूसरो’ and hence there is no likelihood of the two examples being confused, if we accept the second interpretation of सदसद्योग

Another point to be noted with reference to stanza ‘शशो दिवसघूसरो’ is that it contains the poetical defect called प्रक्रमभङ्ग or भमप्रकमता, such as it instanced in ‘गाहन्तां महिषा निपानसलिलेः०’ आ०कुन्तल 11 6 For, in the case of the first six objects the विशेष्य is good and the विशेषण bad, while in the case of the seventh the विशेष्य (खल) is bad and विशेषण (नृपारक्षण) is good. Thus, प्रक्रमभङ्ग vitiates the figure in this stanza.

Apropos of the three divisions of समुच्चय, based on सयोग, असयोग and सदसद्योग, which Mammata refuses to define separately, we have to point out that Ruyyaka and Jagannātha admit them Jagannatha goes a step further and refutes the view of those who say that these divisions are unnecessary Read रसगङ्गाधर pp 490, 491, 492

The ancient rhetoricians Bhamaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not define समुच्चय Rudrata is the earliest writer who does so

समुच्चय and काव्यलिङ्गम्

Samuccaya and Kavyalingam

Resemblance Both are based on implied कार्यकारणभाव

Distinction While the charm in काव्यलिङ्ग lies in the cause being furnished by a word or words or a sentence, the charm in समुच्चय consists in representing that many causes capable of producing a certain

are operating simultaneously

अन्य समुच्चय or Another or Second Conjunction

Any Samuccaya or Another or Second Conjunction

of समुच्चय consists in representing that qualities

of Samuccaya consists in representing that qualities

ous (युगपत् = एककालीनः ) The expression

ous (Yugapat = Ekakalinah) The expression

Page 438

गुणक्रिया

Guna-kriya

of the Kārikā means, as the Vrtti explains, two qualities or two actions or a quality and an action

(1) गुणयोयोगपद्यम् (2) क्रिययोयोगपद्यम् and (3) गुणक्रिययोयोगपद्यम्

(1) Gunayor yogapadyam (2) Kriyayor yogapadyam and (3) Gunakriyayor yogapadyam

The second समुच्चय also thus possesses three varieties viz

It is here pointed out that the dual in गुणौ and क्रिये occurring in the vrtti is not significant.

Therefore, the first and second varieties include respectively गुणाना योगपद्यम् and क्रियाणा योगपद्यम्

Mammata now proceeds to illustrate in order the three varieties mentioned in his Vrtti

Stanza 119—This stanza is रुदट's काव्यालंकार vii 28

It tells us that the king's army became spotless i e white or brilliant with victory and at the same time the faces of the enemies grew dusky with defeat

विमल and मलिन

Vimala and Malina

So here the two qualities विमल and मलिन are represented as simultaneous, their simultaneity being indicated by the two चक् (चकारदयौ युगपद् योतयति)

गुणयोयोगपद्य समुच्चय

Gunayor yogapadya Samuccaya

Therefore, this stanza is an example of गुणयोयोगपद्य समुच्चय

Stanza 120—This stanza is विक्रमोर्वशीय iv 3

Here two actions viz the occurrence of separation and the becoming delightful of the days are represented as simultaneous

क्रिययोयोगपद्य समुच्चय

Kriyayor yogapadya Samuccaya

Hence, this is an example of क्रिययोयोगपद्य समुच्चय

Stanza 121—In this stanza a quality viz कलुष and an action viz पतन are represented as simultaneous

No sooner did the king's eye become angry than calamities overtook the enemy

गुणक्रिययोयोगपद्ये समुच्चय

Gunakriyayor yogapadye Samuccaya

Therefore, this is an example of गुणक्रिययोयोगपद्ये समुच्चय

कारणपौर्वापर्यविपयेयलुपा अतिशयोक्ति

Kāraṇa-paurvāparya-viparyaya-lupā Atishayokti

For the king's growing angry is the cause and the falling of calamities is the effect

अतिशयोक्ति

Atishayokti

As such the one should precede the other But the two are depicted as simultaneous in this stanza

धनोति वार्ति' इति च न वाच्यम्

Dhanoti vārti' iti ca na vacyam

In defining the second kind of समुच्चय Rudrata says that the two qualities and the two actions, which are represented as simultaneous in this figure should be व्यधिकरण i e should have different abodes

व्यधिकरणे वा यस्मिन् गुणक्रिये चैकालमेकस्मिन् | उपजायते देशे समुच्चय स्पात् तदन्योषी ||

Read 'व्यधिकरणे वा यस्मिन् गुणक्रिये चैकालमेकस्मिन् | उपजायते देशे समुच्चय स्पात् तदन्योषी ||' रुदट's काव्यालंकार vii 27

रुदट's example of व्यधिकरणयो गुणयोयोगपद्यम् is stanza 119 above, where the quality विमल is बलाधिकरण i e "belongs to the army" and the quality मलिन is प्रकृत्युस्साविकरण i e resides in the faces of the wicked enemies

His example of व्यधिकरणयो क्रिययोयोगपद्यम्

Page 439

दैवादहमत्र तथा चपलायतनेत्रया नियुक्ततक्षः । अभिरलाविलोलझटित् काळ समुपागतक्षायम् ॥

By the god's command and with eyes moving restlessly, the carpenter was appointed. With a quick and unsteady movement, he came to the appointed time.

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. Thus, in 'धुनोति चार्सि तनुते च कीर्तिम्', which is an example of क्रियोयोगपद्यरूप समुच्चय, the two actions are समानाधिकरण i e belong to the same individual, who flourishes the sword and spreads fame On the other hand in 'कृपाणपाणिल्क्ष सुरालमे' which illustrates गुणोयोगपद्यरूप समुच्चय, the two qualities कृपाणपाणित्व and सुरालम्ब are व्यधिकरण i e belong to different abodes viz भगवान् and सूरा respectively Therefore, Mammata remarks that neither व्यधिकरण nor एकदेश should be laid down as a condition of this kind of समुच्चय

Mammata's words 'व्यधिकरण इति' are, as will be seen from above, directed against Rudrata It is not known against whom he means the words 'एकस्मिन्न् देशे ' It may be that these are not directed against any particular author; but are merely meant to empnasize that as समुच्चय occurs in both व्यधिकरण and एकदेश, neither व्यधिकरण should be laid down as a condition in its definition as Rudrata does, nor एकदेश as some other may be inclined to do

Mammata's words 'व्यधिकरण इति' are, as will be seen from above, directed against Rudrata. It is not known against whom he means the words 'एकस्मिन्न् देशे '. It may be that these are not directed against any particular author; but are merely meant to emphasize that as समुच्चय occurs in both व्यधिकरण and एकदेश, neither व्यधिकरण should be laid down as a condition in its definition as Rudrata does, nor एकदेश as some other may be inclined to do.

समुच्चय and कारकदीपकम्

Samuccaya and Kārakadīpaka

Resemblance क्रियाणां यौगपद्यरूप समुच्चय resemble कारकदीपक, because in both many actions are grouped together

Resemblance: Actions that are simultaneous in Samuccaya resemble Kārakadīpaka, because in both many actions are grouped together.

Distinction (1) While in समुच्चय the actions are depicted as simultaneous, in कारकदीपक they are successive (2) In समुच्चय the actions may be either समानाधिकरण or व्यधिकरण, in कारकदीपक they must necessarily be समानाधिकरण

Distinction: (1) While in Samuccaya the actions are depicted as simultaneous, in Kārakadīpaka they are successive. (2) In Samuccaya the actions may be either समानाधिकरण or व्यधिकरण, in Kārakadīpaka they must necessarily be समानाधिकरण.

Page 90

( 35 ) पर्याय or Succession

(35) Paryāya or Succession

एकं कमेण अनेकस्मिन् पर्याय —The figure पर्याय is of two kinds, of which the first is defined here. It occurs when one thing ( a ) is in many places in succession, or ( b ) is made to be in many places in succession Thus, the first kind of पर्याय has two sub-divisions viz. ( a ) एकं कमेण अनेकस्मिन् भवति and ( b ) एकं कमेण अनेकस्मिन् कियते.

One thing in many places in succession is called Paryāya. The figure Paryāya is of two kinds, of which the first is defined here. It occurs when one thing (a) is in many places in succession, or (b) is made to be in many places in succession. Thus, the first kind of Paryāya has two sub-divisions viz. (a) एकं कमेण अनेकस्मिन् भवति and (b) एकं कमेण अनेकस्मिन् कियते.

The name पर्याय is significant. पर्याय means order of sequence or succession ( कम्. ) As this figure contains order or succession, it is called पर्याय p. 305.

The name Paryāya is significant. Paryāya means order of sequence or succession (kram). As this figure contains order or succession, it is called Paryāya p. 305.

Page 440

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 exist ence and artificial existence respectively

The difference between भवति and क्रियते 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.

Stanza 122.—This stanza is सकटशतक 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 उत्तरोत्तरं 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 एकमनेकस्मिन् भवति इत्याकारक पर्याय

This stanza is from सकटशतक 4. It tells us how the deadly poison Kālakūṭa successively came to occupy different places, each better than the other, first in the heart, then in the throat, then in the mouth. Here, as Kālakūṭa is described as occupying three different places successively and no causal agency is mentioned, the stanza is an example of एकमनेकस्मिन् 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

It may be noted here that the पर्याय in this stanza is based on भेदोऽपि अभेदरूपा अतिशयोक्ति. For, the कालकूट, which was extracted from the heart of the ocean and remains in the throat of Śiva, is different from the कालकूट (evil producing capacity) found in the speech of the wicked.

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’—एष पर्याय

This stanza 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’—this is पर्याय.

रागस्य भविरुद्गम्—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 ‘एकमनेकस्मिन् 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

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 ‘एकमनेकस्मिन् भवति’? Mammata's answer is that though राग with its two senses is really different, it is definitely ascertained as one owing to paronomasia (श्लेष). Hence, there is nothing contradictory if we look upon it as one. This means that underlying पर्याय in this stanza, there is श्लेषमूलका भेदोऽपि अभेदरूपा अतिशयोक्ति.

Note that बिम्बोष्ठ itself would be an example of वाचकश्लेषा उपमा, the common property being supplied by राग

Note that बिम्बोष्ठ itself would be an example of वाचकश्लेषा उपमा, with 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 न्वाभास्यपित्ती० ’ is not free from this defect. For, though the connection of कालकूट with अणेऽहृदय comes to an end, when it goes to कण्ठमकण्ठ, its connection with the throat of Śiva does not

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 न्वाभास्यपित्ती० is not free from this defect. For, though the connection of कालकूट with अणेऽहृदय comes to an end, when it goes to कण्ठमकण्ठ, its connection with the throat of Śiva does not.

Page 441

३९०

390

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 90

cease, when it goes to reside in the speech of the rogues A better example is

श्रोणीबन्धवसत्यजति तत्प्रियां सेवते मध्यभाग पद्मया मुक्तासतरलङ्गतय संश्रिता लेखनाभ्याम् । धत्ते वक्षः कुसुमसंचितामद्वितीयं च वक्त्रं तद्वदनत्राणा गुणविनिमय कलितो यौवनेऽन ॥

Shroṇībandhavastyaati tatpriyāṃ sevate madhyabhāga padmaya muktāsataralangataya saṃśritā lekhānābhyām । dhatte vakṣaḥ kusumasamcitāmadvitīyaṃ ca vaktram tadvantrāṇā guṇavinimaya kalito yauvanen ॥

The Udyota, however, is against the above criticism According to its view the essence of पर्याय lies in one thing occupying many places It is not necessary that its connection with the first place should come to an end, when it goes to the second Though पर्याय may have that sense in ordinary life, it is not intended here

The remarks of जगन्नाथ in this connection (vide रसगङ्गाधर p 480) raise an important question regarding the text of काव्यप्रकाश From that passage it is clear that according to Jagannātha the stanza 'श्रोणीबन्ध o' comes from the Kāvyaprakāśa and that the stanzas 'विम्बोष्ठ एव०', and 'नन्वाश्रयस्थिरतिः o', come respectively from the कुवलयानन्द and the अलङ्कारसर्वस्व This suggests that these two latter stanzas, which actually occur in our text, were not in the text of the Kāvyaprakāśa used by Jagannātha. With reference to 'श्रोणीबन्ध o' Appaya Dīkṣita also says 'इत्यत्र पर्यायः काव्यप्रकाशोक्तुदाहृताहार' Then again, while the Pradīpa does not know of 'श्रोणीबन्ध o' the Udyota comments upon it As regards other commentators we find that while some of them explain 'श्रोणीबन्ध o', others do not. The Trivandrum edition of the Kāvyaprakāśa reads all the three stanzas Under these circumstances it is difficult to say definitely which stanza or stanzas Mammata originally quoted in order to illustrate पर्याय Our view is that he quoted only one viz 'श्रोणीबन्ध o', and that the others came to be incorporated in his text from marginal notes on manuscripts written by some teacher who wanted to give additional examples to his pupils. In this we rely on Jagannātha and Appayā Dīkṣita, to whom we are inclined to attach greater importance than to any of Mammata's commentator or commentators.

Stanza 124—This stanza is quoted from the वन्यालोक of आनन्दवर्धन and describes the subjugation of the demons by Cupid. The mind of the demons was first solely devoted (एक्रस) to Viṣṇu (श्रीसङ्कोदार्द्र यदरत्न कैस्तुमणि तदाभरणमलेकृणो यस्य तस्मिन् विष्णोः) It was then placed by Cupid in the bimba-like lower lip of their beloveds. This means under the influence of Cupid the demons transferred their devotion from Viṣṇu to beloveds. Here the mind is made to occupy two different places by an external causal agency viz. Cupid. Therefore the stanza is an example of पर्याय where. 'एकनिष्ठेकस्मिन् नीयते'

Page 442

The Prakrit सिरिसहोअरअणाहारुणाम्मि is also translated as श्रीसहोदरत्न-

हरणे अभिनवगुण्̄

harane abhinavaguṇa

The rendering, which is distinctly better than the one in our text

With this translation the idea is that the demons were first intent on collecting from Visnu his Kaustubha jewel

Or they were intent on collecting from all sides excellent jewels (श्रौसहोदराणि समुन्द्रव्थाणि उज्जलक्खण्णा इत्यर्थ यानि रत्नानि तेभ्यः श्रासवत्तात् हरिणे)

This new rendering makes no difference in the figure which the stanza is intended to illustrate

It must be pointed out that this stanza is also not a happy illustration of एकमनेकस्मिन् क्रियते

For though Cupid is the cause why the heart of the demons longed for the bimba-like lower lip of their beloveds, he is not declared to be, nor can he be supposed to be, the cause of the heart's original devotion to Visnu

A good example is supplied by 'विसृष्टरागाद्रानिवर्तित स्तनाक्षररागरुणिताच्च कन्दुकात् । कुशाङ्कुरादानपरिक्षताङ्गुलि कृतोद्यमसूत्रप्रणयी तया कर ॥' कुमारसम्भव 5 11

The stanza describes the change in the occupations of Pārvatī's hand, when she began to practise penance

The hand is successively made to deal with अधर, कन्दुक, कुशाङ्कुर and अक्षमाला by Pārvatī

Hence, the stanza is an illustration of एकमनेकस्मिन् क्रियते

अन्य पर्याय or Another or Second Succession

The second kind of पर्याय is exactly the opposite of the first (तत्पूर्वस्मात् पर्यायात् अन्यथा विपरीत अन्य पर्याय )

It also possesses two subdivisions viz ( 1 ) अनेकमेकस्मिन् क्रमेण भवति i e when many things successively occupy one abode and ( 2 ) अनेकमेकस्मिन् क्रियते i e when many things are made to occupy successively one abode

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

The stanza is an example of अनेकमेकस्मिन् भवति, because here अमृत and विषकण or विष are described as being successively connected with श्लेषवचस् and no external causal agency is mentioned as having brought about this connection

Stanza 126 — This stanza is quoted from आनन्दवर्धन's ध्वन्यालोक pp 158-159

The सुवत्सकार suggests that it is the utterance of some one who saw the prosperity whuch Kṛṣṇa's friend कुदामन् had attained

In this stanza many things viz तड्‌ गेहम्, हृदे मन्थरम्, जरती चेतु, करिणां घटा, मुसलस्यनि and योषितां सपत्कम् are represented as having

Page 443

३९२

काव्यप्रकाशः

[ Page 91

been connected with the Brāhmaṇa by days Hence, it is an example of ‘ अनेकमेकस्मिन् क्रियते —’ रूप पर्याय

अनेकं क्रियते एकस्मिन्—

—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 ‘अनेकं क्रियते एकस्मिन्’ 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 शल्बकष्ठ Here we find that at any one time only one entity viz either nectar or poison occupies the abode A similar example is ‘उदुना पुलिन् तत्र यत्र शोत 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 ‘विवरान्ति विलासिन्यो यत्र श्रोणिमरालसा । वृककाकशिवास्तत्र धावन्यरिपुरे तव ॥’ साहित्यदर्पण

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 एकसैव 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 (एकं क्रियते अनेकस्मिन्) though one and the same thing (viz कालकूट) is abandoned (हानम्) by one (viz अङ्गद) and is accepted (उपादान) by another viz. इन्द्रलस्मन् i. e. though there is एककर्मक (but भिन्नकर्तृक) हान and उपादान, the party abandoning (viz अङ्गद) does not receive anything in return and the party receiving (viz. इन्द्रलस्मन्) does not abandon anything in exchange for the thing received i. e. there is no एककर्तृक (but भिन्नकर्मक) हान and उपादान. For परिदृत्ति both एककर्तृक (but भिन्नकर्मक) हानोपादान and एककर्मक (but भिन्नकर्तृक) 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

Page 444

kind of पर्याय where ( एक कर्मण 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 परिकृति

kind of paryāya where (one action is done to many or many actions are done to one) as the abandonment (of one thing) and the receipt (of another) by one and the same agent are not intended, there is no parikrti

Now in the second kind of पर्याय (अनेक कर्मण एकस्मिन्) though one and the same individual ( viz द्रिज ) abandons one thing viz ( गेहं ) and accepts another ( viz भवन्तर ) i e though there is एककर्तृक ( but भिन्नकर्मक ) हानोपादान, the thing abandoned ( viz गेहं ) is not taken by any other person and the thing received ( viz भवन्तर ) is not received from any one i e there is no एककर्मक ( but भिन्नकर्तृक ) हानोपादान For परिकृति both एककर्तृक हानोपादान and एककर्मक हानोपादान are necessary, But as in the second kind of पर्याय there is only एककर्तृक हानोपादान, it is not परिकृति

Now in the second kind of paryāya (many actions are done to one) though one and the same individual (viz dvija) abandons one thing viz (gehaṃ) and accepts another (viz bhavantara) i.e. though there is one agent (but different actions) hānopādāna, the thing abandoned (viz gehaṃ) is not taken by any other person and the thing received (viz bhavantara) is not received from any one i.e. there is no one action (but different agents) hānopādāna. For parikrti both one agent hānopādāna and one action hānopādāna are necessary, But as in the second kind of paryāya there is only one agent hānopādāna, it is not parikrti

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 कर्मण 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 परिकृति

For this interpretation ekasya must be taken as karmani ṣaṣṭhī. The sentence can then be rendered as follows: Here (i.e. in the second kind of paryāya, where many actions are done to one) as the abandonment (by one person) and the receipt (by another) of one and the same thing are not intended, there is no parikrti

All this may again be explained as follows

(1) एककर्मक ( but भिन्नकर्तृक ) हानोपादाने i e आमोद is abandoned by creepers and received by the wind (2) एककर्तृक ( but भिन्नकर्मक ) हानोपादाने i e the creepers abandon आमोद and receive लास्य or the wind abandons लास्य and receives आमोद Both these are necessary for परिकृति Vide stanza 107

(1) One action (but different agents) hānopādāna i.e. āmoda is abandoned by creepers and received by the wind (2) One agent (but different actions) hānopādāna i.e. the creepers abandon āmoda and receive lāsya or the wind abandons lāsya and receives āmoda. Both these are necessary for parikrti. Vide stanza 107

(1) एककर्मक ( but भिन्नकर्तृक ) हानोपादाने i e कालकूट is abandoned by अर्णवहृदय and received by वृष (2) एककर्तृक ( but भिन्नकर्मक ) हानोपादाने i e the द्रिज abandons गेह and receives भवन्तर First पर्याय (अनेककर्मसिन्) contains only this and not (2). Second पर्याय (अनेककर्मसिन्) contains only this and not (1).

(1) One action (but different agents) hānopādāna i.e. kālakūṭa is abandoned by arṇavahṛdaya and received by vṛṣa (2) One agent (but different actions) hānopādāna i.e. the dvija abandons geha and receives bhavantar. First paryāya (many actions to one) contains only this and not (2). Second paryāya (many actions to one) contains only this and not (1)

The ancient rhetoricians भामह, दण्डिन्, उद्भट and वामन do not define पर्याय खट is the first rhetorician who admits it Vide his काव्यालङ्कार vii. 42–46

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana do not define paryāya. Khaṭ is the first rhetorician who admits it. Vide his Kāvyālaṃkāra vii. 42–46

पर्याय and परिकृति : Resemblance The two varieties of पर्याय, where one thing successively resides in two places ( stanza 123 ) and where many things

Paryāya and parikrti: Resemblance. The two varieties of paryāya, where one thing successively resides in two places (stanza 123) and where many things

Page 445

successively reside in one place (stanza 125) resemble परित्रित्ति, where also it can be argued that the two objects exchanged successively reside in two different places

successively reside in one place (stanza 125) resemble parivṛitti, where also it can be argued that the two objects exchanged successively reside in two different places

Distinction The charm of परित्रित्ति lies in a proper exchange, where one individual gives to another something belonging to him and receives from him something else that is his But the charm of पर्याय consists in one thing successively occupying many places, or in many things successively residing in one In short while in परित्रित्ति there is a proper exchange, in पर्याय there is none

Distinction The charm of parivṛitti lies in a proper exchange, where one individual gives to another something belonging to him and receives from him something else that is his But the charm of पर्याय consists in one thing successively occupying many places, or in many things successively residing in one In short while in parivṛitti there is a proper exchange, in पर्याय there is none

(36) अनुमानम् or Inference

(36) anumānam or Inference

anumāna consists in the statement of the reason (साधनम्) and the conclusion (साध्यम्) Thus, in the celebrated syllogism 'पर्वतो वहिमान् धूमात् धूमवत्त्वाद् वा' धूम or धूमवत्त्व is the साधन, हेतु or लिङ्ग and वहिमत्त्व is the साध्य

anumāna consists in the statement of the reason (sādhanam) and the conclusion (sādhyaṃ) Thus, in the celebrated syllogism 'parvato vahimān dhūmāt dhūmavattvād vā' dhūma or dhūmavattva is the sādhan, hetu or liṅga and vahimattva is the sādhya

Logic mentions certain characteristics, which must be present in a reason in order that it may be valid It also lays down what a proper साध्य is For the rhetorical figure अनुमान it is not necessary that the साधन and साध्य, which are stated therein, should satisfy all the requirements of formal logic It is sufficient if they merely look like the logical साधन and साध्य In view of this fact it must be remarked that the logical definitions of साधन and साध्य which Mammata gives in his Vṛtti, are, to say the least, uncalled for and serve no other purpose except perhaps to show that Mammata knew Nyāyaśāstra

Logic mentions certain characteristics, which must be present in a reason in order that it may be valid It also lays down what a proper sādhya is For the rhetorical figure anumāna it is not necessary that the sādhan and sādhya, which are stated therein, should satisfy all the requirements of formal logic It is sufficient if they merely look like the logical sādhan and sādhya In view of this fact it must be remarked that the logical definitions of sādhan and sādhya which Mammata gives in his Vṛtti, are, to say the least, uncalled for and serve no other purpose except perhaps to show that Mammata knew Nyāyaśāstra

पक्षधर्मी साधनम्—This is Mammata's definition of a logical reason (हेतु) becomes a logical reason or proving mark (साधनम्), when it is possessed of three characteristics viz पक्षधर्मत्व, अन्वयव्याप्ति and व्यतिरेकव्याप्ति (द्वैन्द्रान्ते धूमादि पदे प्रत्येकमभिसंबध्यते इति न्यायेन 'पक्षधर्मोऽन्वयव्याप्ति प्रतिपक्षव्यतिरेकभानय । इभि-प्रतयस्य तु द्वयोरेव भानय । तथा च फलितम् ।)

pakṣadharmī sādhanam—This is Mammata's definition of a logical reason (hetu) becomes a logical reason or proving mark (sādhanam), when it is possessed of three characteristics viz pakṣadharmatva, anvayavyāpti and vyatirekavyāpti (dvaindrānte dhūmādi pade prayekamabhisambadhyate iti nyāyena 'pakṣadharmo'navyayavāpti pratipakṣavyatirekabhānaya । ibhi-pratayasya tu dvayoreva bhānaya । tathā ca phalitam ।)

In order to understand these three characteristics we must have before us the following detailed syllogism पर्वतो वहिमान् धूमात् । यत्र यत्र धूमस्तत्र तत्र वह्यभावस्तत्र धूमाभावो यथा हृदे ।

In order to understand these three characteristics we must have before us the following detailed syllogism parvato vahimān dhūmāt । yatra yatra dhūmastatra tatra vahyabhāvastatra dhūmābhāvo yathā hṛde ।

पक्षधर्मत्व means being the attribute of the पक्ष or the subject about which something is being proved, or whose possession of the साध्य or the thing to be established is doubtful। पर्वत is the पक्ष in the present instance Smoke is an attribute of i e is present on the mountain So smoke possesses पक्षधर्मत्व अन्वयव्याप्ति is सपक्षे सत्त्व । i e being connected with, or present in, a parallel instance which is definitely known to possess

pakṣadharmatva means being the attribute of the pakṣa or the subject about which something is being proved, or whose possession of the sādhya or the thing to be established is doubtful। parvat is the pakṣa in the present instance Smoke is an attribute of i e is present on the mountain So smoke possesses pakṣadharmatva anvayavyāpti is sapakṣe sattva । i e being connected with, or present in, a parallel instance which is definitely known to possess

Page 446

धर्मिणि ( हेतुमत्त्वरूपधर्मे वति पक्षे परवर्तिदौ ) अयोगव्यवच्छेद् ( न योग अयोगसवन्धभाव तस्य व्यवच्छेद् व्याप्तिति नाम योग सवन्ध इत्येव । अयोगव्यवच्छेद इत्यस्य 'द्वौ नयौ प्रकृतार्थं सर्वशोभि ध्वनयत्' इति न्यायेन निश्वितो नियतो वा योग इत्यथे ।

In the subject (where the characteristic of being a reason is present) the exclusion of non-connection (not the connection, the absence of connection related to that, the pervasion is called connection related, thus it is. The exclusion of non-connection means that by the maxim 'two paths are made to shine for the purpose' it is certain or determined to be a connection.

व्यापकस्य ( वह्न्यादे ) साध्यम् । This is Mammata's definition of साध्य, which means the definite connection ( अयोगव्यवच्छेद् ) of the more extensive ( fire ) with the पक्ष ( the mountain ) The साध्य or the conclusion consists in stating that the mountain definitely possesses fire Fire is called व्यापक, because it is more extensive than smoke, which is designated व्याप्य Besides being present in all those places where smoke is present, fire is also found in others, where smoke is not present viz a red-hot ball of iron or a lighted electric bulb That is why it is called व्यापक with reference to the व्याप्य smoke

The word अनुमान is not used by the rhetoricians in its strict logical sense Technically it means अनुमितिकरणम् or the instrument of inferential cognition But the rhetoricians use the word अनुमान, not in the sense of अनुमितिकरण, but rather in that of अनुमिति or the inferential cognition or resulting judgment, which arises from अनुमितिकरण Thus, अनुमान in Alamkārasāstra is derived as ' अनुमीयते इदमिति अनुमानम्' and is a significant name for the figure.

In the figure अनुमान the inference must be stated in a charming manner That is why ' पर्यतो वह्निमान् धूमात् ' is not an exāmple or अनुमानलंकार Viśvanātha, therefore, defines this figure as ' अनुमाने तु विच्छित्या ज्ञानं साध्यस्य साधनात् ।। 63 'साहित्यदर्पण x. Also read रसमज्जुषा p 475

The figure अनुमान is considered to be three-fold viz वाच्य, लक्ष्य and प्रतीयमान When the inference is expressed by words like मत्वे, ज्ञात्वे, अवैति and जाने, अनुमान is वाच्य Now we have seen before that these words

Page 447

३९६

काव्यप्रकाश:

[ Page 92

indicate उत्क्षा 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 उत्क्षा When again the inference is indicated by words like वक्ति and कथयति, अनुमान is ल्क्ष्य And when the inference is suggested by the साध्य and साधन without the use of any of these words, अनुमान is अत्यमान

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 योषिता हृदि हालहलमेव केवलम्। अत एव निपीयतेऽधरो हृदयं सुदृशामिरे तार्यते।’ (गृद्वाराष्टक), 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 = विपर्यये वैपरीत्ये वा) of the regular order of साध्य-साधन Mammata says he has not indicated a second variety of अनुमान, based on साध्यसाधनयो पौर्वापर्य-विकल्प, 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

अनुमानम् and उत्क्षा

Resemblance The presence of both these figures is indicated by words like मन्ये, शङ्के etc and वक्ति, कथयति etc.

Distinction (1) In उत्क्षा there is no certainty of knowledge. It represents a mere probability, as it is based on उत्कटैककोटिक: संशय In अनुमान the conclusion arrived at is certain, because it is deduced from a poetically sound reason. (2) उत्क्षा is based on साधर्म्य 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

Page 448

अनुमानम् and काव्यालिङ्गम्

Anumānam and Kāvyālīngam

Resemblance : Both are based on हेतुहेतुमद्राव. In both there is a reason justifying a conclusion.

Distinction: (1) While in अनुमान the reason is a ज्ञापक हेतु or an informative cause, in काव्यालिङ्ग 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 काव्यालिङ्ग 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

Distinction: (1) While in Anumāna the reason is a Jñāpaka Hetu or an informative cause, in Kāvyālīngam it is a Kārakahetu or a productive cause. (2) In Anumāna the stanza is so worded that the poet or the speaker himself draws the conclusion and thus makes the relation of Sādhana and Sādhya between the two statements clear. In Kāvyālīngam the poet merely states the facts and leaves the inference to the reader who has thus to determine the relation of Sādhana and Sādhya. Read Rasagangādhar p. 469

(37) परिकर: or the Significant

(37) Parikara: or the Significant

परिकर arises when a certain thing (विशेष्यम्) is described by means of significant (साकूतै:=साभिप्रायै:) adjectives. 'Significant adjectives' means adjectives which possess two senses—one expressed and the other suggested. Thus, परिकर arises when a certain substantive (विशेष्यम्) is qualified by many adjectives that express one sense an suggest another.

The name परिकर is significant. It is explained in two ways. (1) परिकर: 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.

The name Parikara is significant. It is explained in two ways. (1) Parikaraḥ 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) Parikara means decoration or embellishment. Here the suggested sense embellishes the expressed sense. Hence, the figure is called Parikara.

Stanza 128—This stanza is भारवि's किरातार्जुनীয় 1. 19. It describes the warriors (घटुभृत: घटुर्धरिणो भटाः योद्धार:) 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.

Stanza 128—This stanza is Bhāravi's Kirātārjunīya 1. 19. It describes the warriors (Ghaṭubhṛtaḥ Ghaṭudharino Bhaṭāḥ Yoddāraḥ) who desired to serve Duryodhana even with their lives. For this purpose six adjectives are used and they are all significant. Thus, the figure Parikara is developed.

महौजस् इत्येन पराक्रममभिभवं ते न कदापि सहियन्त इति व्यज्यते। मानधना इत्यनेन न ते अर्थस्य दासाः; न धनार्थमेव सेवां कुर्यन्ति इति च न्यते। धनार्चिताः इत्यनेन तेषां संतोषः अभिव्यज्यते। संयति लङ्कीकृत्य: इत्यनेन न तेषां युद्धज्ञानं केवलं तात्त्विकं, किंतु प्रत्यक्षयुंद्धे लभ्जयासते इति सूच्यते। न संहता इत्यस्य स्वार्थसाधनाय त न मिलिता इत्यर्थः। एतैण तेषां नि:स्वार्थता उपन्यास्यते। न भेद्यत: इत्यनेन कस्मिंश्चिदपि कार्ये तेषां सदैव एकमत्यं स्पादिति संसूच्यते।

Mahojaḥ ityena parākramamabhibhavam te na kadāpi sahyante iti vyajyate. Mānadhanā ityanena na te arthasya dāsāḥ; na dhanārtham eva sevām kuryanti iti ca nyate. Dhanārchitāḥ ityanena teṣāṃ santoṣaḥ abhivyajyate. Samyati laṅkṛtyaḥ ityanena na teṣāṃ yuddha-jñānaṃ kevalaṃ tāttvikaṃ, kintu prayakṣayudhe labhjayāsate iti sūcyate. Na saṃhatā ityasya svārthasādhanāya te na militā ityarthaḥ. Etena teṣāṃ niḥsvārthatā upanyāsyate. Na bhedyatā ityanena kasmiṃscidapi kārye teṣāṃ sadaiva ekamatyaṃ spāditi saṃsūcyate.

This passage explains the significance of the adjectives used in the stanza.

यथापि...गणित:—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

Yathāpi...ganitaḥ—This passage is intended to answer the following objection : It is a general rule that adjectives should be Puṣṭārtha 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

Page 449

३९८

काव्यप्रकारः

[ Page 93

अपुष्टार्थत्वं A defect of this kind, like all other defects is of course to be avoided in poetry From this it follows that adjectives, which nourish the sense, are to be used पुष्ठार्थ adjectives are the same as साकृत or सामिप्राय adjectives The use of साकृत adjectives thus means that the defect अपुष्टार्थत्व has been avoided This is only a negative achievement How can it be regarded as a distinct figure of speech ?

Mammata admits the force of this objection Yet he points out that when many adjectives are thus significantly ( एवम् = पुष्ठार्थत्वेन साकृतत्वेन वा ) used, positive charm or strikingness is developed and it is this charm which constitutes the figure परिकर This is why परिकर has been counted (गणित ) among figures

From this it is clear that according to Mammata many ( बहु ) significant adjectives are necessary to constitute परिकर One or even two adjectives would not do It is not likely that the necessary charm would arise from one or two adjectives It is the बहुत्व of adjectives that develops this charm It must here be remembered that difference of opinion exists among rhetoricians regarding this point Mammata's view is shared by Ruyyaka, his commentator Jayaratha ( अलंकारसर्वस्व p 94), Vidyādhara ( एकावली p 257 ), Vidyā nātha ( प्रतापरुड़ीय p 439 ) and Viśvanātha ( साहित्यदर्पण x 57 cd ), who all believe that many significant adjectives are necessary for this figure

On the other hand, Mammata's commentator Govinda ( प्रदीप ) and his commentator Nāgeśa ( उद्योत pp 107-108), Appaya Dīkṣita ( कुवलयानन्द pp 72-73 ) and Jagannātha ( रसगंगाधर p 387 ) maintain that even a single adjective is enough to constitute परिकर As regards the argument that the use of significant adjectives merely means the absence of the defect अपुष्टार्थत्व, Jagannātha and others point out that this absence can be secured by using no adjective at all Hence, they argue that even when a single adjective is used significantly, it develops a charm of its own, sufficient to give rise to this figure But Jagannātha admits that many significant adjectives do constitute some some special charm, though he cannot allow that they form the essence of परिकर

In connection with the above discussion we desire to point out one thing Here all along it has been taken for granted that पुष्ठार्थ विशेषण and साकृत or सामिप्राय विशेषण are exactly the same. We do not think this quite correct A पुष्ठार्थ adjective serves the purpose in hand with its expressed sense But a साकृत adjective does so not only with its expressed sense, but also with its suggested sense, which makes

Page 450

the expressed sense more charming A पुष्ठार्थ adjective does not usually possess a definite striking suggested sense, but such sense is the very essence of a साभिप्राय adjective.

The expressed sense more charming A supporting adjective does not usually possess a definite striking suggested sense, but such sense is the very essence of an adjective with intended meaning.

Jayadeva ( author of चन्द्रालोक ) and Vidyādhara (एकावली p. 258 ) mention a figure called परिकराइकुर, which arises when the विशेष्य, and not the विशेषण, is significant (साभिप्राय विशेष्य tu भवेत् परिकराइकरु. चन्द्रालोक 63 ) Most writers do not admit this figure.

Jayadeva (author of Moonlight) and Vidyādhara ( Garland, p. 258) mention a figure called Enhanced Attribute, which arises when the qualified, and not the qualifier, is significant. Most writers do not admit this figure.

And we think they are right for three reasons (1) The charm in both परिकर and परिकराइकर lies in the use of significant words That in one case adjectives are significant and in the other a substantive is so does not furnish sufficient reason to regard them as two distinct figures.

And we think they are right for three reasons: (1) The charm in both Attribute and Enhanced Attribute lies in the use of significant words. That in one case adjectives are significant and in the other a substantive is so does not furnish sufficient reason to regard them as two distinct figures.

(2) It is often very difficult to say whether a particular word which is significant, is an adjective or a substantive Thus, in the first illustration above चतुर्भुज ( विष्णु ) is regarded as the साभिप्राय विशेष्य But one can with even greater justice say that it is a विशेषण qualifying देव (3) विशेषण, occurring in the definition of परिकर, may be looked upon as an उपलक्षण and may thus include विशेष्य also Thus, it is not necessary to regard परिकराइकर as a separate figure

(2) It is often very difficult to say whether a particular word which is significant is an adjective or a substantive. Thus, in the first illustration above, 'four-armed' (Vishnu) is regarded as the qualified with intended meaning. But one can with even greater justice say that it is a qualifier qualifying 'god'. (3) 'Qualifier', occurring in the definition of Attribute, may be looked upon as an indicative mark and may thus include 'qualified' also. Thus, it is not necessary to regard Enhanced Attribute as a separate figure.

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not define this figure Rudrata is the first rhetorician to treat it

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, and Vāmana do not define this figure. Rudrata is the first rhetorician to treat it.

Hemacandra refuses to admit it on the ground that it represents mere absence of the defect अप्रयोजनत्व

Hemacandra refuses to admit it on the ground that it represents mere absence of the defect of lack of purpose.

परिकर and काव्यलिङ्गम्

Attribute and Poetic Reason

Resemblance परिकर resembles एकपदार्थग काव्यलिङ्ग In both the sense of a word contains a reason Thus, one may say that the adjectives महोजस्, मानघना etc. supply so many reasons for the assertion that the warriors desire to carry out Duryodhana's wishes even at the cost of their lives They would then be examples of पदार्थग काव्यलिङ्ग

Resemblance: Attribute resembles Single-meaning Poetic Reason. In both, the sense of a word contains a reason. Thus, one may say that the adjectives 'great-strength', 'honor-abiding', etc., supply so many reasons for the assertion that the warriors desire to carry out Duryodhana's wishes even at the cost of their lives. They would then be examples of Substantial Poetic Reason.

Distinction (1) While in काव्यलिङ्ग the actual or expressed sense of a word constitutes the reason, in परिकर another sense, which is suggested by the force of the expressed sense, forms the reason (2) In परिकर the charm of the figure lies in this that the sense suggested by the significant words makes their expressed sense more striking In काव्यलिङ्ग on the other hand the charm lies in the sense of a word or a sentence constituting the reason of some assertion

Distinction: (1) While in Poetic Reason, the actual or expressed sense of a word constitutes the reason, in Attribute, another sense, which is suggested by the force of the expressed sense, forms the reason. (2) In Attribute, the charm of the figure lies in this: that the sense suggested by the significant words makes their expressed sense more striking. In Poetic Reason, on the other hand, the charm lies in the sense of a word or a sentence constituting the reason for some assertion.

(38) व्याजोक्ति or Speech of Pretext

(38) Speech of Pretext or Speech with a Pretext

व्याजोक्ति consists in concealing by means of an artifice or pretext ( छदना = व्यापार्शेन ) the nature of a thing, which has somehow been

Speech of Pretext consists in concealing, by means of an artifice or pretext (pretext = clever device), the nature of a thing, which has somehow been

Page 451

900

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 94

divulged The essentials of व्याजोक्ति are thus three ( 1 ) Something is first concealed ( 2 ) It is then somehow divulged against the desire of the person concealing it ( 3 ) Then the person concerned tries to conceal it again by attributing it to some cause other than the real one

न वैषामहत्वति इहासंभवात्—This sentence explains a point of distinction between व्याजोक्ति and अपह्नुति. For this distinction see below

The sentence 'न वैषामहत्वति इहासंभवात्' explains a point of distinction between व्याजोक्ति and अपह्नुति. For this distinction, see below.

The name व्याजोक्ति is significant It means a figure where there is the statement or mention ( उक्ति ) of a pretext ( व्याजम् ) to conceal a thing, which has been disclosed

Stanza 129—This stanza describes what happened at the time of the marriage of Śiva with Pārvatī Pārvatī was being given away by her father Himālaya ( शैलेंद्र ) to Śiva. As her hand came in touch with his hand, Śiva experienced horripilation and tremor, which were caused by his intense love for Pārvatī His deep affection, of which he did not want such public exhibition to be made, was thus revealed against his desire He then tried to conceal it by exclaiming ' Oh, the coolness of the hands of the Mountain of snow ( तुहिनाचल हिमाचल ),' suggesting thereby that the horripilation and tremor were due to the exceedingly cool touch of Himālaya's hands, which also came in contact with his and his as the Mountain gave the hands, of his daughter into his This pretext of his was seen through by the people present on the occasion who consequently looked at him with a significant smile

Page 94

अत्र पुलकवेपथू प्रयोज्यत —This line explains how व्याजोक्ति is developed in this stanza. Horripilation and tremor arose as सात्विकभाव's or as outward manifestation of the love that was raging in Śiva's mind But they were made out ( प्रकाशित ) as caused by the coolness of Himālaya's hands Their nature being thus concealed, they give rise to व्याजोक्ति in this stanza. Thus according to this Vṛtti what is व्यपदेशेन अपह्नुत or व्याजोक्ति

The line 'अत्र पुलकवेपथू प्रयोज्यत' explains how व्याजोक्ति is developed in this stanza. Horripilation and tremor arose as सात्विकभाव's or as an outward manifestation of the love that was raging in Śiva's mind. But they were made out to be caused by the coolness of Himālaya's hands. Their nature being thus concealed, they give rise to व्याजोक्ति in this stanza. Thus, according to this Vṛtti, what is व्यपदेशेन अपह्नुत or व्याजोक्ति.

It must be pointed out that this explanation as to how व्याजोक्ति is developed here contradicts Mammata's previous assertion that व्याजोक्ति consists in the artful concealment of a thing, which, though concealed ( निगृहमपि ), is somehow revealed. Surely, it cannot be said here that horripilation and tremor were concealed before and became somehow manifest. Therefore, the proper way of understanding the figure is

Page 452

that Siva's love for Pārvatī is the basis of व्याजोक्ति here This love can be thus made public be regarded as previously concealed, because Siva did not want it to be thus made public It was then somehow divulged against his desire through horrification and tremor Then Siva tried to conceal it again by referring these indications thereof to the coolness of the Mountain's hands This Vrtti is, therefore, another example of Mammata's careless writing.

that Siva's love for Pārvatī is the basis of vyājokti here This love can be regarded as previously concealed, because Siva did not want it to be made public It was then somehow divulged against his desire through horrification and tremor Then Siva tried to conceal it again by referring these indications thereof to the coolness of the Mountain's hands This Vrtti is, therefore, another example of Mammata's careless writing.

व्याजोक्ति and अपह्नुति

Vyājokti and Apahnuti

Resemblance In both there is concealment of a thing and establishment of another in its place Thus, in अपह्नुति (नेद मुखे निंद्य चन्द्र ) 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 शैत्य as the cause of horrification and tremor

Resemblance In both there is concealment of a thing and establishment of another in its place Thus, in apahnuti (नेंद मुखे निंद्य चंद्र ) the face is concealed and the moon is established in its place Similarly we may say that here there is a concealment of rati and establishment of śaitya as the cause of horrification 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 'नेद मुखं किल्तु चन्द्र' ultimately gives us the idea of the extreme resemblance of the face to the moon, the stanza 'शैलेनद्र ' does not purport to establish similarity between रति and शैत्य

Distinction (1) Apahnuti 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 upameya and upamāna But as Mammata points out above in vyājokti no such similarity is possible For, while 'नेद मुखं किल्तु चंद्र' ultimately gives us the idea of the extreme resemblance of the face to the moon, the stanza 'शैलेनद्र ' does not purport to establish similarity between rati and śaitya

(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 'शैलेनद्र ' both रति and शैत्य are प्रस्तुत, as both are present on the occasion

(2) While in apahnuti the two objects represent upameya and upamāna, thus making the one प्रस्तुत and the other अप्रस्तुत, in vyājokti both are equally प्रस्तुत Thus, in 'शैलेनद्र ' both rati and śaitya 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 'नेद 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 'शैलेनद्र ' Siva merely refers to शैत्य But the reference is made in such a way that we easily guess the thing he seeks to hide viz his love for Pārvati

(3) In apahnuti the thing concealed is directly mentioned by the person concealing it, as in 'नेद मुखम्' But in vyājokti the individual seeking to conceal a thing does not mention it himself It is left for the reader to imagine. Thus, in 'शैलेनद्र ' Siva merely refers to śaitya 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

(4) In apahnuti the upameya is denied and the upamāna established in its place In vyājokti nothing is denied, but something is represented as being due to cause other than the real one

The उद्योत points out that निगूहनम्, occuring 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.

The Udyota points out that nigūhanam, occurring in the definition of vyājokti, means any action on the part of the person concealing and not merely speech as the name vyāja-ukti may perhaps suggest.

Bhāmaha, Dandin and Udbhata do not define this figure. Vāmana is the first writer who does so He further tells us that some call it मायोक्ति (या मायोक्तिरित्याहुः ' under का सु 4 3 25) Who these some are cannot be known Jagannātha also does not treat of व्याजोक्ति.

Bhāmaha, Dandin and Udbhata do not define this figure. Vāmana is the first writer who does so He further tells us that some call it māyokti (या मायोक्तिरित्याहुः ' under का सु 4 3 25) Who these some are cannot be known Jagannātha also does not treat of vyājokti.

का. २६

kā. 26

Page 453

( 39 ) परिसंख्या or Exclusion

( 39 ) Parisaṃkhyā or Exclusion

When the mention or statement ( कथितम् ) of a well known thing conduces or leads to ( प्रकल्पते ) the exclusion of another thing of the same kind (तत्सदृश्यान्यस्तुव्यवच्छेदाय ), the figure परिसंख्या arises When a thing though known from another source (प्रमाणान्तरावगतम् ), is again mentioned by word, such mention can have no other purpose except that of excluding another similar thing This apparently superfluous mention may either be preceded by a query (प्रश्नपूर्वेक) or not (तदनर्था = अप्रश्नपूर्वेक) Thus, परिसंख्या is of two kinds In both these kinds the thing excluded ( व्यवच्छेयामनस्त = व्यवच्छेद्यामनस्त ) may either be suggested or expressed Thus परिसंख्या has four varieties.

When the mention or statement (kathitam) of a well-known thing conduces or leads to (prakalpayate) the exclusion of another thing of the same kind (tatsadrshyānyastuvyavacchedāya), the figure parisaṃkhyā arises. When a thing though known from another source (pramāṇāntarāvagatam), is again mentioned by word, such mention can have no other purpose except that of excluding another similar thing. This apparently superfluous mention may either be preceded by a query (prashnapūrvek) or not (tadanarthā = aprashnapūrvek). Thus, parisaṃkhyā is of two kinds. In both these kinds, the thing excluded (vyavacchedyāmanasya = vyavacchedyāmanasya) may either be suggested or expressed. Thus parisaṃkhyā has four varieties.

परिसंख्या

Parisaṃkhyā

(1) प्रतीममानव्यपोहामाना (2) वाच्यव्यपोढामाना (3) प्रतीममानव्यपोढामाना (4) वाच्यन्वयपोढामाना

(1) Pratimāmanavyapoḍhāmānā (2) Vācyavyapoḍhāmānā (3) Pratimāmanavyapoḍhāmānā (4) Vācyanvayapoḍhāmānā

किमासेन्य पुंसां किं भूषणे सुहृदमन् कौटिल्ये कचैनिचये भसिरर्भवे न विमवे

Kimāsya puṃsāṃ kiṃ bhūṣaṇe suhṛdamanaṃ kauṭilye kacānicaye bhasirarbhave na vimave

The name परिसंख्या is significant The preposition परि possesses the sense of 'excluding' संख्या means बुद्धि or विचारणा परिसंख्या thus means the idea or desire of excluding As this figure contains the idea or desire of exclusion, which is effected by the mention of a well known thing, it is called परिसंख्या

The name parisaṃkhyā is significant. The preposition pari possesses the sense of 'excluding'. Saṃkhyā means buddhi or vicāraṇā. Parisaṃkhyā thus means the idea or desire of excluding. As this figure contains the idea or desire of exclusion, which is effected by the mention of a well-known thing, it is called parisaṃkhyā.

The term परिसंख्या is borrowed from मीमांसाशास्त्र It is therefore, necessary that we should know what its meaning in that Śāstra is

The term parisaṃkhyā is borrowed from Mīmāṃsāśāstra. It is therefore, necessary that we should know what its meaning in that Śāstra is.

विधि means an order or injunction विधि in मीमांसा is classified in more than one way According to one method of division it is of three kinds viz अपूर्वविधि, नियमविधि and परिसंख्याविधि , which are usually known by their abbreviated titles विधि , नियम and परिसंख्या respectively

Vidhi means an order or injunction. Vidhi in Mīmāṃsā is classified in more than one way. According to one method of division, it is of three kinds viz. apūrvavidhi, niyamavidhi, and parisaṃkhyāvidhi, which are usually known by their abbreviated titles vidhi, niyama, and parisaṃkhyā respectively.

अपूर्वविधि or विधि lays down a thing which is absolutely or totally non-established ( अत्यन्तमप्राप्तौ = विधेयस्य अत्यन्तमप्राप्तौ सत्याम् ) i e. which is not established by, or known from any other means of proof or source (प्रमाणान्तरेण अप्राप्त ) For example, the sentence 'ज्योतिष्टोमेन स्वर्गकामो यजेत' lays down the ज्योतिष्टोम sacrifice for one who is desirous of attaining heaven. ज्योतिष्टोम sacrifice as a means of attaining heaven is not known from any other source. Therefore, 'ज्योतिष्टोमेन स्वर्गकामो यजेत' is an

Apūrvavidhi or vidhi lays down a thing which is absolutely or totally non-established (atyantamaprāptau = vidheyasya atyantamaprāptau satyām), i.e., which is not established by, or known from any other means of proof or source (pramāṇāntareṇa aprāpta). For example, the sentence 'jyotiṣṭomena svargakāmo yajeta' lays down the jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice for one who is desirous of attaining heaven. Jyotiṣṭoma sacrifice as a means of attaining heaven is not known from any other source. Therefore, 'jyotiṣṭomena svargakāmo yajeta' is an

Page 454

example of अपूर्वविधि (अपूर्वस्य पूर्वज्ञातस्य विधि ) or विधि

example of apūrvavidhi (apūrvasy a pūrvajñātasya vidhi) or vidhi

enjoins a matter for the first time

नियमविधि ( injunction of restriction ) or नियम ( restriction )

niyamavidhi (injunction of restriction) or niyama (restriction)

is that injunction, which restricts us to a particular way of accomplishing a thing, when we are likely to resort to some other, in a case where the thing can be accomplished in more than one way

नियम is ‘ समे देशे यजेत ’

niyam is 'same deśe yajeta'

When a sacrifice is to be performed, it can be performed either on even or uneven ground

When we think of performing it on uneven ground, the sentence ‘ समे देशे यजेत ’ steps in and lays down समदेश as the साधन for the performance of the sacrifice

‘ समे देशे यजेत ’ is therefore, a नियमविधि or नियम

'same deśe yajeta' is therefore, a niyamavidhi or niyama

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

Both vidhi and niyama enjoin things, which are aprāpta

But while विधि enjoins a matter, which is अत्यन्ताप्राप्त or प्रमाणान्तरेण अप्राप्त (not known from any other source), नियम lays down a matter, which is only पज्ञ अप्राप्त (not accruing in the alternative

But while vidhi enjoins a matter, which is atyantaprāpta or pramāṇāntareṇa aprāpta (not known from any other source), niyama lays down a matter, which is only paññā aprāpta (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

niyama 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

But niyama performs two really, because it restricts us to one of the many alternatives and excludes the others

परिसङ्ख्याविधि ( injunction of exclusion ) or परिसङ्ख्या (exclusion )

parisaṅkhyāvidhi (injunction of exclusion) or parisaṅkhyā (exclusion)

is that injunction, which excludes one of the two alternatives 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 परिसङ्ख्याविधि or परिसङ्ख्या is ‘ पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्या ’ (Five five nailed animals should be eaten)

The standard example of parisaṅkhyāvidhi or parisaṅkhyā is 'pañca pañcanakhā bhakṣyā' (Five five-nailed animals should be eaten)

When we feel hungry, we can satisfy our hunger by both पञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण and अपञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण or पञ्चपञ्चनखेतर भक्षण पञ्चपञ्चनख भक्षण and अपञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण are, therefore, युगपत्प्राप्त or simultaneously possible

When we feel hungry, we can satisfy our hunger by both pañcapañcanakha bhakṣaṇa and apaṅcapaṅcanakha bhakṣaṇa or pañcapañcanakhetara bhakṣaṇa pañcapañcanakha bhakṣaṇa and apaṅcapaṅcanakha bhakṣaṇa are, therefore, yugapatprāpta or simultaneously possible

Under these circumstances what the परिसङ्ख्या in ‘ पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्या ’ does is to exclude अपञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण

Under these circumstances what the parisaṅkhyā in 'pañca pañcanakhā bhakṣyā' does is to exclude apaṅcapaṅcanakha bhakṣaṇa

This means पञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण is allowed

This means pañcapañcanakha bhakṣaṇa is allowed

Page 455

It will thus be seen that the import of परिसंख्या is exclusion or prohibition The exact significance of this must be understood It is thus 'पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्या ' does not make it obligatory for us to eat the flesh of these five nailed animals What the sentence really does is to exclude or prohibit अपञ्चपञ्चनखभक्षण This means that if we at all desire to make use of meat to satisfy our hunger, we must choose the flesh of these five five-nailed animals only As far as the eating of flesh is concerned, thus परिसंख्या is only permissive and not positive or injunctive

It will thus be seen that the import of parisaṃkhyā is exclusion or prohibition. The exact significance of this must be understood. It is thus 'pañca pañcanakhā bhakṣyā' does not make it obligatory for us to eat the flesh of these five nailed animals. What the sentence really does is to exclude or prohibit apañcapañcanakhabhakṣaṇa. This means that if we at all desire to make use of meat to satisfy our hunger, we must choose the flesh of these five five-nailed animals only. As far as the eating of flesh is concerned, thus parisaṃkhyā is only permissive and not positive or injunctive

The distinction between विधि and परिसंख्या is that while विधि lays down something positive, which was unknown before, परिसंख्या excludes one alternative from among the two which are simultaneously possible and either leaves us to adopt the other, if we like, or enjoins us to resort to the other

The distinction between vidhi and parisaṃkhyā is that while vidhi lays down something positive, which was unknown before, parisaṃkhyā excludes one alternative from among the two which are simultaneously possible and either leaves us to adopt the other, if we like, or enjoins us to resort to the other

To resume विधि lays down something which is new, something which is not known from any other source नियम restricts us to one of the two or more mutually exclusive alternatives परिसंख्या excludes one of the two alternatives, which become simultaneously available and either permits us to adopt the other, if we like, or enjoins us to resort to the other

To resume, vidhi lays down something which is new, something which is not known from any other source. Niyama restricts us to one of the two or more mutually exclusive alternatives. Parisaṃkhyā excludes one of the two alternatives, which become simultaneously available and either permits us to adopt the other, if we like, or enjoins us to resort to the other

The import of विधि is injunction, that of नियम restriction and that of परिसंख्या exclusion or prohibition विधि is thus injunctive, नियम restrictive and परिसंख्या exclusive

The import of vidhi is injunction, that of niyama restriction and that of parisaṃkhyā exclusion or prohibition. Vidhi is thus injunctive, niyama restrictive and parisaṃkhyā exclusive

विधि asks us to do something, which otherwise we would not have done नियम requires that we do this thing, which has already been enjoined by विधि, in one particular way out of the many in which it is possible to accomplish it परिसंख्या excludes one of the two alternatives, which can be simultaneously adopted and either leaves it to our option to resort to the other unexcluded or unprohibited alternative, or positively enjoins us to adopt it

Vidhi asks us to do something, which otherwise we would not have done. Niyama requires that we do this thing, which has already been enjoined by vidhi, in one particular way out of the many in which it is possible to accomplish it. Parisaṃkhyā excludes one of the two alternatives, which can be simultaneously adopted and either leaves it to our option to resort to the other unexcluded or unprohibited alternative, or positively enjoins us to adopt it

After this technical discussion it is well to remember that the figure परिसंख्या occurs in those cases only where the exclusion is the result of poetic genius ( ‘अत्र यत्नः कविप्रतिभानिर्मिता इत्थंव्यावृत्तौ तत्र अलङ्कारता । उद्योत p 112 ) Otherwise such cases of Śāstric परिसंख्या as ' पञ्च पञ्चनखा भक्ष्या ' and ' ऋतौ भार्यामुपेयात् ' would be examples of the figure परिसंख्या

After this technical discussion it is well to remember that the figure parisaṃkhyā occurs in those cases only where the exclusion is the result of poetic genius ('atra yatnaḥ kavipratibhānirmitā itthaṃvyāvṛttau tatra alaṅkāratā.' Udyota p. 112). Otherwise such cases of Śāstric parisaṃkhyā as 'pañca pañcanakhā bhakṣyā' and 'ṛtau bhāryāmupayāt' would be examples of the figure parisaṃkhyā

Stanza 130—This stanza contains, in answer to questions, statements of certain well known things, which lead to the exclusion of

Page 456

other similar things The things which are excluded are not stated, but are suggested Hence, the stanza is an example of प्रश्नपूर्विका प्रतीमानन्यपोह्यमाना परिसङ्ख्या Thus, in the first line the fact that the blemeless 1 e holy ( अनिन्द्यम् अनिन्द्यम् पवित्रमित्यर्थे ) vicinity ( सविध्य साविध्ये सामीप्यमित्यर्थे । भावप्रधानो निर्देशः ) of the celestial river viz the Gangā ( धुसरित् = गङ्गा ) should be resorted to is well known from the Sastras and the Purāṇas Its mention leads to the exclusion of other things which might be resorted to viz अन्यनदीसविधाम् Thus, the first line ultimately means अन्यनदीसविधि न आसेव्यम् Similarly, the second and the third lines ultimately convey the idea प्रियतमासुखम् एकान्ते न ध्येयम्, पाप न आराध्यम्, हिंसा न अभिलषणीया यदासक्त्या-येषु धुसरित्सविधादिषु आसक्त्या प्रेरणा निरवधिसुख्युक्तये = अनन्तमोक्षाय

other similar things The things which are excluded are not stated, but are suggested Hence, the stanza is an example of 'prashnapurvika pratimaananyapoha-mana parisaṅkhyā' Thus, in the first line the fact that the blemeless holy vicinity of the celestial river viz the Gangā should be resorted to is well known from the Sastras and the Purāṇas Its mention leads to the exclusion of other things which might be resorted to viz 'anyanadisaviddhām' Thus, the first line ultimately means 'anyanadisaviddhi na āsevyam' Similarly, the second and the third lines ultimately convey the idea 'priyatamasukham ekānte na dhyeam', 'pāpa na ārādhyam', 'hiṁsā na abhilashanīyā yadāsakttyā-yeshu dhusritsaviddhādiṣu āsakttyā preraṇā niravadhisukhyuktyai = anantamokṣāya'

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 वाच्यवदपोहमाना परिसङ्ख्या

Stanza 131—In this stanza also statements of well known things are preceded by questions, but the things excluded viz 'ratnam', 'doṣa' and 'netram' are 'vācya' or expressed Hence, it is an example of 'prashnapurvika vācyavadapoha-mana parisaṅkhyā'

Stanza 132— This stanza is दृष्टान्त viz 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 प्रतीमानन्यपोहमाना परिसङ्ख्या Crookedness or curl liness ( कौटिल्यम् ) of hair is प्रमाणान्तरावगत 1 e known from another means of proof viz प्रत्यक्ष or direct perception To say that crookedness resides in the lady's hair serves to exclude crookedness from some where else viz from her heart This is how व्यपोह or exclusion, which is the essence of परिसङ्ख्या comes in 'कचनिचये कौटिल्यम्' इत्यस्मात् 'सर्वं सावधारण वच' इति न्यायेन 'कचनिचये एव कौटिल्यम्' इत्यर्थः प्रथमं प्रतीतते । अथन्तरं कचनिचये एव कौटिल्ये, न हृदये' इति कौटिल्यस्य हृदयाधिकारनिवलं व्यपोह्यते । अत्र कथन न प्रश्नपूर्वकं व्यपोहदर्श न वाच्यम् इति अप्रश्नपूर्विका प्रतीमानन्यपोहमाना परिसङ्ख्येयम् Similarly, from the other clauses we get the following ideas ते करचरणादरदलेषु एव राग ( रक्तिमा ), न परपुरुषे राग ( प्रीति ), कुचयुगले एव कौटिल्ये, न हृदये । नयनयोरिव यब्बल्ते, न प्रियत्ने ।

Stanza 132— This stanza is 'drṣṭānta' viz 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 'aprashnapurvika pratimaananyapoha-mana parisaṅkhyā' Crookedness or curl liness ('kauṭilyam') of hair is known from another means of proof viz 'pratyakṣa' or direct perception To say that crookedness resides in the lady's hair serves to exclude crookedness from somewhere else viz from her heart This is how 'vyapoha' or exclusion, which is the essence of 'parisaṅkhyā' comes in 'kacanichaye kauṭilyam' By the maxim 'sarvaṁ sāvadhāraṇa vaca' the meaning 'kacanichaye eva kauṭilyam' is first understood Then 'kacanichaye eva kauṭilye, na hṛdaye' i.e. the exclusion of crookedness from the heart is understood Here the statement is not preceded by a question and the exclusion is not expressed Hence, it is 'aprashnapurvika pratimaananyapoha-mana parisaṅkhyeyaṁ' Similarly, from the other clauses we get the following ideas 'te karacaraṇādaradaleṣu eva rāga (raktimā)', 'na parapuruse rāga (prīti)', 'kucayugale eva kauṭilye', 'na hṛdaye', 'nayanayoriva yavalte', 'na priyatne'

It will be noticed that परिसङ्ख्या in this stanza is based on श्लेष Thus, there is शब्दश्लेष in राग and अर्थश्लेष in कौटिल्यम्, कौटिन्यम् and तरलत्वम् Viśvanātha points out that परिसङ्ख्या attains special charm, when based on श्लेष

It will be noticed that 'parisaṅkhyā' in this stanza is based on 'śleṣa' Thus, there is 'śabdaśleṣa' in 'rāga' and 'arthaśleṣa' in 'kauṭilyam', 'kauṭinyam' and 'taralatvam' Viśvanātha points out that 'parisaṅkhyā' attains special charm, when based on 'śleṣa'

Stanza 133—This stanza contains statements of certain well known things, which lead to the exclusion of other similar things The statements are not preceded by queries and the things excluded

Page 457

viz विभव, युगपत्क्रमाराम् and वपुस् are expressed Therefore, the stanza is an example of अप्रश्नपूर्विका वाच्यव्यपोहमाना परिसंख्या

In connection with this figure it is to be noted that the rhetoricians include under परिसंख्या, not only all those cases, poetical of course, which satisfy the technical Mīmāṃsist requirement of परिसंख्या viz युगपत्प्राप्ति or simultaneous possibility, but also those other cases, which technically would be classed under नियम In fact the rhetoricians, even like the grammarians, whom they generally follow in such matters, do not recognize परिसंख्या as an independent function, but include it under नियम, because both of them possess the common characteristic of being exclusive Thus, ‘किमाराध्यं पुण्यम्’ is technically a नियम, because either पुण्याराधन or पापाराधन alone, even like समदेशनिर्जन or विषमदेशनिर्जन alone, is possible at any one time, but not the two simultaneously like पापपुण्यनिरक्षण or अप्रश्नपुण्यनिरक्षण On the other hand ‘किं भूषणे सुहृदमत्न यशो न रत्नम्’ is a proper example of परिसंख्या, because it is possible to adorn oneself with fame and jewels simultaneously

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not mention परिसंख्या Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it

Page 96

( 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 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 रचना or शृङ्खला 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 सम्पद् 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 भिन्नप्रक्रमत्व 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 बभूवते’, it is not directly satisfied, but only indirectly If the poet had said in the next clause ‘विनयो गुणप्रकर्षस्य कारणम्’ and further ‘गुणप्रकर्षो जनानुरागस्य

Page 458

करणम्' and 'जनानुराग संपदो कारणम्' the poetical defect अप्रक्रमत्व would not have ansen

'cause' and 'the cause of people's love and wealth' the poetical defect अप्रक्रमत्व would not have arisen

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, भ्रपक्रमत्व worla result Read रस-गङ्गाधर 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 There fore, if we employ two different words to convey a sense, that would give rise to a fault Read रसगङ्गाधर p 862

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 रसगङ्गाधर 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 अलंकारसर्वस्व 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

We have seen that कारणमाला occurs when each preceding thing is stated to be the cause of each succeeding. But Jayaratha (विमर्शिनी on the अलंकारसर्वस्व 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, Dandin Ud bhata and Vāmana mention कारणमाला Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it

None of the ancient rhetoricians viz Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana mention कारणमाला. Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it

'हेतुमता सह वैचित्र्यभावात्'—Mammata is here criticizing Rudrata, who admits हेतु as an अलंकार and remarks that it is distinct from other figures of speech Read 'हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानमभेदकृत् भवेद्यत्र । सौन्दर्यादिहेतुस्वालोकेनैव प्रकाशः ॥' काव्यालंकार vii 82 From this it is clear that Mammata's words 'हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानमभेदतो हेतु ' are taken from Rudrata The figure हेतु arises when the cause is mentioned as being identical with the effect ( हेतुमता = कार्येण ) Rudrata gives our stanza 135 as an example of हेतु ( काव्यालंकार 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 ( हेतु ) Hence

'हेतुमता सह वैचित्र्यभावात्'—Mammata is here criticizing Rudrata, who admits हेतु as an अलंकार and remarks that it is distinct from other figures of speech. Read 'हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानमभेदकृत् भवेद्यत्र । सौन्दर्यादिहेतुस्वालोकेनैव प्रकाशः ॥' काव्यालंकार vii 82. From this it is clear that Mammata's words 'हेतुमता सह हेतोरभिधानमभेदतो हेतु ' are taken from Rudrata. The figure हेतु arises when the cause is mentioned as being identical with the effect (हेतुमता = कार्येण). Rudrata gives our stanza 135 as an example of हेतु (काव्यालंकार 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 (हेतु). Hence

Page 459

३०८

308

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 96

the figure हेतु, as conceived by Rudrata, is developed in this stanza

the figure hetu, as conceived by Rudrata, is developed in this stanza

Similarly, सकलशिमद and कोकिलानन्द are the effects of the spring and are

Similarly, sakalaśimada and kokilānanda are the effects of the spring and are

stated to be identical with it Therefore, we here get two more

stated to be identical with it. Therefore, we here get two more

examples of हेतु

examples of hetu

Mammata's reason for not defining हेतु as an अलंकार is that it is

Mammata's reason for not defining hetu as an alaṅkāra is that it is

of the nature of 'आयुध्यंतम्' ( which by the way is an example of सारोप

of the nature of 'āyudhyantam' (which by the way is an example of sāropa

हृद लक्षणा, arising from the relation of effect and cause existing between

hr̥da lakṣaṇā, arising from the relation of effect and cause existing between

the two entities identified ) and has hence no charm or strikingness

the two entities identified) and has hence no charm or strikingness

in it It does not, therefore, deserve to be a figure

in it. It does not, therefore, deserve to be a figure

It must be remarked that Mammata's argument as to why he

does not define हेतु as an independent figure is by no means convincing

does not define hetu as an independent figure is by no means convincing

'आयुध्यंतम्' may have no charm But 'अविरलककमल०' certainly has The

'āyudhyantam' may have no charm. But 'aviralakakamala' certainly has. The

whole question turns on whether there is or there is not charm in हेतु,

whole question turns on whether there is or there is not charm in hetu,

as defined by Rudrata We would have had no quarrel with

as defined by Rudrata. We would have had no quarrel with

Mammata, if he had refused to accept हेतु on the sole ground that it

Mammata, if he had refused to accept hetu on the sole ground that it

had no charm For, what is charming or striking is more or less a

had no charm. For, what is charming or striking is more or less a

matter of individual opinion But what we object to is his attempt

matter of individual opinion. But what we object to is his attempt

to make हेतु appear charmless by saying that it is merely of the

to make hetu appear charmless by saying that it is merely of the

form of 'आयुध्यंतम्' By resorting to such reasoning one might rule

form of 'āyudhyantam'. By resorting to such reasoning one might rule

out रूपक on the ground that it has no charm, because it is merely of

out rūpaka on the ground that it has no charm, because it is merely of

the form of 'माणवक अस्ति.' or 'वाहीक गौ.' For, these latter express-

the form of 'māṇavaka asti.' or 'vāhīka gau.' For, these latter express-

ions have certainly no charm

इत्यत्र कल्पनया- Mammata has thus shown that अविरलककमल०,

Ityatra kalpanayā- Mammata has thus shown that aviralakakamala,

which is quoted by Rudrata as an example of हेत्वलंकार, cannot be

which is quoted by Rudrata as an example of hetvalankāra, cannot be

regarded as an example of that figure, because हेतु does not deserve

regarded as an example of that figure, because hetu does not deserve

to be recognized as an अलंकार at all But some revered writers have

to be recognized as an alaṅkāra at all. But some revered writers have

stated (समाससूषु aorist 3rd person plural from स्मृ + आ + स्रा-मनति to

stated (samāsasṛṣu aorist 3rd person plural from smr̥ + ā + srā-manati to

repeat in the mind, declare, state, lay down ) that 'अविरलककोमल०' is

repeat in the mind, declare, state, lay down) that 'aviralakakomala' is

a काव्य If it does not contain the figure हेतु, as Mammata contends

a kāvya. If it does not contain the figure hetu, as Mammata contends

how can it be called काव्य ? In reply to such an objection Mammata

how can it be called kāvya? In reply to such an objection Mammata

points out that these writers declared this stanza to be a काव्य only

points out that these writers declared this stanza to be a kāvya only

on the strength of the alliteration (अनुप्रास) of soft letters such as द

on the strength of the alliteration (anuprāsa) of soft letters such as da

and क, which it contains, and not because they assumed that the

and ka, which it contains, and not because they assumed that the

figure हेतु was present here The Udyota further points out that

figure hetu was present here. The Udyota further points out that

'अविरलककमल०' also contains पर्यायोक्त and अतिशयोक्ति and may on that

'aviralakakamala' also contains paryāyokta and atiśayokti and may on that

account be regarded as काव्य Therefore, the admission of हेत्वलंकार to

account be regarded as kāvya. Therefore, the admission of hetvalankāra to

account for the काव्यता of this stanza is not necessary Read' कमोद्दीपकोड्य

account for the kāvyatā of this stanza is not necessary. Read 'kamoddīpakodya

काल इति भय्यनतरेण प्रतिपादनेन पर्यायोकत्सत्कार, प्रायुक्तरीत्या अतिशयोक्तिप्र

kāla iti bhayyanataraṇa pratipādanena paryāyoktasatkāra, prāyuktarītyā atiśayoktipr

सत्कार्चेत्यपि

satkārcetyapī

Page 460

चोध्यम् १ ' उद्योत p 113 To understand the reference in प्रयुक्तौत्पा see the उद्योत p 58

Codyam 1 ' Udyota p 113 To understand the reference in prayuktotpā see the Udyota p 58

इति पूर्वोक्त .हेतु -- Mammata's idea here is that if any people want a figure with the title हेतु , his काव्यालं itself may be regarded as हेतु

Iti pūrvokta .hetu -- Mammata's idea here is that if any people want a figure with the title hetu , his kāvyālaṃ itself may be regarded as hetu

It is not necessary to admit an independent figure of that name

It may be noted that Mammata is not quite fair to the protagonists of हेत्वलङ्कार here They do not want any figure to be somehow styled हेतु What they want is a figure wherein a cause is represented as identical with an effect Mammata's काव्यालं is not of this nature Therefore, it is no use saying that his काव्यालं itself is हेतु

In connection with this passage a few more observations are necessary

The word समान्रासिघु. shows that the opinion mentioned is held by some ancient revered writers But who these writers are is not known माणिक्यचन्द्र says they are ' भामहोद्भटाया ' and the सप्तप्रकाशिनीकmments ' उद्भटादय समान्रासिघु ' This also is inaccurate, because the stanza ' अविरलकमल ' 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 काव्यल 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 alamkāra, Dandin 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 विसुनाथ

कारणमाला and मालादीपक्रम्

Kāraṇamālā and Mālādīpakam

Resemblance In both each preceding object is connected with each succeeding

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 विरोध्याविโรषणभाव (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

Page 461

( 41 ) अन्योक्तिम् or the Reciprocal.

( 41 ) Anyoktim or the Reciprocal.

When two things mutually create each other by means of an identical action, that is the figure अन्योक्ति Mutual creation of two things by means of one action means that each creates in the other the same action and thus distinguishes it

When two things mutually create each other by means of an identical action, that is the figure Anyokti. 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 अन्योक्ति 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 रुय्यक’s काव्यालंकार vii 91) points out ‘सिंह प्रसेनमवधीत् सिंहो जाम्बवता हत’ is not an example of अन्योक्ति and ‘असावध्यापयत् तं हि विधां योगसमन्विताम् ।’ is also not अन्योक्ति

The essentials of Anyokti are (1) Two things mutually influence each other (2) The action, which is the instrument of this mutual influence, is the same. Thus, as Namisadhu (on Ruyyaka's Kavyalankara vii 91) points out 'Siṃha prasenamavadhīt siṃho jāmbavatā hata' is not an example of Anyokti and 'Asāv adhyāpayat tāṁ hi vidhāṁ yogasamanvitām .' is also not Anyokti

The name अन्योक्तिम् of the figure is obviously significant

The name Anyoktim 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 (श्री-सारकरणम्) Hence, it is an example of अन्योक्तिम् सा र्यते is passive from सारयति, which is a denominative from सार, and means उत्कृष्य कियते गरयन्नि = गुणे कुर्वन्ति

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 (Śrī-sārakaraṇam). Hence, it is an example of Anyoktim. Sā ryate is passive from Sārayati, which is a denominative from Sāra, and means utkṛṣya kiyate garayanni = guṇe kurvanti

हंस उभयेऽपि द्वारेण—This sentence points out how the figure अन्योक्ति arises in this stanza. Here mutual creation takes place, because ( द्वारण ) the swans and the lakes mutually accomplish ( संपादनम् ) the enhancement ( सारता ) of the beauty of each other

Haṁsa ubhaye'pi dvāreṇa—This sentence points out how the figure Anyokti arises in this stanza. Here mutual creation takes place, because ( Dvāraṇa ) the swans and the lakes mutually accomplish ( Sampādanam ) the enhancement ( Sārata ) of the beauty of each other

It has been stated above that the instrument of mutual influence in अन्योक्ति must be an identical action Jagannātha and Nāgesa maintain that अन्योक्ति also arises when such an instrument is a गुण

It has been stated above that the instrument of mutual influence in Anyokti must be an identical action. Jagannātha and Nāgesa maintain that Anyokti also arises when such an instrument is a Guṇa

Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not define this figure. Rudraṭa is the earliest writer to define it.

( 42 ) उत्तरम् or Reply

( 42 ) Uttar or Reply

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.

The figure Uttar 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, Uttar 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

It should be noted that according to the Kārikā the first kind of Uttar occurs when from an answer a question is inferred. But the Vṛtti

Page 462

न च तत् साधीयः

And that is not better

In this passage Mammata states the distinction between उत्तर on the one hand and काव्यलिङ्ग and अनुमान on the other and remarks that उत्तर be better regarded (साधीयः) as another i e a distinct figure

न चैतत् काव्यलिङ्गम्। उत्तरस्य तादृश्यालुपपत्तेः। न हि प्रश्नस्य प्रतिवचनं जनको हेतुः।

This is not काव्यलिङ्ग. Because the reply is not of that nature. The response to a question is not the cause

This is how Mammata distinguishes उत्तर from काव्यलिङ्ग. The figure उत्तर, is not the figure काव्यलिङ्ग, because the reply, which constitutes the figure उत्तर, does not possess the form or nature of the poetical reason तादृश्यालुपपत्तेः = काव्यलिङ्गरूपतया उपपत्तेः) which is at the basis of the figure काव्यलिङ्ग

न च (इदमुत्तरं) काव्यलिङ्गम्। उत्तरस्य प्रश्न प्रति अजनकत्वात्।

And (this उत्तर) is not काव्यलिङ्ग. Because उत्तर is not the cause of the question

The distinction between उत्तर and काव्यलिङ्ग is that while in उत्तर the reply is not the productive, but only the informative (ज्ञापक) cause of the question, in काव्यलिङ्ग the poetical reason is the productive cause of its effect. Read 'न च (इदमुत्तरं) काव्यलिङ्गम्। उत्तरस्य प्रश्न प्रति अजनकत्वात्।' साहित्यदर्पण.

Page 463

नापीदमनुमानम् । एकधर्मिनिष्ठतया साध्यसाधनयोरिन्देशात्

There is no inference either. Because the sädhya and the sädhana are indicated as residing in one entity

It is to be noted here that the words उत्तर and तत् = काव्यलिङ्ग occur ring in the expression उत्तर्स्य तादृश्यानुपपत्ते do not possess the sense of the figure उत्तर and the figure काव्यलिङ्ग respectively, but signify the reply and the poetical reason which are at the basis of these two figures Otherwise i e if उत्तर and काव्यलिङ्ग here are understood to mean the figures of those names, 'उत्तर्स्य तादृश्यानुपपत्ते ' would represent merely the paraphrase of 'न चैतत् काव्यलिङ्गम्.' 'The figure उत्तर is not the figure काव्यलिङ्ग because it does not possess the nature of काव्यलिङ्ग ' Therefore, उत्तर and काव्यलिङ्ग ' in उत्तर्स्य तादृश्यानुपपत्ते ' must be explained in the manner stated above The next sentence 'न हि हेतु:' explains how the reply in उत्तर does not possess the nature of the poetical reason in काव्यलिङ्ग i e the nature of being a जनक or a कारक हेतु

—This latter expression, which contains the reason why the figure उत्तर is not अनुमान, is explained in two ways (1) Because the साध्य and the साधन are not [here i e in the figure उत्तर] stated or mentioned (अनिदेशात्) as residing in one entity In अनुमान the साध्य and the साधन must reside or be found in one entity, called the पक्ष, e g fire (साध्य ) and smoke (साधन ) are found on the mountain, which is the पक्ष But in the present example of the figure उत्तर, the साध्य viz the प्रश्न belongs to the merchant and the साधन viz the उत्तर to the mother of the hunter Thus, as the साध्य and the साधन here are not एकधर्मिनिष्ठ, this stanza cannot be an instance of the figure अनुमान It will be noticed that in this explanation एकधर्मिनिष्ठता is taken predicatively (2) Because the साध्य and the साधन, which [in the figure अनुमान] reside in one entity (एकधर्मिनिष्ठतया अनुमाने वर्त्तमानयो:, अनुमाने एकधर्मिनिष्ठयोरेवायं) are not [here i e in the figure उत्तर] stated According to this interpretation एकधर्मिनिष्ठता does not represent a point of distinction between उत्तर and अनुमान, but merely describes the state of affairs as it exists in अनुमान एकधर्मिनिष्ठता is here used attributively In अनुमान both the साध्य and the साधन are mentioned But in उत्तर only the साधन viz the reply is mentioned and the साध्य viz the query is left for us to infer Thus, though in the figure उत्तर there is अनुमान (inference)—for otherwise it is not possible to infer the query at all—it does not represen tthe figure अनुमान, because here only the साधन is stated, and not the साध्य and साधन whose mention is necessary to constitute the figure अनुमान

Out of these two explanations the second is preferable for three reasons (1 ) In the sentence under discussion importance belongs the the word अनिर्देशात and not to एकधर्मिनिष्ठता Therefore, the non

Page 464

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 'साध्यसाधनयोरे कधर्मिनिर्ह्वाभावात् ( 2 ) The figure उत्तर consists in प्रश्नस्य उत्तरनम् or inference.

mention i e the non mention of both sādhya and sāadhan must be regarded as the point of distinction between uttara and anumāna If Mammata had intended the first explanation he would have said 'sādhyasādhanayorekarmminirn-

This shows that it contains अनुमान For this we shall have somehow to suppose that the साध्य and साधन are एकनिष्ठ Otherwise, उत्तरन or inference would not be possible Therefore, we cannot regard एक धर्मिनिष्ठता as representing the point of distinction between उत्तर and अनुमान and suggest that such एकधर्मिनिष्ठत्व is not found in उत्तर ( 3 ) The second explanation is favoured by Visvanatha, who thus distinguishes उत्तर from अनुमान 'न चेदम् ( उत्तरम् ) अनुमानम् । साध्यसाधनयोरे कधर्मिनिर्देशे एव तस्य ( अनुमानस्य ) अङ्गीकारात् ।

The second kind of उत्तर consists in an impossible or not-easily-thought-of reply to a query Mammata points out that no charm is developed if there is only one pair of such query and reply Therefore the word असङ्कत is put in the Kārikā This means that there must be more than one pair of such query and reply in order to constitute the second kind of उत्तर

The second kind of uttara consists in an impossible or not-easily-thought-of reply to a query Mammata points out that no charm is developed if there is only one pair of such query and reply There-fore the word asaṅkṛta is put in the Kārikā This means that there must be more than one pair of such query and reply in order to consti

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 'बी ए 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 असम्भाव्य 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

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 'kā viṣamā' A B A student, understanding viṣamā in the sense of ' difficult ', would be tempted to reply 'bī e parīkṣā' But the answer here given is 'daivagati ' or course of destiny, which is viṣamā in the sense of ' uneven or rugged ' This answer is asambhāavya 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

प्रश्नपरिसङ्ख्यायाम् विवेक —In this sentence Mammata points out the distinction between the second kind of उत्तर and प्रश्नपरिसङ्ख्या or the first kind of परिसङ्ख्या The distinction is that in परिसङ्ख्या the purport is just the exclusion of other similar things, while in उत्तर the sentence rests ( विश्रान्ति ) in the expressed sense itself i e the sentence does not convey any further suggestion Thus, in 'किमसेव्यं पुंसां संविभ्रमनवदू घुंस्रितं', which is an illustration of प्रश्नपरिसङ्ख्या, the purport is the exclusion of

Page 465

अनेकत्वेऽपि अयमेकाकारः

Even though there are many, they are of the same kind

e g किं स्वगीदधिक्षुब्धकुल्लोलवृहस्पिण्डिते सरमे गोश्री (v l लक्ष्मी) । सौराज्यश्रीदृशृ्टे (1 e सौराज्यमदुर्भिक्ष) सत्काव्यरसामृतस्वादु (1 e सत्काव्य-रसामृतस्वादु ) ।

एवं प्रश्र्तयोरभिन्नत्वेऽपि अयम् ।

Similarly, even though the questions are different, they are of the same kind

e g केदारोषणरता क शीतलत्वाहिनी गंगा । के संजघान कृष्ण के बलवन्तं न बाधते शीतम्‌॥ अत्र दारोष्णरता ( क्षेत्रपालनतत्परा ), क्रशीतलत्वाहिनी, क्रसम्‌, क्रबलवन्तम्‌, इति चत्वारि उत्तराणि ।

एवं प्रश्नद्वयैकत्तरत्वेऽपि ।

Similarly, even though there are two questions, there is one answer

e g के खे्टा किं वयः । Here वयः (birds, plural of वि, and youth ) represents the answer to both the questions viz. 'Who are the wanderers in sky ( के आकाशे अतन्नि ते खे्टा ) ?' 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 कुरङ्गस्य कुरोदरी किं तब परकीयगुल्लान्ति । कथं तथापि मुग्धे मम कषायोध्यते यांहि पान्य तब जायात ॥'

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 sub-sequent ones.

Page 466

उत्तरम् ( First kind ) and काव्यलिङ्गम्

Uttaram (First kind) and Kavyalingam

Resemblance In both one statement leads to another Distinction . (1) While in काव्यलिङ्ग one statement is the productive cause ( कारको जनको वा हेतु ) of another, in उत्तर one statement is the informative or indicative cause ( ज्ञापको हेतुः ) of another. In काव्यलिङ्ग the cause actually produces the effect In उत्तर the reply does not produce the query, but merely indicates its previous existence Read ‘ न व वाच्यमिदं ( प्रथमसूत्रं ) काव्यलिङ्गविशेष एव । उत्तरस्य प्रश्न प्रति हेतुत्वभावात् । उत्तरस्य तदनुपादकत्वात् ’ प्रदीप (2) While in काव्यलिङ्ग both the statements, that represent the cause and the effect are mentioned, in उत्तर only the reply, which is the cause, is mentioned. The query is left for us to infer

उत्तरम् ( First kind ) and अनुमानम्

Uttaram (First kind) and Anumanam

Resemblance Both deal with a ज्ञापक हेतु or an indicative cause, which leads us to infer something else Distinction (1) While in अनुमान both the साध्य and the साधन are expressed in so many words, in उत्तर only the साधन viz the reply is stated (2) In अनुमान the हेतुहेतुमदभाव is clearly indicated by describing the साध्य and साधन as residing in one entity called the पक्ष In उत्तर the question and the answer belong to different individuals (3) While the province of अनुमान is wide and includes all cases of poetical inference, उत्तर has a limited scope and embraces only those inferences in which a question is inferred from an answer उत्तर stands to अनुमान as अपवाद to उत्सर्गो The one is a species, the other a genus

उत्तरम् ( Second kind ) and परिसङ्ख्या ( First kind )

Uttaram (Second kind) and Parisankhya (First kind)

Resemblance Both contain a series of questions and answers Distinction (1) While in परिसङ्ख्या the answers are well known, in उत्तर they are such as would not easily occur to ordinary people (2) In परिसङ्ख्या the giving of well known answers serves the purpose of excluding other similar things. In उत्तर no such exclusion is meant (3) In परिसङ्ख्या it is the suggested sense, rather than the expressed sense, of the answers that is charming In उत्तर the expressed sense of the answers itself being unusual is important (4) In परिसङ्ख्या though we generally have many queries and many answers, their बहुत्व or असङ्कृत्न is not a necessity But in उत्तर the requisite charm is developed only when the questions and replies are many

Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana do not define उत्तर Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it

Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana do not define Uttara Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it

Page 467

( 43 ) सूक्ष्मम् or the Subtle

When a thing or circumstance, though subtle, but somehow divulged, is conveyed to another by some characteristic ( capable of conveying it, ) that they declare to be the figure सूक्ष्म कुतोष्पि or some-how means from आकार or appearance or from इक्षित or gesture. It should be noted that आकार and इक्षित, by which Mammata paraphrases कुतोष्पि, are given as synonyms by Amara 'आकारस्थितज्ञ इक्षितम् ' and आकारविक्षिताकृतिः But Mammata uses आकार in the sense of appearance or posture or which is unconsciously put on and इक्षित in the sense of gesture or movement, which is consciously adopted

Stanza 139—A certain नायिका acted the man during nocturnal love-sport An indication thereof was visible in the morning in the form of the disturbance ( भिन्न ) of the saffron on her throat, which was caused by drops of perspiration trickling down from her face A friend of hers noted this and conveyed that fact to the नायिका or to other friends by smilingly drawing a sword on her palm Here, the सूक्ष्मोर्थ is the पुस्त्वम् or पुरुषायितम् and कपोलकुङ्कुमशेद is the आकार or आकृति by observing which it is guessed ( वितर्कित ) by her friend पाणौ खड्ग लेखालिखनम् is the कवचिद् ध्वनं with which the subtle or delicate circumstance is revealed ( अभिव्यक्ति नीतं ) The sword is a characteristic of man That is why by drawing a sword on the नायिका's palm the friend cleverly ( वेदग्यया ) revealed the पुरुषायित to her or to other friends Thus, the figure सूक्ष्म, proceeding from आकारलक्षितसूक्ष्मार्थ, is developed in this stanza

Page 100

Stanza 140—This stanza is quoted from the धन्यालोक p. 103 It illustrates इक्षितलक्षितसूक्ष्मार्थ-सूक्ष्मालङ्कार A paramour wanted to know from his beloved the time of their meeting He communicated his intention by means of blooming eyes ( हसदृश्या विकसदृशा नेत्राभ्याम् ) अर्थित प्रतिपादित सुचितम् आकृतमभिप्राय येन तम् ) The clever girl understood it and gracefully ( लीलया ) informed him that the time of their meeting would be the night by closing the sport-lotus that she carried in her hand Lotuses close in the night So the closing of the lotus proclaimed the time of the night as the सकेतकाल Here the सूक्ष्मोर्थ is संकेतकालज्ञासा The इक्षित by which it was understood by the girl is नेत्रहसनम् or नेत्रविकसनम् कवचिद् ध्वनं through which she suggested her understanding of the सूक्ष्मार्थ is पद्मानिमीलन Thus, the figure contains सूक्ष्मालङ्कार, in which the subtle circumstance is observed through some gesture.

Page 468

Page 100 ]

NOTES : Tenth Flash

819

Bhāmaha (ii 86) says that सूक्ष्म is not an Alamkāra Dandin (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 Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha, Vidyādhara (एकावली viii 68), Vidyānātha (प्रतापरुद्रीय p 465), Vāgbhata (काव्यानुशासन p 43) and Appaya Dīkṣita (कुवलयानन्द p 155) all have this figure But Jagannātha does not treat of it

Bhāmaha (ii 86) says that सूक्ष्म is not an ornament. Dandin (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. Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha, Vidyādhara (एकावली viii 68), Vidyānātha (प्रतापरुद्रीय p 465), Vāgbhata (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

One may note that in सूक्ष्म, अनुमान अलङ्कार (inference ornament) is present, but it occupies a subordinate position and is not striking.

(44) सार or Climax

When excellence rises by successive stages (उत्तरस्माद उत्तरो 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. पराक्षि means पर पर्यन्तभाग अन्तिमभाग पयस्य गयस्य वा अवधि. सीमा यस्य धाराधरोहितया represents the paraphrase of उत्तरोरस्माद् and means in the manner of the rising of the stream of a river (धारा नदीप्रवाह तद्वद् अधिरोहिता अधिरोहीता तथा) i e. by successive stages, every succeeding stage representing a higher degree of that excellence तच्चैव = परसिमन्‌, पर्यन्तभागे एव In the last part excellence reaches-its highest point and rests i e can rise no higher

When excellence rises by successive stages (उत्तरस्माद उत्तरो 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. पराक्षि means 'the final part or last stage of a series or a river', and it signifies the culminating point. The phrase यस्य धाराधरोहितया represents the paraphrase of उत्तरोरस्माद् and means 'in the manner of the rising of the stream of a river', i.e., by successive stages, every succeeding stage representing a higher degree of that excellence. In the last part, excellence reaches its highest point and rests, i.e., it can rise no higher.

सार means excellence and the figure is significantly so called

सार means excellence, and the figure is significantly so called.

Stanza 141—This stanza is Rudrata's Kāvyālmkāra 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 पूर्वपूर्ववस्त्वपेक्षया उत्तररत्न उत्त्कृष्टतम्‌ । वरमस्य वस्तुनो वरागनेप्स्य सर्वोत्त्कृष्टम्‌ तत्सादृश्यकपुत्रि विश्वाम्यति । इति सारालङ्कारस्योदाहरणमिदम्‌ ।

Stanza 141—This stanza is Rudrata's Kāvyālmkāra 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.

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 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 'जम्बीराधिरूढमधिलद्धश्य लीलैयैव व्यानश्रीकृतकमननीयहेमकुम्भो । नीलाम्भोरुहनयने कचौ ते स्पृहंते खलु कल्कावचलेन का २७

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 'जम्बीराधिरूढमधिलद्धश्य लीलैयैव व्यानश्रीकृतकमननीयहेमकुम्भो । नीलाम्भोरुहनयने कचौ ते स्पृहंते खलु कल्कावचलेन'

Page 469

साधेम् ॥

The second variety occurs when many objects are mentioned, each succeeding object being more excellent than each preceding

The second variety occurs when many objects are mentioned, each succeeeding object being more excellent than each preceding Mammata apparently has in mind this variety, which is illustrated by stanza 141

सार्

is not found in the works of the ancient rhetoricians, Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhata and Vāmana Rudrata is the earliest rhetorician to define it Ruyyaka designates this figure उदाहरण

Page 101

( 45 ) असंगति or Non-Connection or Incongruity

When two properties, which have become effect and cause 1 e which are related to each other as effect and cause, are represented ( कार्याति =कथनम्, प्रतिपादनम् ) as simultaneously residing in two totally ( अत्यन्तम् ) different places, that constitutes the figure असंगति This is rather a long winded definition What it means is that when the cause and the effect, which are usually found in one place, are described as residing in two different places, असंगति occurs कार्यकारणभूतयोर्धर्मयोः is unnecessarily clumsy for कार्यकारणयोः Then again, the words अत्यन्तम् and युगपत् have no propriety However, a commentator points out that अत्यन्तम् serves the purpose of excluding from the province of असंगति such lines as ‘दृशो भुजौौौ पदेऽपि च घूर्णते,’ where the cause viz भुजौौ is in one place viz पद on and the effect viz घूर्णन is in another viz, अधिन् It is here explained that though the foot and the eye are different places ( भिन्नदेश ), they are not totally different places ( अत्यन्त भिन्नदेशा ), because they are parts of the same place viz the body This reasoning is incorrect ‘दृशो भुजौौौ पदेऽपि च घूर्णते’ is excluded from असंगति, not on account of अत्यन्तम्, but for the following reason

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 The cause ( भुजौौदेश ) and the effect ( घूर्णनम् ) in ‘दृशो भुजौौौ पदेऽपि च घूर्णते’ have naturally to be in different places Therefore, there is no असंगति here and not because the different places are not totally or absolutely ( अत्यन्तम् ) different It will thus be seen that cases like दृशो भुजौौौ पदेऽपि च घूर्णते’ are excluded from असंगति, because they fail to satisfy its essential requirement viz that the cause and the effect, which are usually found in one place, are represented as residing in different

Page 470

Similarly, the word युगपत् also serves no purpose It is not necessary that in असंगति the cause and the effect should be represented as coming into existence simultaneously, as in the second sub-division of the fourth variety of अतिशयोक्ति The Pradīpa and the Udyota, therefore, point out that युगपत् is merely descriptive of असंगति

Similarly, the word युगपत् also serves no purpose. It is not necessary that in असंगति the cause and the effect should be represented as coming into existence simultaneously, as in the second sub-division of the fourth variety of अतिशयोक्ति. The Pradīpa and the Udyota, therefore, point out that युगपत् is merely descriptive of असंगति.

इह यथेऽसंगतिः --This passage explains how असंगति is developed and why it is so called In the world ( इह = अस्मिन् जगति ) there is a general rule that to whichever region the cause belongs, in that same region the effect is observed to arise When, however, two things, which stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect and which are expected to be in the same place are represented as existing in different places owing to some peculiar excellence or speciality ( केनापि अतिशयेन ), that is the figure असंगति The peculiar excellence or speciality, which is responsible for the cause and the effect occupying different places, is that in reality they are not cause and effect at all, but that in reality the effect has arisen in a place other than the one where its supposed cause exists owing to some other cause

इह यथेऽसंगतिः -- This passage explains how असंगति is developed and why it is so called. In the world (इह = अस्मिन् जगति), there is a general rule that to whichever region the cause belongs, in that same region the effect is observed to arise. When, however, two things, which stand to each other in the relation of cause and effect and which are expected to be in the same place are represented as existing in different places owing to some peculiar excellence or speciality (केनापि अतिशयेन), that is the figure असंगति. The peculiar excellence or speciality, which is responsible for the cause and the effect occupying different places, is that in reality they are not cause and effect at all, but that in reality the effect has arisen in a place other than the one where its supposed cause exists owing to some other cause.

तयोः स्वभावोक्तिप्रस्तुतपरस्परसंगतित्यागात्—This explains why the figure is so called Here the mutual connection which exists between cause and effect is represented as having been abandoned and hence the title

तयोः स्वभावोक्तिप्रस्तुतपरस्परसंगतित्यागात्— This explains why the figure is so called. Here the mutual connection which exists between cause and effect is represented as having been abandoned and hence the title.

Stanza 142—The general rule is that he who is wounded feels the pain thereof But sometimes this is found to be not true (‘अलीक लप्रियेऽनुते’ अमर ) A tooth-wound, due to kissing, is seen on the cheek of a girl, but the pain caused dy it is seen in the cowives So here as the cause ( दन्तक्षतं ) and the effect ( वेदना ) are seen in different places viz वधूकोल and सपत्न्य respectively, the stanza is an example of असंगति

Stanza 142— The general rule is that he who is wounded feels the pain thereof. But sometimes this is found to be not true (‘अलीक लप्रियेऽनुते’ अमर). A tooth-wound, due to kissing, is seen on the cheek of a girl, but the pain caused by it is seen in the cowives. So here as the cause (दन्तक्षतं) and the effect (वेदना) are seen in different places viz वधूकोल and सपत्न्य respectively, the stanza is an example of असंगति.

It should here be noted that the pain, which the cowives suffer, is not really caused by the wound on the cheek of the girl Its real cause is मत्सर or envy The दन्तक्षत proclaims to the cowives their lover’s dalliance with the girl This excites their envy and they are pained This is the ‘कोटि अतिशय’ that Mammata mentions in his Vrtti Thus, the pain, caused by दन्तक्षत, is really different from the pain, produced by मत्सर The two are, however, regarded as identical ( अभेदेन अध्यवसित ) and कार्यकारणभाव is supposed to exist between सपल्लीवेदना and वधूकपोलदन्तक्षत On this supposed कार्यकारणभाव the figure असंगति is based Hence, it is held that at the basis of असंगति exists अतिशयोक्ति, consisting of निर्गीर्योध्यवसानं or

It should here be noted that the pain, which the cowives suffer, is not really caused by the wound on the cheek of the girl. Its real cause is मत्सर or envy. The दन्तक्षत proclaims to the cowives their lover’s dalliance with the girl. This excites their envy and they are pained. This is the ‘कोटि अतिशय’ that Mammata mentions in his Vrtti. Thus, the pain, caused by दन्तक्षत, is really different from the pain, produced by मत्सर. The two are, however, regarded as identical (अभेदेन अध्यवसित) and कार्यकारणभाव is supposed to exist between सपल्लीवेदना and वधूकपोलदन्तक्षत. On this supposed कार्यकारणभाव the figure असंगति is based. Hence, it is held that at the basis of असंगति exists अतिशयोक्ति, consisting of निर्गीर्योध्यवसानं or

Page 471

४२०

420

काव्यप्रकारः

Kavyaprakasha

भेदेऽपि अभेदः In this connection Jagannātha remarks that अतिशयोक्ति is not always necessary for असंगति What is everywhere required is the ascertainment of non-distinction ( अभेदाद्यवसाय ) as regards the कार्य such as वेदना In the present case Read रसगङ्गाधर pp 440-441

Even in difference, there is non-difference. In this connection Jagannātha remarks that hyperbole is not always necessary for incongruity. What is everywhere required is the ascertainment of non-distinction as regards the effect such as sensation. In the present case, read Rasa-ganga-dhara pp 440-441

The Udyota points out that in ' यस्यैव ऋण o ' there is प्रकृतभेदः, because first the word ऋण is used and then its paraphrase क्षत ' ऋणक्षत पदयोः प्रकृतभेदेऽपिन्यः ' उद्योत p 118

The Udyota points out that in 'whose debt' there is a distinction in the literal sense, because first the word 'debt' is used and then its paraphrase 'wound'. 'In the case of debt and wound, even without distinction in the literal sense'. Udyota p 118

एषा च विरोधबाधिनी o.— This passage is intended to distinguish असंगति from विरोध The point of distinction is that असंगति contradicts i e is an exception to विरोध ( विरोधबाधिनी विरोधालङ्कारस्य बाधिका अपवादभूता इत्यर्थः ) and is not the figure विरोध This means that the essence of असंगति consists in a specialized form of contradiction, which is explained in ' भिन्नाधारतया प्रतिबिम्बित्‌ ' Thus, the contradiction ( विरोधिता = विरोध ) in असंगति ( इह = असङ्गत्यलङ्कारे ) consists in representing ( प्रतिबिम्बित्‌ स्कूर्तिं प्रतिभासदृश्या ) that two things, which are ordinarily known to reside in one place ( द्वये = कार्यकारणरूपयोः वस्तुनो एकदेशनिष्ठतया ज्ञातयोः ), are found in different places Thus, क्षत and वेदना are ordinarily known to reside in one place But in ' यस्यैव ऋण o ' they are represented as residing in different places Hence, this stanza is an example of असंगति

And this is an exception to contradiction. This passage is intended to distinguish incongruity from contradiction. The point of distinction is that incongruity contradicts, i.e., is an exception to contradiction (an exception to the figure of contradiction, i.e., it is an exception), and is not the figure of contradiction. This means that the essence of incongruity consists in a specialized form of contradiction, which is explained in 'reflected in a different basis'. Thus, the contradiction (contradiction = contradiction) in incongruity (here = in the figure of incongruity) consists in representing (reflected, i.e., manifesting) that two things, which are ordinarily known to reside in one place (in two, i.e., in the form of effect and cause, known to be present in one place), are found in different places. Thus, wound and sensation are ordinarily known to reside in one place. But in 'whose debt', they are represented as residing in different places. Hence, this stanza is an example of incongruity.

विरोधे तु पर्यवसितम्‌ —In the figure विरोध, however, the contradiction ( विरोधित्वम्‌ = विरोधः ) lies in representing that two things, which ordinarily reside in different places, are found in one ( एकाश्रयणिष्ठं भिन्नाधयर्नि‌ष्ठत्वेन ज्ञातयोः ज्ञातयोः ). Thus, in stanza 95 कठिनत्व and सुकुमारत्व, which ordinarily belong to different places are represented as residing in one viz the hands of the Brāhmaṇa women That is why that stanza is an example of विरोधालङ्कार

But in the figure of contradiction, however, the contradiction lies in representing that two things, which ordinarily reside in different places, are found in one. Thus, in stanza 95, hardness and softness, which ordinarily belong to different places, are represented as residing in one, viz., the hands of the Brāhmaṇa women. That is why that stanza is an example of the figure of contradiction.

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

Mammata continues to add that though this particular form of contradiction was not mentioned while defining the figure of contradiction, it follows as a matter of course from the definition.

अपवादविषया व्यवस्थिते — मम्मट further quotes a general rule of grammar to support this statement The rule is that a general rule ( उत्सर्ग = सामान्यनियम ) finds its scope ( व्यवस्थिते = व्यवस्थिततल्लक्ष्यविषयत्वात्‌ इत्यर्थः ) by avoiding the province of the exception i e a general rule works in those cases only which are not covered by the exception Thus, विरोध means contradiction Consequently, the figure विरोध as a general rule would cover all cases of contradiction. Then, comes असङ्गति, which is an exception, to विरोध and which is stated to cover those cases of contradiction, where two things, ordinarily known

The exception is the subject of the established rule. Mammata further quotes a general rule of grammar to support this statement. The rule is that a general rule (a general rule = a general principle) finds its scope (established = having its scope in the subject) by avoiding the province of the exception, i.e., a general rule works in those cases only which are not covered by the exception. Thus, contradiction means contradiction. Consequently, the figure of contradiction as a general rule would cover all cases of contradiction. Then comes incongruity, which is an exception to contradiction and which is stated to cover those cases of contradiction where two things, ordinarily known

Page 472

to reside in one place, are represented as residing in different In cases of such contradiction, therefore, the general rule is not applicable i e the figure विरोध does not occur. Consequently, the province of the figure 'विरोध'secomes limited to those cases of contradiction, where two things, known to reside in different places, are represented as residing in one

to reside in one place, are represented as residing in different In cases of such contradiction, therefore, the general rule is not applicable i e the figure virodha does not occur. Consequently, the province of the figure 'virodha' becomes limited to those cases of contradiction, where two things, known to reside in different places, are represented as residing in one

तथा चैव निर्दिष्टम्—This refers to the illustrations of the figure विरोध that Mammata quoted before Mammata here points out that all the illustrations of विरोध he has given before presuppose the above mentioned characteristic of that figure Thus, in stanza 98, for example, जड़यति and तापयति which are ordinarily मिश्रदेशानिष्ठ are represen ted एकदेशानिष्ठ i e as connected with कोपि अन्तर्विकार

tathā caiva nirdiṣṭam—This refers to the illustrations of the figure virodha that Mammata quoted before Mammata here points out that all the illustrations of virodha he has given before presuppose the above mentioned characteristic of that figure Thus, in stanza 98, for example, jaḍayati and tāpayati which are ordinarily mixeddeshānishṭha are represented as ekdeshānishṭha i e as connected with kopi antarvikāra

We have seen that असंगति consists in representing that the cause and the effect, which are ordinarily found in one place, reside in two different places In this connection Jagannātha holds that it is not necessary that the two objects, which in असंगति are represented as occupying different abodes, should be related to each other as cause and effect It is enough if they are such as ordinarily occupy one place

We have seen that asangati consists in representing that the cause and the effect, which are ordinarily found in one place, reside in two different places In this connection Jagannātha holds that it is not necessary that the two objects, which in asangati are represented as occupying different abodes, should be related to each other as cause and effect It is enough if they are such as ordinarily occupy one place

असंगति and विरोध

asangati and virodha

Resemblance It can be easily shown that असंगति is nothing but विरोध Thus, we may say that in 'यस्पेव व्रण o' there is a contradiction between two जातिवाचक words viz दन्तक्षत and वेदना and that it is removed when we remember that the pain which the cowives suffer is not caused by the tooth-wound, but by jealousy or by the indifference which is shown to them by their lover Thus, असंगति and विरोध resemble, because both contain an apparent contradiction, which is capable of being removed

Resemblance It can be easily shown that asangati is nothing but virodha Thus, we may say that in 'yasyaiva vraṇa o' there is a contradiction between two jāti-vācak words viz dantakṣata and vedanā and that it is removed when we remember that the pain which the co-wives suffer is not caused by the tooth-wound, but by jealousy or by the indifference which is shown to them by their lover Thus, asangati and virodha resemble, because both contain an apparent contradiction, which is capable of being removed

Distinction (1) The contradiction in विरोध consists in representing that two things, which are generally known to reside in different places, reside in one. The contradiction in असंगति on the other hand lies in describing that two things, related to each other as cause and effect and, therefore, expected to reside in one place, reside in different places ( 2 ) विरोध, as we saw before, is the rule असंगति the exception While विरोध covers a larger field, असंगति is limited to only one form of contradiction

Distinction (1) The contradiction in virodha consists in representing that two things, which are generally known to reside in different places, reside in one. The contradiction in asangati on the other hand lies in describing that two things, related to each other as cause and effect and, therefore, expected to reside in one place, reside in different places ( 2 ) virodha, as we saw before, is the rule asangati the exception While virodha covers a larger field, asangati is limited to only one form of contradiction

असंगति: and विभावना

asangatiḥ and vibhāvanā

Resemblance Both contain an apparent contradiction, which can be removed.

Page 473

४२२

काव्यप्रकाशः

[ Page 102

Distinction (1) In विभावना the effect is represented as arising even in the absence of its well known cause In विरसंगति 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 विरसंगति consists in the cause and the effect being represented as residing in different places.

Distinction (1) In Vibhavana the effect is represented as arising even in the absence of its well-known cause. In Asangati, both the cause and the effect exist, not in one place as expected, but in different places. (2) The charm in Vibhavana lies in the rise of the result without its well-known cause, while the charm in Asangati consists in the cause and the effect being represented as residing in different places.

असंगति and विरोषोक्ति

Asangati and Vishesokti

Resemblance Both contain an apparent contradiction, which can be removed

Resemblance: Both contain an apparent contradiction, which can be removed

Distinction (1) In विरोषोक्ति 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 विरोषोक्ति 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 विरोधीकरण्य of the cause and the effect.

Distinction: (1) In Vishesokti, though the cause is present, the effect is described as not arising. In Asangati, both the cause and the effect exist, not in one place as expected, but in different places. (2) The charm in Vishesokti lies in the non-rise of the effect, though its well-known cause exists. The charm in Asangati, on the other hand, consists in the special arrangement 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

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, and Vāmana do not mention this figure. Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it.

Page 102

(46) समाधि or Facilitation

(46) Samādhi 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

When a certain work becomes easy of accomplishment owing to the association of another cause, the figure Samādhi 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 the person now accomplishes his task without trouble, i.e., with ease. This leads to Samādhi.

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 से ( सम्यक् समीचीन अचेष्ट अनायास ) आाधि (आाधार करण कार्यस्य उत्पादन ) यत्न

The name Samādhi 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. 'Se' (properly, without effort, effortlessly) 'Adhi' (means, basis, or cause of the accomplishment of a work).

Stanza 143—This is काव्यादर्शो in 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 वनगर्जित, which arrived accidentally, helped the lover and made his work easy Hence, the stanza is an example of समाधि

Stanza 143—This is from Kāvyādarśa, II, 299. A lover was about to fall at the feet of his beloved 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 into her lover's arms. Thus, the forest thunder, which arrived accidentally, helped the lover and made his work easy. Hence, the stanza is an example of Samādhi.

मानस्था—In Sanskrit erotic poetry मान has a special sense, which is thus explained ‘कुपितामर्षणीभृत कोप मनोदन्याादतस्त्रिनि प्रिये ।’

Mānasta—In Sanskrit erotic poetry, 'māna' has a special sense, which is thus explained: 'Kupitāmarsanībhṛt kopa manodanyādatastṛṇi priye.'

Page 474

Bhāmaha, Udbhata, Vāmana and Rudrata do not mention समाधि as an Alamkāra It is found in Dandin (ii 298), who designates it समाहित Mammata's illustration is drawn from Dandin, as we have pointed out above

समाधि and समुच्चय

Resemblance In both there are more cases 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 खलेखोपेतन्याय, while in समाधि a second cause comes in by काकतालीयन्याय (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 धनगर्जित subordinate

(47) सम्म or the Equal

When a union (योग = सङ्गत मेलनं) between two things or persons is regarded as appropriate (योग्यता अनुर्पतया उपलक्षित इत्यर्थः), that is the figure सम

When we are sure that the union between two things, which are under description, is appropriate, the figure सम is developed Thus 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

Stanza 144-घातु रष्ट ब्रह्माण शिल्प निर्माणकौशल तस्य अतिहायस्य 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 रसस्य स्मराय हतु पत्रे प्रहोसापत्र येन स

Page 475

४२८

काव्यप्रकाशः

[ Page 103

In the matter of beauty the king has given a testimonial to Cupid. This means he is more beautiful than Love शृङ्गारस्य. 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 श्रृङ्गारसी and देव Hence, it is an example of सद्योगे समालङ्कार.

Page 103

Stanza 145—परिणतानि पक्वानि फलानि स्फुटिति ( from स्काय स्कायते to grow large, to swell ) सुपक्व प्रभूतानि परिणतानि फलानि इत्यर्थः. 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 असयोगे सम .

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata Vāmana and Rudrata do not mention this figure Mammaṭa is apparently the first rhetorician to define सम

समम् and समुचय

Resemblance Both contain सयोग and असयोग Besides it is likely that an example of समुचय such as 'उमा वधूमेचन ददता.' (p 598 above) may be regarded as containing सम, because the union of उमा and रंहु, 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 ) विषम or the Unequal

The figure विषम has four varieties viz ( 1 ) where union ( योग = योग सम्बन्ध ) 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 तथा = अनौचित्यतया विषमित हेतुपी ) (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 ( प्रणाशात = वैफल्स्यात् ) of his efforts ( व्यापार प्रयत्ननाशः ), but also incurs a calamity, which he had not bargained for or expected.

Page 476

( 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

(3) and (4) where the quality and action of a cause are mutually opposed to the quality and action respectively of the effect despite 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

सत्यापि अनौचित्ये — This line refers to what is known as कारणगुणप्रकमन्याय 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 ‘कारणगुणाः कार्यगुणान् आरभन्ते’

सत्यापि अनौचित्ये — This line refers to what is known as कारणगुणप्रकमन्याय 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 ‘कारणगुणाः कार्यगुणान् 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

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 कुकूलानां तुषाना ( chaff, husks ) अभिरव कर्कशा दु खदायक . The fire of chaff is supposed to burn intensely, though not quite so visibly In this stanza the union or association between the exceedingly 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 क’s Hence, this is an example of the first kind of विषम

Stanza 146 — शिरीष is regarded as the most delicate of Sanskrit flowers. कुकूलानां तुषाना (chaff, husks) अभिरव कर्कशा दु खदायक. The fire of chaff is supposed to burn intensely, though not quite so visibly. In this stanza, the union or association between the exceedingly 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 क’s. 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

The essence of the first kind of विषम lies in the 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 शशो , शशाङ्क , शशलाञ्छन etc for the moon The word सिंहिकासुत . is paronomastic and means ( 1 ) the son of a lioness ( सिंहीपुत्र ) 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 resoted 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

Stanza 147—The spot on the moon is often regarded as a hare. Compare the names शशो, शशाङ्क, शशलाञ्छन etc for the moon. The word सिंहिकासुत is paronomastic and means (1) the son of a lioness (सिंहीपुत्र) 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

Page 477

४२६

426

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[Page 104

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

viz escape from Simhikāsuta, but suffered an additional calamity viz being swallowed along with its support. Therefore, this stanza is an example of the second kind of Viṣama.

The essentials of the second kind of विषम are (1) failure in achieving one's desired object and (2) the befalling of an additional calamity It should be noted that सिंहिकासुतसत्त्रस्त o' is not a very happy example of this variety For, though the first condition is here satisfied viz the hare failed to escape from the clutches of सिंहिकासुत, the second is not The swallowing of its आश्रय, the moon, is no additional calamity to the hare The following is a better example अय रत्नकरोष्मोधेरियसेवि धनाशाया। धनैरूदस्तु बदनमपूरि क्षारवारिरिभि॥ साहि‌त्यदर्पण

The essentials of the second kind of Viṣama are (1) failure in achieving one's desired object and (2) the befalling of an additional calamity. It should be noted that Simhikāsutasattrasta o' is not a very happy example of this variety. For, though the first condition is here satisfied viz the hare failed to escape from the clutches of Simhikāsuta, the second is not. The swallowing of its āśraya, the moon, is no additional calamity to the hare. The following is a better example: Ay ratnakarodhmogheriyasevi dhanāśāyā. Dhanairūdasthu badanamapūri kṣāravāriribhiḥ. Sāhityadarpana

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

According to Appaya Dīkṣita and Jagannātha, Mammata's second kind of Viṣama 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.

Examples of (i) have been given above Examples of (ii) and (iii) can be had from कवलयानन्द and रसगङ्गाधर

Examples of (i) have been given above. Examples of (ii) and (iii) can be had from Kuvalayānanda and Rasaganggādhara.

Jagannātha further points out that इष्ट in this division is fourfold and अनिष्ट three-fold Thus, still more sub-divisions become possible Vide रसगङ्गाधर pp 444-445

Jagannātha further points out that Iṣṭa in this division is fourfold and Aniṣṭa three-fold. Thus, still more sub-divisions become possible. Vide Rasaganggādhara pp 444-445.

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 148 — This stanza is Padmagupta's Navasāhasāṅkacharita 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 nīla and pāṇḍu 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 Viṣama.

Stanza 149 — This is रुय्यक' s काव्यालङ्कार ix 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 There is contradiction between आनन्ददान and शरीरताप Hence, the stanza is an example of the fourth kind of विषम

Stanza 149 — This is Ruyyaka's Kāvyālankāra ix 47. It is an example of Viṣama 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 ānandadāna. The effect produced by the girl is viraha, because she apparently went away and thus created separation. The action connected with the effect viraha is śarīratāpa. There is contradiction between ānandadāna and śarīratāpa. Hence, the stanza is an example of the fourth kind of Viṣama.

The first kind of विषम consists in the inappropriateness or in congruity of union or association between two things owing to their utter dissimilarity Now such inappropriate association may exist

The first kind of Viṣama consists in the inappropriateness or incongruity of union or association between two things owing to their utter dissimilarity. Now such inappropriate association may exist.

Page 478

between things of various kinds Thus, in stanza 146 we have incongruous association between साध्व and कारकस्य, which are things that are intrinsically opposed to each other ‘शिरोऽपादि०’ इत्यत्र स्वभावत एव विरोधिनोः साध्वकारकस्य गुणयोः योगस्य अननुपपद्यमानत्वं प्रतिपादितम् Mammata now quotes a stanza (No 150), which exemplifies the inappropriateness of union between things which are related to each other as part and whole (अवयवावयविनोः) The purpose of quoting this second example for the first kind of विषम is to show that this kind has many sub-divisions

between things of various kinds Thus, in stanza 146 we have incongruous association between sādhv and kārakasya, which are things that are intrinsically opposed to each other ‘shiroʼrādi0’ ityatra svabhāvata eva virodhinoḥ sādhvakarakasya guṇayoḥ yogasya ananupapadyamānatvam pratipāditam Mammata now quotes a stanza (No 150), which exemplifies the inappropriateness of union between things which are related to each other as part and whole (avayavāvayavinoḥ) The purpose of quoting this second example for the first kind of viṣama is to show that this kind has many sub-divisions

Stanza 150—This is माघ's शिशुपालवध 13 40 It describes Lord Kṛṣna as he was eagerly looked at by a citīzeness of Indraprastha, when he had gone there for the Rājasūya sacrifice Kṛṣna as Viṣnu sleeps on the ocean At the end of the ages of the world (युगानां कृत-त्रेता-द्वापर-कलि-नामधेयाना क्षये भवते) universal destruction (प्रलय) takes place At that time Viṣnu drinks in or withdraws the universe within his spacious (विभुल) belly But now he himself was drunk in i e eagerly gazed at by a citīzeness with only one eye (एकतमा हशा), which even was not fully open (असकल) owing to the effect of intoxica-tion (मदस्य धुराजनितक्षीबताया विभ्रमेण व्यापारेण असकला अस्पष्टीकृतातितया)

Stanza 150—This is māgha's shishupālavadha 13 40 It describes Lord Kṛṣṇa as he was eagerly looked at by a citīzeness of Indraprastha, when he had gone there for the Rājasūya sacrifice Kṛṣṇa as Viṣṇu sleeps on the ocean At the end of the ages of the world (yugānām kṛta-tretā-dvāpara-kali-nāmadheyānā kṣaye bhavate) universal destruction (pralaya) takes place At that time Viṣṇu drinks in or withdraws the universe within his spacious (vibhul) belly But now he himself was drunk in i e eagerly gazed at by a citīzeness with only one eye (ekatamā drshā), which even was not fully open (asakala) owing to the effect of intoxica-tion (madasya dhurājanitakṣībatāyā vibhrameṇa vyāpareṇa asakālā asphuṭīkṛtātatayā)

This stanza contains two examples of incongruous union between things related to each other as अवयव and अवयविन् First, the अवयविन् Kṛṣna sleeps on the ocean, but only an अवयव or limb of his viz the belly is described as drinking not only the earth along with its oceans but also the other worlds This is one example of incongruity of union between a whole and a part Secondly Kṛṣna, whose belly drinks the universe, is himself drunk by a citīzeness with only a half-open eye Thus, there is incongruity of union between the अवयविन् Kṛṣṇa, and the अवयव half open eye of the citīzeness, which are represented as united in the action of drinking This is the second example of incongruity of union between a whole and a part It will be noticed that while in the first example the अवयविन् (कृष्ण.) and the अवयव (कुक्षि) refer to one entity viz Kṛṣṇa, in the second the अवयविन् (कृष्ण) and the अवयव (एकतमा दृक्) refer to two individuals viz कृष्ण and पुरषी

This stanza contains two examples of incongruous union between things related to each other as avayava and avayavin First, the avayavin Kṛṣṇa sleeps on the ocean, but only an avayava or limb of his viz the belly is described as drinking not only the earth along with its oceans but also the other worlds This is one example of incongruity of union between a whole and a part Secondly Kṛṣṇa, whose belly drinks the universe, is himself drunk by a citīzeness with only a half-open eye Thus, there is incongruity of union between the avayavin Kṛṣṇa, and the avayava half open eye of the citīzeness, which are represented as united in the action of drinking This is the second example of incongruity of union between a whole and a part It will be noticed that while in the first example the avayavin (kṛṣṇa) and the avayava (kuṣhi) refer to one entity viz Kṛṣṇa, in the second the avayavin (kṛṣṇa) and the avayava (ekatamā dṛk) refer to two individuals viz kṛṣṇa and puruṣī

इत्यादौ सवगतव्यम् Mammata here tells us that in cases such as these incongruity which leads to the first kind of विषम, or the figure विषम i e its first kind, should be understood according to possibility or circumstances विषमत्वम् = (1) द्वयोरेव स्तुनोयोगस्य अननुपपद्यमानत्वम् यत्र स विषमालङ्कारस्य प्रथमप्रकार अवलम्बते (2) विषमालङ्कारात्वम् यथायोगम् = यथासंभव यथा-परिस्थिति इत्यर्थे

ityādau savaganatyam Mammata here tells us that in cases such as these incongruity which leads to the first kind of viṣama, or the figure viṣama i e its first kind, should be understood according to possibility or circumstances viṣamatvam = (1) dvayoreva stunoyogasya ananupapadyamānatvam yatras viṣamālaṅkārasya prathamaprakāra avalambate (2) viṣamālaṅkārātvam yathāyogam = yathāsaṃbhava yathā-parisṭhiti ityarthe

Page 479

४२८

काव्यप्रकाश:

[ Page 105

It should be noted that Mammata does not give a general definition of विषम He merely enumerates the four kinds thereof Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha do the same Jagannātha, however, gives a general definition viz ‘अनुरूपसंसर्गो विषमम्’ (रसगङ्गाधर p 443) and shows that this incongruous relation may arise in many ways

Mammata remarks that विषम is ‘समविपर्ययात्मक’ p 112 A question then arises Why should सम also not have four varieties as विषम has? The सम that Mammata has treated of represents the converse of the first variety of विषम Should there not be three more kinds of सम corresponding to varieties 2, 3 and 4 of विषम?

Mammata has nothing to say in this matter But Ruyyaka (अलङ्कारसर्वस्व p 132) holds that the converse of the three other varieties of विषम, as stated by Mammata, possesses no charm His idea is that there is no charm in representing that some one has succeeded in attaining his desired object, or that the qualities and actions of the cause and the effect are similar Jagannātha does not agree with this view He criticizes Ruyyaka as well as Jayaratha, who supports him, and maintains that corresponding varieties of सम do possess charm, when they are based on श्लेष and are expressed in a picturesque manner

विषम (तृतीयप्रकृत्यर्थेश्र) and विरोध—असङ्गति

Resemblance All these three figures contain an apparent contradiction, which can be removed. Stanzas 148 and 149, which are illustrations of विषम can be easily shown to contain विरोध For, in 148 there is an apparent contradiction between two qualities viz, नीलत्व and पाण्डुत्त्व and in 149 between two actions viz आनन्ददान and शरीरताप Thus, they can be regarded as examples of विरोध

Distinction While विरोध is wider in extent and represents a general rule, विषम and असङ्गति are limited in their scope and stand for exceptions The charm in विरोध lies in representing that two things, ordinarily known to belong to different places, reside in one, The charm in असङ्गति consists in the representation that two things, related to each other as cause and effect and thus expected to be in one place, are found in different But the charm of विषम takes the form of the representation that qualities or actions belonging to the effect are opposed to the qualities or actions belonging to the cause

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not mention विषम Rudraṭa is the first rhetorician to define it.

Page 480

( 49 ) अधिकम् or Exceeding

When the support and the supported ( आश्रयाश्रितौ = आश्रयाश्रिती ), though really smaller than the supported and the support respectively (तदुत्के अपि; paraphrased in the Vṛtti by तदपेक्षया तनू अपि = आश्रिताश्रयापेक्षया अल्पौ अपि ), are represented as being greater than the supported and the support, which themselves are really greater than they, the figure अधिक occurs अधिक is thus of two kinds viz (1) आश्रयस्य आश्रितादधिक्ये सति when the support, though really smaller, is represented to be greater than the really greater supported, and (2) आश्रितस्य आश्रयादधिक्ये सति when the supported, though really smaller, is represented to be greater than the really greater support It will be noticed that Mammata's definition is unnecessarily clumsy and involved Viśvanātha defines the figure as ‘आश्रयाश्रयिणोरेतस्याधिक्येsधिकसुच्यते’ in Sahityadarpaṇ X 72cd, which clearly brings out the two varieties thereof

तयोर्महत्तरपि विषये तदपेक्षया—This means तयोर्महत्तरपि अपेक्षया

प्रस्तुतवस्तुप्रकर्षविवक्षया—This furnishes the reason why the particular striking mode of expression is resorted to in this figure The reason is to convey or bring out the excellence or greatness of the matter in hand

The figure is so called, because either the support or the supported is therein described as अधिक or greater than the supported or the support.

Stanza 151—This stanza is का०प्या०दर्शी II 129 and is an example of आश्रयस्य आश्रितादधिक्यरुपमधिकम् Here the आश्रय is the belly or hollow of the three worlds and the आश्रित is the heap or mass of fame. The आश्रित is really greater than the आश्रय, because fame is described as impossible of being contained in the three worlds, which represent the आश्रय Yet it is said that the three worlds contain the fame Thus, the greatness of the आश्रय is brought out, because it contains the आश्रित, which is really impossible to be contained The purpose why this seemingly contradictory statement is made is ultimately to bring out the greatness of fame, which is the matter in hand Hence, the stanza illustrates आश्रयस्य आश्रितादधिक्यरुपमधिकम्

Stanza 152—This is माध’ s विष्णुपाललब्ध 1. 23 and describes the great joy which Kṛṣṇa felt at the arrival of Nārada.

Page 481

४३०

430

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[Page 106

This stanza illustrates आधितस्य आधेयादिक्यलपमधिकम्. Here the आधित is the joy which Kṛṣṇa felt at the arrival of Nārada and the आधेय is the body of Kṛṣṇa The आधेय is really greater than the आधित, because the body is described to be so expansive as to furnish room enough and to spare for all the worlds to reside at the time of universal destruction Yet, it is said that the joy could not be contained in that body Thus, the excess or greatness of the आधित is brought out, because the joy is declared as not having been contained in the body All this is with a view ultimately to convey the greatness or excess of the joy, which is the matter under description Hence, the stanza illustrates आधितस्य आधेयादिक्यलपमधिकम्

This stanza illustrates the concept of 'आधितस्य आधेयादिक्यलपमधिकम्'. Here, the 'आधित' refers to the joy felt by Kṛṣṇa upon Nārada's arrival, and the 'आधेय' is Kṛṣṇa's body. The 'आधेय' is considered greater than the 'आधित' because the body is described as being so vast that it can accommodate all the worlds during universal destruction. Yet, it is said that the joy could not be contained within that body. Thus, the excess or greatness of the 'आधित' is highlighted because the joy is described as not being contained within the body. All this is done to ultimately convey the greatness or excess of the joy, which is the subject under discussion. Hence, the stanza illustrates 'आधितस्य आधेयादिक्यलपमधिकम्'.

The figure अधिक consists in describing the आधेय of the आधित or the आधित But it must be noted that this आधेय must be the result of poetic representation and not true in nature

The figure 'अधिक' involves describing the 'आधेय' of the 'आधित' or the 'आधित' itself. However, it must be noted that this 'आधेय' should be the result of poetic representation and not based on factual truth.

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not mention the figure अधिक. Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it. Rudrata gives two varieties of अधिक, the second of which corresponds to Mammata's अधिक Rudrata's first अधिक arises when from one cause two contradictory things are produced For the definition and illustration of this अधिक read काव्यालङ्कार IX

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, and Vāmana do not mention the figure 'अधिक'. Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it. Rudrata provides two varieties of 'अधिक', the second of which corresponds to Mammata's 'अधिक'. Rudrata's first 'अधिक' occurs when two contradictory things arise from a single cause. For the definition and illustration of this 'अधिक', refer to काव्यालङ्कार IX.

अधिकम् and विषम (प्रथम)

अधिकम् and विषम (First)

Resemblance अधिक is very near the first kind of विषम, because in both these there is the bringing together or association of two incongruous things

The figure 'अधिक' is very similar to the first type of 'विषम' because both involve the bringing together or association of two incongruous things.

Distinction (1) While in विषम two things, which are intrinsically incongruous and independent of each other, are brought together, in अधिक two things, which are related to each other as आधेय and आधेयिन् are associated and the incongruity lies in one of them being larger in extent than the other (2) The charm in विषम lies in the union of two intrinsically incongruous things But the charm in अधिक consists in the representation that the आधेय or the आधेयिन् is vaster than the आधेयिन् or the आधेय respectively

Distinction: (1) While 'विषम' involves bringing together two things that are inherently incongruous and independent of each other, 'अधिक' involves associating two things that are related to each other as 'आधेय' and 'आधेयिन्', with the incongruity lying in one being larger in extent than the other. (2) The charm in 'विषम' lies in the union of two inherently incongruous things, whereas the charm in 'अधिक' lies in the representation that the 'आधेय' or 'आधेयिन्' is vaster than the 'आधेयिन्' or 'आधेय', respectively.

अधिकम् and विरोध

Resemblance Both contain an apparent contradiction, which is capable of being removed Thus, the contradiction in stanza 151 is expressed by अपि in 'माति माहुमहव्योमपि'

Resemblance: Both 'अधिकम्' and 'विरोध' contain an apparent contradiction that can be resolved. For example, the contradiction in stanza 151 is expressed by 'अपि' in 'माति माहुमहव्योमपि'.

Distinction (1) As we saw in the case of other figures, while विरोध is general or wide in extent and represents a rule, अधिक is limited

Distinction: (1) As observed in other figures, 'विरोध' is general or broad in scope and represents a rule, whereas 'अधिक' is more limited.

Page 482

Page 106] NOTES Tenth Flash ४३१

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 आधेयिन्।

in scope and stands for an exception (2) The charm in opposition lies in the commonality of usually different things, while the charm in excess consists in the abundance of the subject or the object.

( 50 ) प्रतनीकम् or Rivalry

( 50 ) Pratnīkam or Rivalry

When some one, who is unable directly to retaliate against or throw aside an enemy, though intent on doing injury (न्यक्कृतिपरामि = अपकारप्रततमापि, अपकारिणमपि इत्यर्थे ), does harm (तिरसक्रिया = तिरस्करणम् = अपकारसंघदानम्) 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 प्रतनीकम्,

When someone, who is unable directly to retaliate against or throw aside an enemy, though intent on doing injury, does harm to someone who belongs to or is dependent on him, such action resulting in the enemy's praise or exaltation only, that is called the figure Pratnīkam,

तत् अनीकप्रतिनिधितुल्यत्वात् इत्यर्थः — This passage explains the significance of the name प्रतनीक as given to this figure प्रतिनिधि means a deputy or a representative अनीक —कम् means an army प्रतनीकम्(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 आक्षितस्य इत्यर्थे ), the figure is called प्रतनीकम् As some one instead of attacking an army attacks through foolishness someone who is a representative thereof,

That is, because it is similar to a representative of the army — This passage explains the significance of the name Pratnīkam as given to this figure. Representative means a deputy or a representative, Anīka-kam means an army, Pratnīkam (representative of the army) thus signifies a representative of the army. As the dependent who is depicted as harmed in this figure resembles a representative of an army, the figure is called Pratnīkam. As someone 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

so here when the opponent is to be conquered, someone else belonging to him is conquered. That is how the phenomenon in this figure resembles an attack on an army's representative

तत्सुत्यै and तमेव प्रतिक्षमत्कृत्वैयतुम्—These expressions offer fresh evidence of Mammata'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

Tatsutyai and Tameva pratikṣamatkṛtvaitum — These expressions offer fresh evidence of Mammata'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

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 'प्रतनीक मशक्तेन प्रतिकारे रियोर्द्विन्दि । 86 तदीयस्य तिरस्कारस्तत्सहैवोल्कर्षसाधक । 87 साहित्यदर्पणेx

Viśvanātha's definition brings out this idea correctly. It is 'Pratnikam ashaktena pratikare riporvindi. 86 Tadīyasya tiraskāras tatsahai volkarsasādhaka. 87 Sāhityadarpaṇe x'

Stanza 153 — This stanza is addressed to a young man by a friend of his beloved The youth has conquered Cupid (मनोभव ) 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

Stanza 153 — This stanza is addressed to a young man by a friend of his beloved. The youth has conquered Cupid (Manobhava) 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

Page 483

४३२

काव्यप्रकाश

[ Page 107

simultaneously The girl is तदीय or तदाश्रित, because she is his beloved

simultaneously The girl is related to him or dependent on him, 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

All this only serves to highlight the young man's greatness to the extent that it demonstrates his vast superiority over Cupid in terms of beauty

That is how the figure प्रत्यनीक is developed The ultimate suggestion in the stanza is that while the girl is pining for the youth, the youth is apparently unaffected

That is how the figure of contrast (प्रत्यनीक) is developed. The ultimate suggestion in the stanza is that while the girl is yearning for the youth, the youth appears to be unaffected

The relative, whom weak man injures in प्रत्यनीक, is connected with the opponent either directly or indirectly Note ‘तदीयत्व च साक्षात्संबन्धेन परंपरासंबन्धेन चैति द्विविधमेतत् ।’ प्रदीप

The relative, whom a weak man injures in the context of प्रत्यनीक, is connected with the opponent either directly or indirectly. Note that 'the relation is of two types: direct and indirect'

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

The above stanza is an example where the relation (तदीयत्व) arises from a direct connection (साक्षात्संबन्ध), because the girl is directly connected with the youth as his beloved. Mammata quotes the next stanza to illustrate the relation (तदीयत्व) through an indirect connection (परंपरासंबन्ध)

Page 107

Stanza 154 — This is माघ's शिशुपालवध 1478 It contains panegyric of Krṣna by Bhīṣma. Viṣnu or Krṣna 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 निप्रहेतु शरीरोत्कर्ष गृहीत्वा अशिक्षित विग्रह वैर विरोधो वा येन ) But Rāhu is unable to do anything to Viṣnu or Krṣna.

Stanza 154 — This is from माघ's शिशुपालवध 1478. It contains a panegyric of Krṣna by Bhīṣma. Viṣnu or Krṣna, in his incarnation as मोहिनी, deprived Rāhu of his body by chopping off his head with his Sudarśana cakra. From that time, Rāhu harbored hostility towards him. But Rāhu is unable to do anything to Viṣnu or Krṣna

The moon resembles Krṣna's lovely face ( कान्ति कमनीय सुनन्दं यदुक्तं वक्त्रं बदनम् अर्थात् कृष्णस्य तेन सादृश्ये सति तुल्य आकारतयैव तमि नुम् ) The moon is thus indirectly connected with Krṣna and is परंपरा-संबन्धेन तदीय Rāhu, therefore, harasses him by eclipse This only serves to heighten Krṣna's greatness in so far as it clearly demonstrates Rāhu's utter helplessness before him That is how प्रत्यनीक is developed here.

The moon resembles Krṣna's lovely face. The moon is thus indirectly connected with Krṣna and is related to him through an indirect connection (परंपरा-संबन्धेन तदीय). Rāhu, therefore, harasses him by eclipse. This only serves to heighten Krṣna's greatness to the extent that it clearly demonstrates Rāhu's utter helplessness before him. That is how the figure of contrast (प्रत्यनीक) is developed here

इन्दोस्तदीयता संबन्धिमुखसंबन्ध्यात् — This clause explains how the moon is तदीय of Krṣna The moon is connected with Krṣna's face owing to similarity with it The face is of course कृष्णसंबन्धि, because it belongs to him Thus, the moon becomes तदीय of Krṣna through his face, which is really तदीय This means the moon is परंपरासंबन्धेन तदीय

The moon's relation to Krṣna is due to its connection with his face — This clause explains how the moon is related to Krṣna. The moon is connected with Krṣna's face due to its similarity with it. The face is, of course, related to Krṣna because it belongs to him. Thus, the moon becomes related to Krṣna through his face, which is truly related to him. This means the moon is related to Krṣna through an indirect connection

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 इन in ‘अनुरूपादिव’ In stanza 154 also there is हेतूद्रेक्षा 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

Jagannātha maintains that the figure of contrast (प्रत्यनीक) does not deserve to be considered an independent figure because its purpose is served by the figure of cause (हेतूद्रेक्षा). At best, it can be regarded as a variety of हेतूद्रेक्षा. Thus, in stanza 153, हेतूद्रेक्षा is directly expressed. In stanza 154 also, there is हेतूद्रेक्षा, as if due 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 their proper

Page 484

opponent, tries to do harm to another connected with him and that it thus deserves to be regarded as an independent figure. हेतुद्रेक्षा is presented in प्रत्यनीक, no doubt, but it is not important or prominent enough to merit consideration This is once more a case of ‘अगण्यत्वैव तद्लङ्कार उदाहता ।’ p. 37 above

opponent, tries to do harm to another connected with him and that it thus deserves to be regarded as an independent figure. Hetudṛekṣā is presented in pratyanīka, no doubt, but it is not important or prominent enough to merit consideration This is once more a case of ‘aganyaiva tadlankara udāhṛtā.’ p. 37 above

It must be remarked that Jagannātha's arguments do not strike us as convincing and we hold with the Udyota that प्रत्यनीक has a distinct charm and deserves to rank as an independent figure.

It must be remarked that Jagannātha's arguments do not strike us as convincing and we hold with the Udyota that pratyanīka has a distinct charm and deserves to rank as an independent figure.

The figure प्रत्यनीक is not found in Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana. Rudraṭa is the first rhetorician to define it.

The figure pratyanīka is not found in Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana. Rudraṭa is the first rhetorician to define it.

( 51 ) मीलितम् or Concealed

( 51 ) Mīlita or Concealed

When a certain thing is in reality ( वस्तुना =वस्तुतः ) concealed by another thing by means of a common characteristic ( समेन साधारणेने तिरोधीयमान-तिरोधायकयो उभयोरपि अनुगतेन लक्षणा चिह्नेन धर्मेण करणभूतेन ), which may be either natural or adventitious ( आगन्तुक ) that is known as the figure मीलित । This figure thus has two varieties which occur, when the thing which conceals another is ( 1 ) natural or ( 2 ) adventitious i e arising from some other cause.

When a certain thing is in reality (vastunā = vastutaḥ) concealed by another thing by means of a common characteristic (samena sādhāraṇena tirodhīyamāna-tirodhāyakayo ubhayorapi anugatena lakṣaṇā cihnena dharmeṇa karaṇabhūtena), which may be either natural or adventitious (āgantuka) that is known as the figure mīlita. This figure thus has two varieties which occur, when the thing which conceals another is (1) natural or (2) adventitious i.e arising from some other cause.

केनचित् — This word is to be supplied in the definition and means केनचिदन्येन वस्तुना वस्तुस्थित्या is a paraphrase of वस्तुना बल्रीयस्तया—the thing, which conceals another, possesses the common characteristic, by which it effects this concealment, in a more intensive form That is how it is able to conceal the other thing This is the reason why the concealing thing is stated to be more powerful ( बल्रीयस् )

Kenacit — This word is to be supplied in the definition and means kenacidanyena vastunā vastusthityā is a paraphrase of vastunā balīyasatayā—the thing, which conceals another, possesses the common characteristic, by which it effects this concealment, in a more intensive form That is how it is able to conceal the other thing This is the reason why the concealing thing is stated to be more powerful (balīyas)

The essentials of मीलित are ( 1 ) There are two things, which possess a common characteristic ( 2 ) In one of the two things the common characteristic exists in an intenser form ( 3 ) As a result of this the thing with an intenser common characteristic cunceals the other so that it is not seen at all

The essentials of mīlita are (1) There are two things, which possess a common characteristic (2) In one of the two things the common characteristic exists in an intenser form (3) As a result of this the thing with an intenser common characteristic conceals the other so that it is not seen at all

मीलित is p p p from मील् मीलति to close or shut, hence to conceal The figure is so called, because here one thing is closed or shut or concealed by another

Mīlita is p p p from mīl mīlati to close or shut, hence to conceal The figure is so called, because here one thing is closed or shut or concealed by another

Stanza 155 — This stanza describes a young graceful girl, who had taken wine and become intoxicated. Four characteristics viz. हसodपाणितरलक्ष्यम्, गिरो मधुरवक्नाल्त्वम्, गतेर्नीलसशरमन्थरत्वम् and मुखस्य कान्तत्वम्, which are common to both grace ( शील्य ) and intoxication ( मदोत्वम्=मदः ) are mentioned Grace exhibits these characteristics in an

Stanza 155 — This stanza describes a young graceful girl, who had taken wine and become intoxicated. Four characteristics viz. hasodpāṇitiralakṣyam, giro madhuravaktraltvam, gater nīlasragramantharattvam and mukhasya kāntatvam, which are common to both grace (śīlya) and intoxication (madotvam=madaḥ) are mentioned Grace exhibits these characteristics in an

Page 485

तत्रापि एतस्य दर्शनेनात्=तस्मिन् मदोदये अपि एतस्य दक्तरलतादिकस्य स्वाभाविकस्य

Even on that occasion, the characteristics generated by intoxication were natural

अझलिङ्गस्य दर्शनेनात्

because all thought that they were due to her natural grace

Stanza 156 — This stanza describes what happens in the case of a certain king's enemies, who fearing an attack ( पात ) from him had resorted to the caves of the Himālaya mountain The cold on the mountain causes horripilation ( पुलक ) and tremor ( कम्प ) in their bodies These are produced by the fear of the king as well But the cold causes these in an intenser form Therefore when horripilation and tremor make their appearance owing to fear, even a wise man is not able to detect it, because he thinks that they are due to cold

In the above stanza there is no direct mention of शैत्य or cold Its presence in the present context is understood through the power of the stanza as a whole This cold is an adventitious entity. Therefore, tremor and horripilation, which spring from it, are also stated to be adventitious (तादृश्यम्=आगन्तुकत्वम्). Then again, tremor and horripilation are common to both cold and fear because they are seen in people who are frightened also Thus, in this stanza cold is represented as concealing fear on account of the common characteristics of tremor and horripilation. It is, therefore, an example of मोहलित

The figure मोहलित is not found in the works of Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana. Rudraṭa is the earliest rhetorician to define it.

मोहलितम् and व्याजोक्ति

Resemblance · In both there is the idea of concealment.

Distinction· Though some kind of concealment is common to both these figures, their provinces are quite distinct. In व्याजोक्ति a certain thing is somehow revealed against the wishes of the person concerned, who then unsuccessfully tries to conceal it by attributing it to a cause other than the real one. In मोहलित nothing is revealed and nothing is attempted to be concealed. Here out of two things, that possess common characteristics, one, being more powerful than the other, effectively conceals the other.

Page 486

मीलितम् and अपह्नुति

Resemblance Both contain the idea of concealment

Distinction ( 1 ) Though the idea of concealment is common to both these figures, their provinces are distinct In अपह्नुति something is intentionally concealed in order to establish another in its place

In मीलितम् there is no such concealment and establishment ( 2 ) In अपह्नुति the person concealing and establishing is conscious of both and of the difference between them

In मीलितम् one thing is effectively concealed by another so that it is not observed at all ( 3 ) In अपह्नुति the ultimate idea is to bring out resemblance

In मीलितम् though the two things are समलक्षण, the purpose of the figure is not to establish their similarity

The purpose is rather to show that one is more powerful in the sense that it produces common but overpowering effects

( 52 ) एकावली or Necklace

When each succeeding thing is either affirmed ( स्थाप्यते = विधीयते, प्रतिपाद्यते ), or denied ( अपोढते = निषिध्यते ) as a qualification or attribute of each preceding thing, that is the two-fold एकावली

The two kinds of एकावली thus are ( 1 ) यत्र पूर्वं प्रति परं परं विशेषणतया स्थाप्यते and ( 2 ) यत्र पूर्वं पूर्वं प्रति परं विशेषणतया अपोढते

पूर्वं पूर्वं प्रति is the paraphrase of यथापूर्वम्, which in an अन्ययीभाव compound has the sense of वीप्सा or repetition

This means that in एकावली the phenomenon of a succeeding thing, affirmed or denied as a qualification of a preceding, must occur more than once

The charm of the figure lies in this repetition

If a succeeding thing is affirmed or denied as a qualification of a preceding only once, there would be no charm

This idea is suggested by ' यथापूर्वम् ' and ' परं परम् ' of the Kārikā and is made explicit by the word वीप्सा in the Vrtti

The figure is called एकावली, because as the pearls in a row are connected with one another by means of a string even so in this figure the various things that form the row are connected with one another by means of विशेषणविशेषणभाव

It should be noted that this figure contains something more than what the title एकावली connotes

It contains the idea of inter-connection, such as is expressed by रसग्राह्य

From this point of view the title एकावली does not appear to us to be significant

Stanza 157—This is पद्मगुप्त's नवसाहसांकचरित 1 2 2 and contains a description of Ujjayini

The printed edition of the Kāvya reads

Page 487

गृह्णाणि instead of पुराणि It exemplifies the first kind of एकावली where पूर्वे पूर्वे प्रति परे परे विशेषणतया स्थाप्यते. Here पुराणि ( = गृह्णाणि सम्भावि वा ) are पूर्वे because they are first mentioned वराङ्गना, mentioned subsequently are पर and are affirmed as a qualification of the preceding पुराणि Then again, वराङ्गना are पूर्व with reference to रूप, which is thus पर and is mentioned as a qualification of the preceding वराङ्गना Further, रूपम् becomes पूर्वे in relation to विलासा, which are पर and are an attribute of the preceding रूपम् And last, the succeeding अभ्रम् ( अभ्रम् becomes पर when we construe the fourth quarter as ‘विलासा कुसुमायुधस्य अभ्रम्’) is established as a predicative qualification of the preceding विलासा Thus, the stanza becomes an example of the first kind of एकावली

Stanza 158—This stanza is भट्टिकाव्य 2 19 and contains a description of the autumn Here we find that पहूज, which is पर, because it is mentioned later, is denied as a qualification of यत्, standing for water which is पूर्वे Thus the requirement of the second kind of एकावली viz पूर्वे प्रति परं विशेषणतया अपोह्यते is satisfied It should be noted that though, as required by the figure, we have pointed out above that पहूज is denied as a qualification of water, in the ultimate sense that is conveyed, पहूज is emphatically declared to be a qualification of water This is because there is another negative particle in the clause and दो नञौ प्रकृतार्थ सविच्छोर्ष गमयत The sentences, forming the other three lines, are to be similarly explained Thus as each succeeding thing is here denied as a qualification of each preceding, the stanza is an example of the second kind of एकावली अत्र प्रथमपादे पूर्वे जल्पे प्रति परे पहूजं विशेषणतया अपो हितम्. एते पहूजं प्रति षट्पद ( भ्रमर ), षट्पदे प्रति गुंजितम्, गुंजितं प्रति मनोद्वारिलम् इति क्रमेण पूर्वे पूर्वे प्रति परे परे विशेषणतया अपोहितमिति एकावल्या द्वितीयप्रकारस्योदाहरणम्

In stanza 157 above in the second clause रूपम् is established as a qualification of वराङ्गना Mammata here points out that रूपम् is a qualification of वराङ्गना, not directly, but through its being a qualification of their bodies. He thinks it necessary to call our attention to this fact because in ‘रूपपुरःकृताह्गय’ रूप is really a qualification of अङ्ग ( अङ्गीर ) and some one may ask how it can be regarded as an attribute of वराङ्गना To this Mammata's reply is that रूपम् is a qualification of वराङ्गना through its being a qualification of their bodies. विधीयते is a paraphrase of स्थाप्यते उत्तम्र = उतरस्मिन् द्वितीये वा षोडके प्रतिषेधे=पूर्वे पूर्वे प्रति परस्य परस्य विशेषणत्वेन प्रतिषेधे.

According to Mammata's definition एकावली occurs when each succeeding thing is represented as a qualification (विशेषणम्) of each

Page 488

preceding According to Jagannātha, whom the Udyota follows,

एकावली is developed also when each succeeding thing becomes a विशेष्य

Ekāvalī is developed also when each succeeding thing becomes a viśeṣya

or substantive of each preceding, or to put it otherwise, also when

each preceding thing becomes a विशेषण of each succeeding Read

each preceding thing becomes a viśeṣaṇa of each succeeding Read

रसगङ्गाधर p 463

Rasagangādhar p 463

It may here be noted that according to Jagannātha when in this

kind of एकावली which he regards as second, each preceding thing dis-

kind of Ekāvalī which he regards as second, each preceding thing distinguishes

tinguishes each succeeding by means of one common action, it is

each succeeding by means of one common action, it is

termed मालदीपक by the ancients Thus, मालदीपक, in Jagannātha's

termed Mālādīpak by the ancients Thus, Mālādīpak, in Jagannātha's

opinion, is nothing but this kind of एकावली with the additional feature

opinion, is nothing but this kind of Ekāvalī with the additional feature

that each preceding thing distinguishes each succeeding in an identi-

that each preceding thing distinguishes each succeeding in an identical manner Read

cal manner Read रसगङ्गाधर p 464 Hence, Jagannātha is not in favour

Rasagangādhar p 464 Hence, Jagannātha is not in favour

of considering मालदीपक as distinct figure, or even asa a division of दीपक,

of considering Mālādīpak as distinct figure, or even asa a division of Dīpak,

but looks upon it as a variety of एकावली Read रसगङ्गाधर p 328

but looks upon it as a variety of Ekāvalī Read Rasagangādhar p 328

Visvanātha also admits this kind of एकावली, which again has two

Visvanātha also admits this kind of Ekāvalī, which again has two

varieties according to him He speaks of it in slightly different terms,

though the underlying idea is the same Read साहित्यदर्पण under x 78

though the underlying idea is the same Read Sāhityadarpaṇa under x 78

It will be noticed that the four figures मालदीपक, कारणमाला, सार and

It will be noticed that the four figures Mālādīpak, Kāraṇamālā, Sār and

एकावली are based on the mutual connection of the different things

Ekāvalī are based on the mutual connection of the different things

mentioned therein, which is comprehensively termed श्रृङ्खला or chain.

mentioned therein, which is comprehensively termed Śṛṅkhalā or chain.

Jayaratha and Jagannātha discuss the question as to whether these

four figures should be regarded as divisions of one general figure

called श्रृङ्खला, or whether they should rank as independent alamkāras

called Śṛṅkhalā, or whether they should rank as independent alamkāras

Both of them arrive at the conclusion that these figures deserve to be

independent, because they possess each a distinct charm of their own

Otherwise, we shall have to admit औपम्य and विरोध as two general

Otherwise, we shall have to admit Ōupamya and Virōdha as two general

figures and include under them as their divisions all figures based on

similarity and contradiction respectively Read अलङ्कारसर्वस्वविमर्शिनी

similarity and contradiction respectively Read Alaṅkārasarvasvavimarśinī

p 140 and रसगङ्गाधर pp 461 and 466

p 140 and Rasagaṅgādhara pp 461 and 466

एकावली is not defined by the ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha,

Ekāvalī is not defined by the ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha,

Dandin, Udbhaṭa and Vāmana. Rudraṭa is the first rhetorician to

define it

एकावली and मालदीपकम्

Ekāvalī and Mālādīpakam

Resemblance In both there exists connection between preceding

and succeeding objects.

Distinction , (1) While in मालदीपक each preceding thing qualifies

Distinction , (1) While in Mālādīpak each preceding thing qualifies

and lends charm to each succeeding, in एकावली each succeeding thing

and lends charm to each succeeding, in Ekāvalī each succeeding thing

qualifies and enhances the charm of each preceding (2) In मालदीपक

qualifies and enhances the charm of each preceding (2) In Mālādīpak

Page 489

एकावली and कारणमाला

Ekavali and Karana-mala

Resemblance Both are characterized by connection between preceding and succeeding objects

Distinction (1) while in कारणमाला the connection between a succeeding object and a preceding one is that of कार्यकारणभाव, in एकावली it is विशेषणविशेष्यमाव (2) In कारणमाला each preceding thing is the cause of each succeeding , in एकावली each succeeding thing is a qualification of each preceding

Distinction (1) while in Karana-mala the connection between a succeeding object and a preceding one is that of cause and effect, in Ekavali it is the relation of qualifier and qualified (2) In Karana-mala each preceding thing is the cause of each succeeding, in Ekavali each succeeding thing is a qualification of each preceding

(53) स्मरणम् or Reminiscence

(53) Smaranam 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 ( यथानुभवम्-पूर्वजुभवमनतिक्रम्य यथा तथा ) at the sight of a similar object, that is the figure स्मरण or Reminiscence

The essentials cf स्मरण are (1) A certain object has been perceived before (2) An object similar to it is seen now (3) The sight of this similar object causes recollection of the object previously perceived

The essentials of Smaran are (1) A certain object has been perceived before (2) An object similar to it is seen now (3) The sight of this similar object causes recollection of the object previously perceived

स्मृतिप्रतिबोधाधायिनि—This has a reference to the epistemology of the Naiyāyikas When we apprehend or perceive a thing by means of our sense-organs, we obtain अनुभव (apprehension or perception) Every अनुभव leaves on our mind an impression, which is called संस्कार or भावना In course of time the अनुभव is usually forgotten When afterwards something, such as the sight of a similar object, awakens the latent impression, recollection of the object previously perceived arises Thus, the process of recollection is अनुभव, संस्कार, and स्मृति अनुभव is the cause of संस्कार and संस्कार the cause of स्मृति It will thus be seen that स्मृतिप्रतिबोधाधायिनि really stands for स्मृतिकारणसस्कारप्रतिबोधाधायिनि For, what the sight of the similar object does is to awaken or stir up the latent impression, which in its turn causes the rise of recollection

Smrtiprabodha-adhāyini—This has a reference to the epistemology of the Naiyayikas When we apprehend or perceive a thing by means of our sense-organs, we obtain Anubhava (apprehension or perception) Every Anubhava leaves on our mind an impression, which is called Samskāra or Bhāvanā In course of time the Anubhava is usually forgotten When afterwards something, such as the sight of a similar object, awakens the latent impression, recollection of the object previously perceived arises Thus, the process of recollection is Anubhava, Samskāra, and Smṛti Anubhava is the cause of Samskāra and Samskāra the cause of Smṛti It will thus be seen that Smṛtiprabodha-adhāyini really stands for Smṛti-kāraṇa-samskāra-pratibodha-adhāyini For, what the sight of the similar object does is to awaken or stir up the latent impression, which in its turn causes the rise of recollection

तत्सदृशे हृश्टे=तत्समाने वस्तुनि हृश्टे सति—It will be noticed that in both the Kārikā and the Vṛtti Mammata states that in this figure recollection arises when a similar object is seen Thus is once again an indication of Mammata's careless writing Surely, Mammata here does not mean what he expresses. His two illustrations give the lie direct to the statement that recollection is produced by the sight of a

Tat-sadrśe dṛṣṭe=tat-samane vastuni dṛṣṭe sati—It will be noticed that in both the Kārikā and the Vṛtti Mammata states that in this figure recollection arises when a similar object is seen Thus is once again an indication of Mammata's careless writing Surely, Mammata here does not mean what he expresses. His two illustrations give the lie direct to the statement that recollection is produced by the sight of a

Page 490

similar object For, in neither of the illustrations does the recollection spring from the visual perception of a similar object

In the 1st illustration, the recollection springs from श्रुति and in the other सादृश्यो

Therefore, ‘एष’ must be supposed to have been intended for अनुभूते

Viśvanātha's definition is precise on this point Read ‘सादृश्यानुभवाद् वस्तुस्मृति स्मरणमुच्यते ! 27’ साहिल्यदर्पण x

The name स्मरण is significant, because the main idea in the figure is recollection

Page 110

Stanza 159—This stanza contains a description of the water sport ( जलक्रीडा ) of celestial damsels, who were apparently very plump

The waves flooded the hollows of their deep navels-( निम्न गभीरा ये नाभय तेषा कुहरेषु विलेलु ) with water, which as it entered them produced a kind of rumbling sound ( कुहर is an onomatopoetic word कुहर इति रतेo ध्वनि कुहरस्तम् )

On hearing this sound the ladies were reminded of a similar sound, which had proceeded from their throats in love sports

Here the ladies had experienced i.e. heard the throat sounds before

Now they heard the Kuha sounds, which were similar to the throat sounds

They were thereupon reminded of the previously perceived throat sounds

That is how the figure स्मरण is developed in this stanza

Recollection, which is produced by the perception of a similar object in this figure, may refer to an experience of either this birth or a previous one स्मृतिदृग्प्रकारा । अस्मिन् जन्मनि अनुभूतस्य अर्थस्य, पूर्वस्मन् जन्मनि अनुभूतस्य अर्थस्य च ।

Stanza 159 illustrates the recollection of an object experienced in this birth

The next stanza is an illustration where experience of a previous existence is recalled

Stanza 160—This stanza asks us to offer a bow to the horrified Krsna i.e to Krsna who was horrified

Krsna was sucking his mother Yaśodā

He held with both his hands her breast, on the nipple of which he placed his lips

The breast resembled his conch Pāñcajanya

Krsna was consequently reminded of that conch, which in some previous incarnation or as Viṣṇu he had similarly held in his hands and blown

Thus, on account of a similar perception, consisting of touch, which Kṛṣṇa received by means of his hands and lips, he was reminded of his conch Pāñcajanya

That is how the figure स्मरण is developed here

Mammata's word ‘एष’ has been interpreted by us in the sense of अनुभूते so as to make his definition applicable to the two examples

Page 491

yथo

काल्यप्रकाराः

quoted by him This is in accordance with the view of Ruyyaka and Viśvanātha, who both hold that in स्मरणालङ्कार the recollection arises from सदृशानुभव Jagannātha does not like this, however He holds that the figure स्मरण is developed, when recollection proceeds from सदृशज्ञान Now, ज्ञान is a wider term and includes both अनुभव and स्मृति. Thus, स्मरण, according to Jagannātha, will occur not only when recollection arises from सदृशानुभव, but also when it proceeds from सदृशज्ञान!

So far we have seen that the figure स्मरण arises when there is recollection through सदृशानुभव or सदृशज्ञान, But sometimes recollection is produced by even विसदृशानुभव It is a matter of common experience that in our days of happiness we often remember the bad times that we have passed through and vice versa Thus, Viśvanātha mentions a view according to which स्मरणालङ्कार is developed when recollection is called by even विसदृशानुभव. Read साहित्यदर्पण under x. 27 cd

A point to be noted in connection with this figure is that the remembrance, which leads to it, should have been caused by सदृशानुभव or the perception of a similar object If recollection is the result of some other cause such as anxiety, contemplation etc., this figure is not developed

स्मरण does not find a place among the figures defined by Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana. Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it

( 54 ) भ्रान्तिमान् or Error

The figure भ्रान्तिमान् consists in the comprehension of the upameya as identical with another i e with an upamāna at the sight of the upameya, which is similar to that upamāna. What this somewhat involved definition means is that भ्रान्तिमान् arises when the upameya is mistaken for the upamāna.

अन्यसदृशेऽन्येन अन्यदृशेऽप्यप्रकाशणिकत्वेन उपमानत्वेन इत्यर्थः, संशित सम्यग् निश्चयात्मकर् विलक्षणम् ज्ञानम् अर्थात् प्रकारणिकस्य उपमेयस्य अन्यसदृश thus means definite comprehension of the upameya as identical with the upamāna तद्विपयदर्शने=तेन अप्रकाशणिकेन उपमानोक्त tulye सदृशो यत् प्रकारणिकम् उपमेय तस्य दर्शने at the sight of an object viz. the upameya which is similar to that viz the upamāna.

The essentials of भ्रान्तिमान् are ( 1 ) There is a mistake or error of one thing for another. ( 2 ) The error is due to similarity between

Page 492

the two things. ( 3 ) The error is अनाहार्य1 e not intentional, but real or honest

Sentences like ' युक्तिकायां रजतम्', and 'रज्वा सर्प' are excluded from the province of आन्तिमान्, though they contain error due to similarity, because वैचित्र्य or strikingness, which is essential for all figures, is absent in them

आन्तिमान and रूपकम्-प्रथमातिशयोक्तियोजकिन त चैव प्रतिपत्ताव्—In this passage Mammata distinguishes आन्तिमान् from रूपकम् and प्रथमातिशयोक्तियोजकि, which is निगीरोध्यवसानरूपा

Resemblance These three figures resemble, because in all of them there is definite comprehension of the upameya as identical with the upamāna, Thus, in 'मुख चन्द्र' ( रूपकम् ) and in ' चन्द्र, उल्के ( प्रथमा अतिशयोक्कि ) the face is definitely comprehended as the moon In आन्तिमान् also the उपमेय ( शशिकरा in the following example ) is comprehended as the उपमान ( पय )

Distinction In रूपक and प्रथमा अतिशयोक्कि the comprehension is आहार्य1 ( हेत्वाजन्य ) or intentional i e though we identify the upamāna with the upameya, we are all the while conscious that the two are distinct and hence the identification proceeds from deliberate intention In आन्तिमान् on the other hand the comprehension is अनाहार्य1, ( not intentional, real, honest ) i e we honestly mistake the upameya for the upamāna Mammata expresses this point by saying that while in रूपक and प्रथमा अतिशयोक्कि ( तत्र = रूपके प्रथमातिशयोक्क्योः च व ) there is no real delusion, in आन्तिमान्, as the very name shows, real delusion, is quite distinctly comprehended as being present इह = आन्तिमाने ऽलकारेऽर्थानुगमनेन ( अर्थानुसारेण अन्यर्थतया इत्यर्थ ) संज्ञाया ( आन्तिमान इति अलकारनाम-घेयस्य ) प्रकृते ( प्रकृतत्वात् उपयुक्तत्वात् )

accordance with the sense i e significantly This clause is put in to show the presence of real delusion in आन्तिमान्

The passage 'इह च अर्थानुगमनेन संज्ञाया प्रकृते ' explains the significance of the name आन्तिमान् given to this figure. Here one point deserves note आन्ति or illusion is a characteristic of the mind and as such can belong to a sentient being It cannot belong to the non sentient or inanimate figure The name, applied to the figure is, therefore, metaphorical, because the figure contains a description of the illusion of some sentient being.

Page 111

Stanza 161 — This stanza is शार्ङ्धरपद्धति No 3640 and is attributed to Bhāsa in that anthology It is, however, not found in any of his

Page 493

षष्टः परिच्छेदः

Sixth Chapter

thurteen published plays The शाब्दधरपदाति reads ‘कपोले माज्जरी’ instead of ‘कपाले माञ्जरि’ The stanza describes the delusion, which is caused in the world by the moon with its brilliant light A cat mistakes the rays of the moon for milk in a potshard ( कपोल —रुधिर ) and licks them

Thirteen published plays. The शाब्दधरपदाति reads ‘कपोले माज्जरी’ instead of ‘कपाले माञ्जरि’. The stanza describes the delusion caused in the world by the moon with its brilliant light. A cat mistakes the rays of the moon for milk in a potshard and licks them.

An elephant grasps them ( सकलयति—ऋकति ) as they enter through the interstices of a tree ( तरोः छिद्रैः शशाङ्कपालीकृताभ्यन्तरैः प्रोतान् प्रविष्टान् । प्रोत्त is p p p from प्र + अवति—ते to weave ), under which he was apparently standing mistaking them for lotus-fibres ( विसृणालमिति भ्रान्त्या । विसमिति समूहे कचनाम् ).

An elephant grasps them as they enter through the interstices of a tree, under which he was apparently standing, mistaking them for lotus-fibres.

At the end of her love-sport a lady also draws them near ( हरति प्रावरणार्थं समोपमाकर्षति ), mistaking them to be her white garment or sari ( अत्युक् शुद्धवस्त्रमिति भ्रान्त्या ) विध्वयति = विध्रमयति भ्रमम् करोति Here the moon-rays, which are प्राकरणिक, are the उपमेय and are mistaken for पद, विसम and अत्युकम्, which are all उपमान’s owing to similarity between them.

At the end of her love-sport, a lady also draws them near, mistaking them to be her white garment or sari. Here the moon-rays, which are प्राकरणिक, are the उपमेय and are mistaken for पद, विसम, and अत्युकम्, which are all उपमान’s owing to similarity between them.

Thus, at the sight of the प्राकरणिक moon rays definite comprehension i e error, mistake or delusion of their being the अप्राकरणिक milk, lotus fibres and garment arises in the case of the individuals concerned Therefore, the stanza is an example of भ्रान्तिमान्

Thus, at the sight of the प्राकरणिक moon rays, a definite comprehension, i.e., error, mistake, or delusion of their being the अप्राकरणिक milk, lotus fibres, and garment arises in the case of the individuals concerned. Therefore, the stanza is an example of भ्रान्तिमान्.

The reading कपोले माज्जरी is also good and calls attention to a characteristic of cats viz/ licking the cheeks or the corners of their mouth This female cat mistook the moon’s rays, fallen on her cheeks, for milk and began to lick them The stanza is a good example of the kind of fanciful, but interesting, descriptions that we often get in Sanskrit Here the poet’s imagination, which gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name, rather than his observation of nature, is noticeable

The reading कपोले माज्जरी is also good and calls attention to a characteristic of cats, viz., licking the cheeks or the corners of their mouth. This female cat mistook the moon’s rays, fallen on her cheeks, for milk and began to lick them. The stanza is a good example of the kind of fanciful, but interesting, descriptions that we often get in Sanskrit. Here the poet’s imagination, which gives to airy nothing a local habitation and a name, rather than his observation of nature, is noticeable.

Jagannātha objects to examples of भ्रान्तिमान्, such as Mammata gives, wherein there are many errors, on the ground that they encroach upon the province of the figure उल्लेख His opinion is that in भ्रान्तिमान् there must be only a single error Viśvanātha on the other hand, who quotes an illustration similar to Mammata’s, maintains that भ्रान्तिमान् and उल्लेख can be essentially distinguished मम्मट does not admit उल्लेख at all

Jagannātha objects to examples of भ्रान्तिमान्, such as Mammata gives, wherein there are many errors, on the ground that they encroach upon the province of the figure उल्लेख. His opinion is that in भ्रान्तिमान् there must be only a single error. Viśvanātha, on the other hand, who quotes an illustration similar to Mammata’s, maintains that भ्रान्तिमान् and उल्लेख can be essentially distinguished. मम्मट does not admit उल्लेख at all.

The figure उल्लेख arises when one person is represented under different characters owing to difference of perceivers or difference of aspects

The figure उल्लेख arises when one person is represented under different characters owing to a difference of perceivers or a difference of aspects.

The ancient rhetoricians Bhamaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not define भ्रान्तिमान् Rudrata is the first rhetorician to do so But we must note that Daṇḍin mentions a variety of उपमा, called मोहोपमा, which corresponds to Mammata’s भ्रान्तिमान्

The ancient rhetoricians Bhamaha, Daṇḍin, Udbhata, and Vāmana do not define भ्रान्तिमान्. Rudrata is the first rhetorician to do so. But we must note that Daṇḍin mentions a variety of उपमा, called मोहोपमा, which corresponds to Mammata’s भ्रान्तिमान्.

Page 494

आन्तिमानू and स्मरणमू

Resemblance In both there is recollection due to similarity at the perception of a similar object

Distinction (1) In स्मरण the two things viz the one that is perceived and the one that is remembered are realized as being distinct by the person concerned In आन्तिमानू at the sight of a similar thing another is recollected no doubt, but the thing seen is actually mistaken for the thing remembered Thus, at the sight of the moon rays the cat remembers milk for which it actually mistakes the rays In आन्तिमानू the difference between the two is not realized, as there is a real error (2) In स्मरण recollection is the principal thing and constitutes the essence of the figure In आन्तिमानू recollection is only a means to an end viz भ्रम which forms the essence of the figure

Distinction (1) In स्मरण, the two things, namely the one that is perceived and the one that is remembered, are realized as being distinct by the person concerned. In आन्तिमानू, at the sight of a similar thing, another is recollected without doubt, but the thing seen is actually mistaken for the thing remembered. Thus, at the sight of the moon's rays, the cat remembers milk, for which it actually mistakes the rays. In आन्तिमानू, the difference between the two is not realized, as there is a real error. (2) In स्मरण, recollection is the principal thing and constitutes the essence of the figure. In आन्तिमानू, recollection is only a means to an end, namely भ्रम, which forms the essence of the figure.

आन्तिमानू and मोहितमू

Resemblance In both there is some confusion due to extreme resemblance between two objects

Distinction (1) In आन्तिमानू out of the two things confounded only one is present and the other is remembered and mistaken for the first Thus, in 'कपाले माजीर o ' the cat sees the rays of the moon in a potherd, remembers milk owing to their extreme similarity with it and actually mistakes them for it In मोहित on the other hand both the objects are present, but one of them being overshadowed by the other is not perceived at all (2) In आन्तिमानू there is an actual error , in मोहित there is no error

Distinction (1) In आन्तिमानू, out of the two things confounded, only one is present and the other is remembered and mistaken for the first. Thus, in 'कपाले माजीर o ', the cat sees the rays of the moon in a potsherd, remembers milk owing to their extreme similarity with it, and actually mistakes them for it. In मोहित, on the other hand, both the objects are present, but one of them, being overshadowed by the other, is not perceived at all. (2) In आन्तिमानू, there is an actual error; in मोहित, there is no error.

(55) प्रतीपमू

The figure प्रतीप is of two kinds viz (1) When the upamāna is condemned (आक्षेप = निन्दा) (2) When the upamāna itself (तस्यैव = उपमानस्यैव) is imagined to be the upameya, which i e which condition of being an upameya becomes the cause of its censure (तिरस्कार अनादर उपमानस्य इत्यर्थः) [In the definition on p 111 read 'तिरस्कारानिवन्धनमू' for 'तिरस्कारनिबन्धनमू']

In the first kind the condemnation of the upamāna takes the form of the representation of its uselessness by declaring that the upameya is able (प्रौढमू = समर्थमू) very effectively (चुतरामू = अत्यन्तं कार्यसाधकत्वेन) to perform the work of the upamāna (शस्य = उपमानस्य) In the second kind a certain object, which is itself well known as an upamāna is fancied to be an upameya with a desire to speak of another upamāna for it in order to bring out its censure. Thus, प्रतीप is of two kinds

In the first kind, the condemnation of the upamāna takes the form of the representation of its uselessness by declaring that the upameya is able (प्रौढमू = समर्थमू) very effectively (चुतरामू = अत्यन्तं कार्यसाधकत्वेन) to perform the work of the upamāna (शस्य = उपमानस्य). In the second kind, a certain object, which is itself well known as an upamāna, is fancied to be an upameya with a desire to speak of another upamāna for it in order to bring out its censure. Thus, प्रतीप is of two kinds.

Page 495

तिरस्कारनिबन्धनम् is in apposition with उपमेयता 'upamānasya tiraskāranibandhanamupameyatā' 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 तिरस्कारनिबन्धना ( तिरस्कार , अर्थात् उपमानस्य, निबन्धने कारणं यस्याः ) also conveys the same It means the उपमेयता of the उपमान is caused by the censure in which the particular person holds it कः अर्थः प्रयोजनमस्य इति किमर्थः, किमर्थस्य भावः कैमर्थ्यं वैयर्थ्यं किंप्रयोजनता निष्प्रयोजनता इत्यर्थः Ruyyaka follows Mammata in explaining these two kinds of प्रतीप

This expression is intended to explain the significance of the title pratīpa as applied to this figure. Pratīpam means literally 'against the waters or the current', then 'against' generally. 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 pratīpa.

उपमेयस्य उपमानप्रतिकूलवृत्तित्वात्—This expression is intended to explain the significance of the title प्रतीप as applied to this figure प्रतीपम् means literally 'against the waters or the current' ( प्रतिगता: प्रतिकूला: वा आपो यस्मिन् ), then, 'against' generally and is formed according to 'वन्तरुपसर्गेऽप्योयप् ऐत्' पा 4 3 97 As the upameya is against or cppos ed 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 प्रतीप

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 प्रतीप

Kulaśabdavataḥ = Kulaparvatāḥ. Kulaśabdavataḥ is a term applied to seven great mountains, which, according to the Mahābhārata and the Purāṇas, exist in one of the seven divisions of the world. 'Mahendro Malayaḥ Śṛṅgī Mānagrimānapi | Vindhyaśca Pariyātraśca Himavataḥ'. Kula means, among other things, janapada (the abode or settlement of people, the inhabited part of the country).

कुलशब्दवत् =कुलपर्वता कुलशब्दवत् 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 मल्यं सष शृङ्गिमानुग्रिमानपि । विन्ध्यश्च परियात्रश्च हिमवत्' महाभारत मीमपर्व 9 11. कुल means inter alia जनपद ( the abode or settlement of people, inhabited part of the country ) and

Page 496

कुलपर्वत

mountain which existed in the habited part of the globe as opposed to the unhabited or desert

must have orignally signified

कुले जनपदे गौत्रे सजातीयगणेऽपि च । भवने च तनौ क्लीबम्

मेदिनी A point to note about the wording in this stanza is that the poet has scrupulously tried to avoid the fault of कशितपदत्व by using five different words to express the idea of creation viz निष्पादित, घोटित, वीहृत, उत्पादित and सृष्ट

This reminds one of Bāna's style

यथासंख्य

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

उपमानस्य तिरस्कारानिबन्धनोपमेयताकल्पनम्

The second kind of प्रतीप consists in उपमानस्य तिरस्कारानिबन्धनोपमेयताकल्पनम् Here the main idea is to convey the censure of the उपमाना This can be done in two ways ( 1 ) by representing that the well known upamāna is so inferior to the upameya that its comparison with that upameya cannot be effected, and (2) by actually instituting such a comparison and thereby suggesting the inferiority of the upamāna to the upameya Stanzas 163 and 164 illustrate respectively these two ways

उपम्यमान

with the face, is represented as possessing inferior or less ( ह्लयतर ) qualities Hence the comparison of the moon with the face cannot be established or effected ( उपमिते शशिनि मुखेन उपमाया अनिष्पत्ति असिद्धि ) that is why an attempt to institute such a comparison is dubbed वचनायम् or scandal, which ( term ) reveals the censure of the upamāna-moon Thus, this stanza illustrates the second variety of प्रतीप

अत्र मुखेनोपमायमानस्य शशिनः स्वप्रकाशनत्नात्

So the proper wording would be 'अत्र मुखेनोपमायमानस्य शशिनः स्वप्रकाशनलक्ष्म्युपमित्यनिष्पत्ति ' इति तेन अभिव्यज्यते । उपमित्यनिष्पत्त्या च उपमानस्य शबिनस्तरस्कारो योत्पते ।

निष्पन्ना एव सिध्दा एव

Stanza 164—This stanza exemplifies the second kind of प्रतीप, where an actually effected ( निष्पन्ना एव सिध्दा एव ) comparison becomes the cause of the censure of a well known upamāna The stanza is

हृट्

काव्यालंकार viii, 78 Here it is pointed out that in lakes in every direction blue lotuses, resembling the girls eyes, exist This means that blue lotuses, which are well known in the world as upamānas

Page 497

तिरस्कारनिबन्धनमुपमानस्य उपमेयताकल्पनम्

The attribution of the quality of the object being compared to the object with which it is compared, based on the concealment or negation.

अनयैव रीत्याप्रत्येतव्यम्

It is to be understood in this very manner.

In his definition of pratīpa in Kārikā 47 above, Mammata gives two kinds of this figure.

तिरस्कार पूर्वप्रतीपवैपरीत्येन तृतीय प्रतिपम्

The third kind of pratīpa is characterized by the reversal of the previous pratīpa, involving the idea of tiraskāra (censure or negation).

उपमानत्व of Hālāhala is impossible

The comparison to Hālāhala is impossible

Here in the first half, the unequalled eminence of Hālāhala, the deadly poison churned out of the ocean, is suggested.

उपनिबन्धनम् = वर्णितम्

The description or representation

In the second half, this seemingly impossible comparison is described or represented.

प्रतीपम् and व्यतिरेक

Pratīpa and Vyatireka

Resemblance : In both the idea of the superiority of the upameya over the upamāna is prominent.

Page 498

Distinction (1) While in प्रतिप the उपमेशाधिक्य 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

Distinction (1) While in pratip the upameshādhikya is conveyed by declaring the uselessness of the upamāna in the presence of the upameya or by turning the upamāna into upameya, in vyatireka 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 vyatireka in addition to sādharmya, vaidharmya is also intended, in pratip only sādharmya is meant

Read 'उपमानादुपमेयस्य गुणावैषम्यवच्चेन उत्कर्षो' व्यतिरेक । (लक्षणम्) प्रतिपादिवारणाय तृतीयान्ते वैधर्म्यमपि परम् । तत् चोपमानतामात्रवृत्तम् एवोक्तं , न वैधर्म्यमुक्तम् । साम्यस्यैव प्रत्ययात् । अधिकगुवलवात्तत्र, उपमानगतात्कर्षमात्र वा न व्यतिरेकस्वरुपम् । तयोरुपमेयोत्कर्षादौपमन्तरेण अशुन्दरत्वात ।' रसगङाधर p 347

( 56 ) सामान्यम् or the Common

(56) Sāmānyam 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 (ऐकात्म्यम् ऐकात्म्य विशदत्वेन 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 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

When an object under description i.e. a relevant object or an upameya (prastuta) is represented as being identical with, or undistinguishable from another viz an object not under description i.e. an irrelevant object or an upamāna (aikātmyaṃ aikātmyaṃ viśadatvena abhāsamānatvam) with a view to stating the similarity of their qualities, that is known as Sāmānya. 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 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

ऐकात्म्यम्—We do not think Mammata's use of this term is quite felicitous ऐकात्म्यम् 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 'मैदेन पृथक्त्वेन वा अभिन्नत्वम् ' is the main idea in this figure and it is not well conveyed by ऐकात्म्यम् That is why we do not think the term ऐकात्म्यम् is apt अपृथक्त्वचिन्तनजगुणमद—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) तदेकात्मतया अप्रस्तुताथामिततया-निबध्यते = प्रतिपाद्यते

Aikātmyaṃ—We do not think Mammata's use of this term is quite felicitous. Aikātmyaṃ 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. 'Maitryaṃ pṛthaktvena vā abhinnatvam' is the main idea in this figure and it is not well conveyed by aikātmyaṃ. That is why we do not think the term aikātmyaṃ is apt. Aprthaktvachintanjaguṇamadam—What this adjective means is that when the prastuta vastu is represented as undistinguishable from the aprastuta it is not because it has given up its proper quality and assumed that of the aprastuta. The expression is really intended to distinguish Sāmānya from tadguṇa (p 116). Tadekātmatayā aprastutāthāmmitatayā-nibadhyate = pratipādyate

सामानगुणनिबन्धनत्वात् सामान्यम्—These words explain the significance of the title सामान्य given to this figure. समानगुण निवन्धन प्रस्तुताप्रस्तुतयोरेमिल-

Sāmānaguṇanibandhanatvāt Sāmānyam—These words explain the significance of the title Sāmānya given to this figure. Sāmānaguṇa nivandhana prastutāprastutayoremil-

Page 499

तथा प्रतिपादनस्य कारण यस्मिन् तत् समानगुणनिबन्धनं तस्मात् समानगुणनिबन्धनत्वादित्यर्थः । भावप्रधानो निर्देशः ।

The figure is so called, because it is caused by the based on a common property, which makes the two things undistinguishable

Stanza 166—This stanza occurs in वामन's काव्यालङ्कारसूत्र under 4 3 10 as an example of अतिशयोक्ति ।

It describes certain women who were fearlessly going to the residence of their lovers to keep appointments of love, while the moon, whose refulgence had spread all round was whitening the earth Their fearlessness arose from the fact that they could not be distinguished from the moonlight on account of the equally powerful white sheen which they possessed

Thus first, they were evidently fair in complexion Then, they smeared their bodies with sandal-juice, wore necklaces of pearls (' हारो मुत्तावलो ' निबषु and ' सुक्का तैवेंरक् द्वार ' ) and ear-ornaments of pure ivory and were dressed in charming spotless silks All these spread white lustre round them and made them undistinguishable from the moonlight Here अभिसारिका are प्रस्तुत and चन्द्रिका is अप्रस्तुत ।

The two are represented as undisting ushabale in order to bring out the idea of their equally powerful white lustre That is how the figure सामान्य is developed here

For अभिसारिका ' कान्तार्थिनी तु या याति सङ्केतं सामिसारिका । ' अमर , ' अभिसारयते कान्तं या मनमत्सगवदा । स्वर्य वामिसरयेधा धीररेफाभिसारिका ॥ ' साहित्यदर्पण ।।। 76,

अत्र उपरक्षणम्—In this passage Mammata explains how the figure सामान्य is developed in the above stanza. Here the cause of the identity between the प्रस्तुत ( अभिसारिका ) and the तदन्य अप्रस्तुत ( चन्द्रिका ) is their whiteness, which has been described ( निबद्धम् = वर्णितम् । ) as being neither less ( अन्यून ) nor more ( अतिरिक्क ) i e as being of equal intensity or power. Therefore, the two are not observed as being distinct from each other ।

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.

Page 500

अत्र निमित्तान्तर वाधायोगात्

Here the two viz the cheeks and the Campaka flowers were apprehended as distinct owing to another cause viz the fall of bees

This passage is intended to remove the following objection

नानात्वप्रतीति. = मिश्रतज्ञानम्

निमित्तान्तरं भ्रमरपातादिरूपं तेन जातम्

How can the stanza be then regarded as an example of सामान्य, which requires that the प्रस्तुत and the अप्रस्तुत be represented as one or undistinguishable

व्युदस्यतु = निराकृतम्

प्रथमप्रतीतिप्रनमेयदम्

सामान्यं and मीलितम्

Resemblance In both two things of similar quality are brought together and there is concealment arising from this similarity of qualities

मीलिते उत्कृष्टगुणेन निकृष्टगुणस्य तिरोधानम्

Distinction In मीलित one of the two things possessed the common property in a more powerful or intense form with the result that it is able to conceal the other so completely that it is not perceived at all

इह (सामान्ये) तु उभयोस्तुल्यगुणतया भेदाग्रहः

In सामान्य on the other hand both the objects possess a common property of exactly the same intensity with the result that though perceived, they are not cognized separately, but become undistinguishable

( 57 ) विशेष or the Special

The figure विशेष is of three kinds It occurs (1) when the supported (आधेयम्) is represented as enjoying a peculiar existence

का २९

Page 501

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

(1) 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 = tathaiva yathaikena)

(1) 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 someone energetically or vehemently doing a certain work accomplishes another impossible thing just in the same way i.e. with the same effort (तथैव = tathaiva yathaikena)

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

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

प्रसिद्धाभरपरिहारेण is the paraphrase of विनाप्रसिद्धाभारम्

Stanza 168—This is क्षेमेन्द्र's काव्यालंकार ix 6, where we have कथमिव instead of कथमिह. It is quoted to illustrate first variety of विशेष. Here the आधेय is गिर 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 (आकल्पम्). 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.

Stanza 168—This is क्षेमेन्द्र's काव्यालंकार ix 6, where we have कथमिव instead of कथमिह. It is quoted to illustrate the first variety of विशेष. Here the आधेय is गिर 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 (आकल्पम्). 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.

आकल्पम् is an अव्ययीभाव compound and means कल्प पर्यन्तं यथा तथा कल्प* means प्रलय.

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 वर्तमानमाधारम्, as opposed to गतप्रतिष्ठाधारम्. The real support of the poets' words is their books and it is their words as embodied in their works that continue to delight the world after their death. Thus, though the two supports viz. प्रसिद्ध आधार and वर्तमान आधार are really different, they are here considered as one. Therefore, we have the first kind of अतिशयोक्ति, which consists in नीरूप्यप्रस्तुतम् or भेदेऽपि अभेद in this stanza. Similarly, गिर 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 गिर are really two, they are looked upon as one. This is the second अतिशयोक्ति of the same kind that is at the basis of this विशेष. 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

Page 502

connected with them as their आधार, they are here represented as being so connected Hence, there is असंबन्धेऽपि सम्बन्धतया यथायोग्यकल्पनस्य वा अतिशयोक्ति in this stanza अत्र गिरा दिवसुपयाति कविमि आधारत्वेन असंबन्धेऽपि तादृश सम्बन्धो वर्णित इति यथायोग्यत्कल्पनरूपातिशयोक्तिमूलता विषयालङ्कारस्य

connected with them as their basis, they are here represented as being so connected. Hence, there is hyperbole in this stanza. Here, the word is described as being connected to the poet as its basis, even though it is not actually connected. This is an example of hyperbole, which is the basis of the figure of speech called 'विषयालङ्कार'.

'एकनेव स्वभावेन' represents the paraphrase of एकात्मा in the Kārikā

The Pradīpa points out that the word एकात्मा is necessary in the definition of the second variety of विशेष in order to exclude such an example of यथासंख्य as 'एकाश्रया वसति:' (stanza 86 under the figure), where though the king is described as simultaneously residing in three places, he does so in three different forms viz तापपोषक, संदर्शपोषक and रतिपोषक

The Pradīpa points out that the word एकात्मा is necessary in the definition of the second variety of विशेष in order to exclude such an example of यथासंख्य as 'एकाश्रया वसति:' (stanza 86 under the figure), where though the king is described as simultaneously residing in three places, he does so in three different forms viz supporter of heat, supporter of sight and supporter of pleasure.

We do not agree with the Pradipa Actually the charm of the two figures, यथासंख्य 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 धनेकार्थक topic at all The charm of the second variety of विशेष lies in the simultaneous existence of one in many places

We do not agree with the Pradīpa. Actually, the charm of the two figures, यथासंख्य and the 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 धनेकार्थक 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 तत्पलया उत्कि Here the rival nāyikā is represented as existing in the heart, eyes and words of the nāyaka in the same form (सैव=एकैव) 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

Stanza 169 — This stanza is an example of a rival nāyikā being alive in the beloved's heart, eyes, and words. Here, the rival nāyikā is represented as existing in the heart, eyes, and words of the nāyaka in the same form (सैव=एकैव). 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 the second विशेष.

This विशेष also is based on अतिशयोक्ति, which may thus be explained अत्र प्रतिनायिकाया सपत्न्या नायकहृदयाक्षिवचने निवासिनीतया नै असंबन्धेऽपि सम्बन्धो वर्णित इति अतिशयोक्तिविशेषस्य मूले।

This विशेष is also based on अतिशयोक्ति, which may thus be explained: Here, the rival heroine is described as residing in the heart, eyes, and words of the hero, even though she is not actually connected to them. This is an example of अतिशयोक्ति, which is the basis of the विशेष.

रमसेत is the paraphrase of प्र in प्रकुर्यात It shows that a person proceeding to do a certain thing entertains no intention of achieving anything else at that time

रमसेत is the paraphrase of प्र in प्रकुर्यात. 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

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.

Page 503

४५२

काव्यप्रकाश.

[ Page 116

It should be noted that this stanza contains यथासख्य also But it is not considered to be prominent enough to contribute to its charm

Stanza 171—This is another example of the third variety of विशेष

The stanza is रघुवंश 8 66 and describes what the death of Indumati meant to Ajā अत्र इन्दुमतीहरणादिसमस्तकार्यमन्यार्थेतर्‌क कवेतु मलयजा लेलैव यत्रैन

अशक्ये सचिवादिहरणरूप कार्योन्तरं संपादितमिति विशेषतुर्रीयप्रकारस्योदाहरणमिदम्‌

The difference between stanzas 170 and 171 is that while in the former the accomplishment of the other task is expressly stated, in the latter it is suggested Read ‘अत्र ‘कि न मे हतम्‌ ’ इति सचिवादिसर्वहरण

रूपकार्यकरणे व्यज्यते ।' प्रदीप, ‘अत्र सचिवादिसर्वहरणरूपकार्योन्तरकरण व्यञ्ज्यघामिति

( पूर्वोदाहरणतो) मेद ।' उदाहरणचन्द्रिका p 453

It should be noted that stanzas 170 and 171 are also based on असंबन्धेऽसबन्धस्थले अतिशयोक्ति, which is thus explained ‘स्कुरददश्रुत’ इत्यत्र विधे

नवमनोभूसवितृकुहस्तरिसर्जनेन वस्तुत असंबन्धेऽपि तत्सबन्ध प्रतिपादित , तथैव ‘गृहिणी ’ इत्यत्र मृत्यो सचिवादिहरणेन परमार्थे असंबन्धेऽपि एतादृश सबन्धो वर्णित इति उभयत्र

असंबन्धस्थले सबन्धप्रतिपादनातिशयोक्तिः विशेषालङ्कारतया मूलस्त्व मत्वा

सर्वत्र एतादृश अलङ्कार्त्त्वायोगात—In the explanation of this somewhat important line we differ from all previous interpreters, both ancient and modern

The crux is the word अतिशयोक्ति All previous interpreters take this in the sense of ‘an extraordinary or striking statement

(अतिशयेन लोकसामातिक्रमेण उक्ति कथनम्‌)’ and not in the sense of the figure अतिशयोक्ति, defined and illustrated by Mammata before

अतिशयोक्ति here, according to them, thus means वैचित्र्यम्‌ ( a charming or striking mode of expression), which as Mammata has told us before constitutes the life of every figure

Vide ‘वैचित्र्यं चालकान्‌ ’ above We maintain that अतिशयोक्ति here just signifies the figure of that name, which appears to

Three reasons are adduced by orthodox interpreters to support the above meaning of अतिशयोक्ति (1) अतिशयोक्तौ in this passage cannot be understood in the sense of the figure of that name, because it is impossible to show that the figure अतिशयोक्ति exists as the life in such cases as the three varieties of विशेष illustrated above

अतिशयोक्ति must therefore, be understood as a striking or metaphorical mode of expression. When this Vṛtti of Mammata is read with the following quotation from Bhāmaha, it becomes clear that the word अतिशयोक्ति

occurring in the Vṛtti of Mammata is synonymous with the word वक्रोक्ति, occurring in Bhāmaha's Kārikā

Note ‘एवं चात्र अतिशयोक्तिरिति वक्रोक्तिरिति पर्यायौ इति बोध्यम्‌ ।' वामनाचार्ये

Now वक्रोक्ति means a crooked, unusual or striking mode of expression

Compare ‘वक्रोक्तिरेव वैदग्ध्यभङ्गी-

Page 504

भणितिरुच्यते।' वक्रोक्तिजीवित कुंतक उन्मेष 1, 'प्रसिद्ध मार्गमूल्त्रुज्य यत्र वचिच्र्यसिद्धये।

अन्यैयैवोच्यतं सोऽर्थ स वकोक्तिर् र्दाहता।' (3) The word प्रयेण in Mammata's

Vritti is intended to exclude such figures as स्वभावोक्ति, which are possible

even in the absence of अतिशयोक्ति in this sense Note 'स्वभावोक्त्यादौ

अस्या असंभवात प्रायेणेति उक्तम।' वामनाचार्य

The above view, we think, is all wrong and that अतिशयोक्ति in

this passage means nothing but the figure of that name First, with

regard to the three reasons adduced (1) We have shown above

that the figure अतिगयोक्ति is at the basis of all the four illustrations of

विशेष given by Mammata Therefore, the statement of the Udyota

'न तु अतिशयोक्त्यलकारोऽत्र विद्यक्षित। तस्य अत्र असंभवात।' is not correct Con

sequently, there is no necessity to understand the word अतिशयोक्ति in

the sense proposed by the Udyota (2) The quotation from Bhāmaha

does not support the above interpretation of अतिशयोक्ति Its context

in Bhāmaha's book must be taken into consideration Bhāmaha

defines the figure अतिशयोक्ति in II 81 as 'निमित्तल्लो वचो यत्लोलोकातिकान्तगोचरम्।

मन्यन्ते'ऽतिगयौक्तिं तामलङ्कारतया यथा।' and then proceeds to tell us, by way

of bringing out the importance of this figure, in II 85, which Mammata

quotes, that the figure अतिशयोक्ति as defined by him above covers the

province of all alamkārās I e is at the basis of all figures (सर्वैव

वक्रोक्ति) सैषा in Bhamaha's quotation thus means पूर्वालंकृता अतिशयोक्ति

रलंकृति वक्रोक्ति (a striking statement) signifies a figure in general

This word occurs in Bhāmaha's definition of a figure 'वक्रोक्तिर् वाङ्मलक्रति' I 36 अनया=अतिशयोक्त्या अलंकृत्या अत्यामन्=अतिशयो

क्त्यलकृत्याम् From Bhamaha's definition of the figure अतिशयोक्ति we

note that his conception of that figure is much wider than Mammata's

That is why he states that अतिशयोक्ति, the figure, is the basis of all

alamkārās Mammata's अतिशयोक्ति covers a limited field, being con

fined to the four varieties mentioned by him Therefore, he could

not subscribe to the view of Bhāmaha that अतिशयोक्ति is the basis of

all figures Consequently, he remarked that अतिशयोक्ति, the figure,

stands as the life in all cases of this kind (सर्वत्रैवविधविषये) I e cases

like the three varieties of विशेष and that generally (प्रायेण) figures

are not possible without it By the word generally Mammata

excludes such figures as उपमा, परिकर and स्वभावोक्ति, which are not based

on अतिशयोक्ति, the figure It will thus be seen that Mammata quotes

Bhāmaha to support his observation that the figure अतिशयोक्ति is at the

basis of all figures of this kind viz figures like विशेष But the quotation

says that अनिद्योक्ति is the basis of all figures As Mammata does not

Page 505

८९६

काव्यप्रकाशः

[ Page 116

agree with this view, because his conception of अतिशयोक्ति is limited,

agree with this view, because his conception of hyperbole is limited,

he hastens to remark that figures generally are not possible without

अतिशयोक्ति Thus, both in Mammata's Vṛtti and Bhāmaha's Kārikā

hyperbole. Thus, both in Mammata's Vṛtti and Bhāmaha's Kārikā

( where शैषानुप्रलक्षितातिशयोक्ति ) अतिशयोक्ति means the figure of that

( where the hyperbole is implied by the context ) hyperbole means the figure of that

name ( 3 ) If अतिशयोक्ति in this passage be understood in the sense of

name. ( 3 ) If hyperbole in this passage be understood in the sense of

a striking or extraordinary statement ( =वैचित्र्यम् ), as proposed by the

a striking or extraordinary statement ( = something extraordinary ), as proposed by the

Udyota, it would be impossible to account for Mammata's word प्रायेण

Udyota, it would be impossible to account for Mammata's word generally

For अतिशयोक्ति in the sense of लोकसीमातिक्रमेण उक्ति is necessary for all

For hyperbole in the sense of a statement that transcends the ordinary limits is necessary for all

figures of speech. Vāmanācārya's'remark that अतिशयोक्ति in the sense

figures of speech. Vāmanācārya's remark that hyperbole in the sense

of a striking statement is not possible in स्वभावोक्ति and that is why

of a striking statement is not possible in a natural description and that is why

Mammata uses प्रायेण is entirely wrong For, as we have pointed out

Mammata uses generally is entirely wrong. For, as we have pointed out

before a striking statement is particularly necessary in स्वभावोक्ति

before, a striking statement is particularly necessary in a natural description

From all this it will be clear that अतिशयोक्ति in this passage

From all this it will be clear that hyperbole in this passage

must be understood in the sense of the figure of that name and not in

its literal sense of a striking statement.

We now proceed to set forth other reasons in support of our view

( 1 ) अतिशयोक्ति in अलंकारसर्वस्व possesses a specialized sense and means a

( 1 ) Hyperbole in the Alankarasarvasva possesses a specialized sense and means a

figure of that name. It is true that difference of opinion exists among

rhetoricians as regards the scope of this figure. But they all use the

term in the sense of a particular figure and not in its general or literal

sense. Though Mammata is often guilty of loose terminology, we

are not prepared to believe that he uses here such a highly specialized

term as अतिशयोक्ति in its literal and general sense ( 2 ) If अतिशयोक्ति be

term as hyperbole in its literal and general sense. ( 2 ) If hyperbole be

taken here in its general sense, the purpose of the passage would be

to state that a striking expression is the essence of most figures We

to state that a striking expression is the essence of most figures. We

have shown before that the word प्रायेण cannot under this interpretation

have shown before that the word generally cannot under this interpretation

be accounted for. Now we want to urge that the present is not a

proper occasion for making such a statement The proper place for

proper occasion for making such a statement. The proper place for

stating what constitutes the essence of figures in general is at the very

commencement of the treatment of figures. And Mammata has

already said in his treatment of उपमा, the very first figure he deals with,

already said in his treatment of simile, the very first figure he deals with,

that वैचित्र्य is the essence of an alamkāra. If the orthodox inter-

that something extraordinary is the essence of a figure. If the orthodox inter-

pretation be accepted, it would only mean an unnecessary repetition of

what Mammata has said before. Mammata's commentators say that

the present passage is intended to remove the difficulty consisting in

the impropriety of the existence of an आक्षेप without an आधार etc.

the impropriety of the existence of an insinuation without a basis etc.

But we have to note that similar difficulty had occurred on many

occasions before e.g. in the example of वाक्यार्थ. Mammata did not

occasions before, e.g. in the example of a sentence meaning. Mammata did not

say anything then. This means the view that the passage is intended

Page 506

Page 116 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash

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, Hemacandra, 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 अतिशयोक्ति, the figure, as the basis of most alamkāras, rather than of अतिशयोक्ति in the sense of a striking expression It is worthy of note that while Bhāmaha and Dandin, owing to the very wide nature of their अतिशयोक्ति speak of it respectively as the basis of all figures of speech ( सर्वैव वनेद्युक्ति ) and of other figures generally ( अलंकारान्तराणां ), 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 Hemacandra there is no doubt that all of them refer to अतिशयोक्ति, the figure, and not to अतिशयोक्ति in the literal sense of that word Hemacandra in his treatment of अतिशयोक्ति 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 वारणेनदृशीनां गिरिवृद्धिरिति असंभवेऽपि संबन्धः । यद्वा गिरिवारणेनदृगयोल्यैर्मेदेपी एक्यमध्यवसतम् ' Then he gives ' दिवमुपपातानानाम् ' ( our stanza 168 ) and observes ' अत्र दिवगतकविगुणानां रमणायोगेऽपि योग उच्यते ' Further he quotes ' हृदये चक्षुषि वाचि च तनु च सैवामनवयोचना कस्ति । वयमत्र निरक्नरं विरम ऋते पादपतनेन ' which is Kāvyaprakāśa ix. 8 and similar to our stanza 167, and comments ' अत्र एकस्य रूपपदनेनैक्ष्यतायोगेऽपि योगोऽस्ति । ' After showing how अतिशयोक्ति, the figure, is at the basis of such enamples as these, Hemacandra proceeds पथ्विदेशे च सर्वत्र विषयेऽतिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणलेखावतीष्यते । तां विना प्रयेण अलंकरणतायोगादिति न सामान्ममोल्लिख्यतेक्वचित् । निदर्शनेनाप्योहार्यैरौदर्यैरास् श्रेयान् । कायप्रकाशन p 167 Here it is to be noted that this statement, which is evidently based on Mammata, occurs at the end of Hemacandra's treatment of अतिशयोक्ति, the figure So there cannot be slightest doubt as to what अतिशयोक्ति means therein.

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, Hemacandra, have declared that atiśayokti 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 atiśayokti, the figure, as the basis of most alamkāras, rather than of atiśayokti in the sense of a striking expression It is worthy of note that while Bhāmaha and Dandin, owing to the very wide nature of their atiśayokti speak of it respectively as the basis of all figures of speech ( sarveṣaṃ vaneṣu ukti ) and of other figures generally ( alaṃkārāntarāṇāṃ ), Mammata and Hemacandra owing to the limited scope of their atiśayokti state that it constitutes the life of most figures But whether we look to Bhāmaha, Dandin, Mammata or Hemacandra there is no doubt that all of them refer to atiśayokti, the figure, and not to atiśayokti in the literal sense of that word Hemacandra in his treatment of atiśayokti points out towards the end how it lies at the basis of other figures He quotes stanza 45 which is Mammata's illustration of nidarśanā and remarks ' atra vāraṇenadṛśīnāṃ girivṛddhiriti asambhavepi sambandhaḥ । yadvā girivāraṇenadṛgāvalyaiḥmedepi aikyamadhyavasitam ' Then he gives ' divamupapātānānām ' ( our stanza 168 ) and observes ' atra divagatakaviguṇānāṃ ramaṇāyogeapi yoga ucyate ' Further he quotes ' hṛdaye cakṣuṣi vācī ca tanu ca saivāmanvayocanā kastī । vayam atra niraṅkaraṃ virama ṛte pādapatnena ' which is Kāvyaprakāśa ix. 8 and similar to our stanza 167, and comments ' atra ekasya rūpapadanenaikṣyatāyogeapi yogo asti । ' After showing how atiśayokti, the figure, is at the basis of such enamples as these, Hemacandra proceeds padvideśe ca sarvatra viṣayeatiśayoktireva prāṇalekhāvatīṣyate । tāṃ vina prayeṇa alaṃkaraṇatāyogāditi na sāmānyamollikhyatekvacit । nidarśanenāpyohāryairaudaryairās śreyān । kāyaprakāśana p 167 Here it is to be noted that this statement, which is evidently based on Mammata, occurs at the end of Hemacandra's treatment of atiśayokti, the figure So there cannot be slightest doubt as to what atiśayokti means therein.

All these considerations leave no doubt in our mind that Mammata means by अतिशयोक्ति in this passage the figure of that name and not अतिशयेन लोकसीमातिक्रमेण उक्ति

All these considerations leave no doubt in our mind that Mammata means by atiśayokti in this passage the figure of that name and not atiśayena lokasīmātikrameṇa ukti

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 रसादिवदलंकारस्य अन्य किञ्चित् सामान्यलक्षणमस्ति ।' रसगङ्गाधर p 458 The result of this is that it is possible to include under विशेष some other figures,

We have seen above that no general definition of viśeṣa has been given, apparently because it is not easy to frame a definition which would cover these three varieties and no others Note ' na hi rasādivadalaṃkārasya anya kiñcit sāmānyalakṣaṇamasti ।' rasagaṅgādhar p 458 The result of this is that it is possible to include under viśeṣa some other figures,

Page 507

which you do not want to admit, on the ground that they contain some striking peculiarity Thus, Nāgeśa says that the three-fold division given by Mammata is not exhaustive and that the figures अनुष्टा and दृष्टा should be included under विशेष For these two figures अनुष्टा and दृष्टा, read 137 and 138 चन्द्रालोक

which you do not want to admit, on the ground that they contain some striking peculiarity Thus, Nāgeśa says that the three-fold division given by Mammata is not exhaustive and that the figures anusṭā and drṣṭā should be included under viśeṣa For these two figures anusṭā and drṣṭā, read 137 and 138 candrāloka

विरोध is not found in Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana. Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it

virodha is not found in Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana. Rudrata is the first rhetorician to define it

विशेष and विरोध

viśeṣa and virodha

Resemblance All the three varieties of विशेष contain an element of contradiction That is how विशेष and विरोध resemble

Resemblance All the three varieties of viśeṣa contain an element of contradiction That is how viśeṣa and virodha resemble

Distinction (1) while विरोध is wider in scope and stands for a general rule, विशेष is limited to three specific cases of contradiction and represents an exception (2) while the charm in विरोध lies in representing that things, which are usually व्यधिकारण, are समनाधिकरण, the charm in विशेष consists in representing an आधेय without its usual आधार, a person as simultaneously present in many places or some one achieving an impossible task while doing something else

Distinction (1) while virodha is wider in scope and stands for a general rule, viśeṣa is limited to three specific cases of contradiction and represents an exception (2) while the charm in virodha lies in representing that things, which are usually vyadhikaraṇa, are samanādhikaraṇa, the charm in viśeṣa consists in representing an ādheya without its usual ādhāra, a person as simultaneously present in many places or some one achieving an impossible task while doing something else

(58) तद्गुण or the Borrower

(58) tadguṇa or the Borrower

As can be seen from the definition, the essentials of तद्गुण are-(1)There are two things possessed of different qualities of lesser and greater intensity (2) The two things are near each other (3) The one, which possesses a quality of lesser intensity, gives it up and assumes the quality of another, which is of greater intensity

As can be seen from the definition, the essentials of tadguṇa are-(1)There are two things possessed of different qualities of lesser and greater intensity (2) The two things are near each other (3) The one, which possesses a quality of lesser intensity, gives it up and assumes the quality of another, which is of greater intensity

तिरस्कृतनिजगुणम्—This is in contrast with अपरित्यक्तनिजगुणमेव which is a characteristic of सामान्य In तद्गुण a न्यूनगुण thing abandons its own quality and assumes that of another When it is said that a thing gives up its own quality, it is not meant that it really does so. What is meant is that its one quality is overwhelmed by another more powerful quality and seems for the time being to have disappeared For प्रगुणतया, उपलक्षितया, thus प्रगुणतया उपलक्षितया सगुणसंपदा ‘प्रगुण्य स्वगुणसंपदा’ explains why the other thing is able to overpower the quality of the first with its own उपरक्तम्—सर्वप्रकर्षात्मकम् तत् त्रतिभासमेव—समपीड्यत इव स्वरूपमेव समाधावयति = प्रज्ञोति तस्य अप्रकृतस्य गुणोदेःर अस्तीति— These words explain the significance of the title तद्गुण The figure is so called, because here there is the assump tion of the quality of the अप्रकृत by the प्रकृत We desire to point out that

tiraskṛtanijagunam—This is in contrast with aparityaktanijagunameva which is a characteristic of sāmannya In tadguṇa a nyūna-guṇa thing abandons its own quality and assumes that of another When it is said that a thing gives up its own quality, it is not meant that it really does so. What is meant is that its one quality is overwhelmed by another more powerful quality and seems for the time being to have disappeared For praguṇatayā,upalakṣitayā, thus praguṇatayā upalakṣitayā saguṇasampadā ‘praguṇya svaguṇasampadā’ explains why the other thing is able to overpower the quality of the first with its own uparaktam—sarvaprakarṣātmakam tat tratibhāsameva—samapīdyate iva svarūpam eva samādhāvayati = prajñoti tasya aprakṛtasya guṇodreḥr astīti— These words explain the significance of the title tadguṇa The figure is so called, because here there is the assumption of the quality of the aprkṛta by the prakṛta We desire to point out that

Page 508

this explanation, which introduces the distinction of प्रकृत and अप्रकृत, is wrong and offers one more indication of Mammata's careless writing If this explanation were accepted, stanza 172, which has been quoted as an illustration as तद्गुण would not be a proper illustration of that figure, as we shall show below The correct explanation of तद्गुण is

तस्य (अत्यज्ज्वलणस्य वस्तुन ) गुण ( गुणाधारणे न्युनगुणेन इत्यर्थे ) यस्मिन् इति तद्गुणः

The figure is called तद्गुण, because here a न्यूनगुण assumes the quality of an अत्यज्ज्वलगुण or उत्कृष्टगुण Which of these is प्रकृत and which अप्रकृत depends entirely on the context. No definite rule can be laid down in the matter We shall make this point clearer below It must, however, be pointed out that the wrong interpretation of तद्गुण, offered by Mammata, has been adopted by Ruyyaka and Jayaratha, Vidyādhara Kumārasvāmin and all commentators of Mammata But this fact does not make it the less inaccurate.

Stanza 172—This is माघ's शिशुपालवध 4 14 and contains a description of the रैवतक mountain The horses of the sun's chariot are green in colour The sun's charioteer Aruna, the elder brother of Garuda is red. His red colour is powerful and overwhelms the green of the horses, which consequently give it up and assume the red of Aruna This is one example of तद्गुण As the sun's chariot comes near the Raivataka mountain, the strong green colour of the emeralds ( रत्नैः हरिद्रैणामरक्तमणिभिः ) thereon overpowers the assumed red colour of the horses and restores them to their original green ( स्वां रक्तां निजां हरितलप्रभाम् ) This furnishes a second example of तद्गुण in this stanza.The ultimate idea is that the mountain Raivataka is so high that the sun's chariot has to pass by it in its daily journey across the sky

अत्र रवितुरगापेक्षया प्रथमवर्णनता—This sentence explains why तद्गुण arises in this stanza Here Aruna possesses a dominating or powerful colour in comparison with the horses of the sun and the emeralds also possess a strong colour in comparison with Aruna ( तदपेक्षया = गरुडाप्रजापेक्षया ) That is why the horses, which are न्यूनगुण have to give up first their natural green colour and assume the red of Aruna and then abandon even that red of Aruna and put on the green of the emeralds, which thus restores them to their original colour

The stanza contains a description of Raivataka. The emeralds thereon are, therefore, प्रकृत The sun's horses on the other hand are अप्रकृत, because they are referred to merely for the purpose of bringing out the sun reaching height of the mountain. We have seen above that

Page 509

४९८

498

काव्यप्रकाश.

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 117

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 स्वीक्षृत Now if Mammata's explanati

In this stanza, the second tadrupa arises because the horses give up their new red color and assume the color of the emeralds. So here, the unmanifest horses adopt the color of the manifest emeralds. Now, if Mammata's explanation

on of तद्रुण as ‘तस्य अप्रकृतस्य गुण अन्र अस्तीति’ be accepted, the above wo uld not be an example of तद्रुण, because इच्च प्रकृतानां गुण (गुणधारणम् अप्रकृतै) अस्ति Then again, in the first तद्रुण, where the horses assume the col

of tadrupa as 'tasya aprukrtasya guna atra asti iti' be accepted, the above would not be an example of tadrupa because the manifest ones possess the quality (of being adorned) by the unmanifest ones. Then again, in the first tadrupa, where the horses assume the color

our of Aruna both the horses and Aruna are अप्रकृत, because the प्रकृत is रैवतक, which is being described and रथ्या and गरुडप्रजा 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 Aruna, both the horses and Aruna are unmanifest because the manifest one is Raivataka, which is being described, and rathya and Garudapraja are brought in merely to set it off. So here also, Mammata's explanation of tadrupa is not applicable because we cannot say that a manifest one assumes the color

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

of an unmanifest one. It will thus be seen that the element of manifest and unmanifest in tadrupa 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

We have said before that in tadrupa, 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 उद्योत p 138

qualities is a necessity in tadrupa. Read Udyota p. 138.

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, 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 सामान्ग्य and his

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, 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 tadrupa. His first exactly corresponds to our samanya and his second to our samanyatadrupa and his

तद्रुण and मिलितम्

Tadrupa and Militam

Resemblance In both there is concealment of one by another

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 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

Distinction: (1) In militam, the thing itself is concealed by another owing to the latter's powerfulness, so that the first is not perceived at all. In tadrupa, on the other hand, not the thing, but its quality is overpowered by the dominant quality of another, so that the first is perceived, not in its natural color, but in the color of the other which it has assumed. (2) In militam, 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 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

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 one is overpowered by the other owing to the greater intensity of its quality and is not perceived at all. In tadrupa, 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

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.

Page 510

तद्गुण and आन्तिमान्

Tadguṇa and Āntimān

Resemblance In both there is some sort of error

Distinction (1) In आन्तिमान् the error consists in mistaking one thing for- another owing to the similarity of the qualities of both, in तद्गुण the error takes the form of the quality of one being perceived in place of another's owing to the former being more powerful (2) In आन्तिमान् only one thing is perceived and is mistaken for another, which is remembered Thus, the cat perceives the rays of the moon and mistakes them owing to extreme similarity for milk, which it only remembers In तद्गुण on the other hand both the things are seen and

Distinction (1) In Āntimān the error consists in mistaking one thing for another owing to the similarity of the qualities of both, in Tadguṇa the error takes the form of the quality of one being perceived in place of another's owing to the former being more powerful (2) In Āntimān only one thing is perceived and is mistaken for another, which is remembered Thus, the cat perceives the rays of the moon and mistakes them owing to extreme similarity for milk, which it only remembers In Tadguṇa on the other hand both the things are seen and

there is no mistake about the identity of entities Note 'आन्तिमति स्मर्यमाणस्यारोप , अत्र ( तद्गुणे ) गृहमाणस्यैति भेद । आन्तोर्निबद्धतलाभाववाच ।' उद्योत p 138

there is no mistake about the identity of entities Note 'Āntimati smaryamāṇasyāropa, atra (Tadguṇe) gṛhīyamāṇasyeti bheda. Āntornirabaddhitalābhāvācā.' Udyota p 138

तद्गुण and सामान्यम्

Tadguṇa and Sāmānyam

Resemblance In both there is non-perception of something

Distinction In सामान्य two things are possessed of similar qualities of exactly the same power with the result that they become mutually undistinguishable In तद्गुण on the other hand two things are possessed of dissimilar qualities and are distinctly perceived, but the one gives up its own quality and assumes that of another, owing to the latter's overpowering nature Read 'सामान्ये अपरित्यक्तगुणस्तैव अन्यस्यप्रति भास , इह ( तद्गुणे ) तु गुणमात्रस्यैव अभिभव , धर्मिणि पृथग्भासतेति भेद इत्यर्थः ।' उद्योत pp. 137-138

Distinction In Sāmānya two things are possessed of similar qualities of exactly the same power with the result that they become mutually undistinguishable In Tadguṇa on the other hand two things are possessed of dissimilar qualities and are distinctly perceived, but the one gives up its own quality and assumes that of another, owing to the latter's overpowering nature Read 'Sāmānye aparityaktaguṇastā eva anyasyaprati bhāsa, iha (Tadguṇe) tu guṇamātrasyaiva abhibhava, dharmiṇi pṛthagbhāsate iti bheda ityārthaḥ.' Udyota pp. 137-138

तद्गुण , मीलितम् and सामान्यम्

Tadguṇa, Mīlitam and Sāmānyam

All these three figures are based on the common foundation of भेदाभेद or non-perception of difference either of qualities or of entities Jagannātha therefore, discusses the question as to whether these three should be regarded as varieties of one figure or as three independent figures His coclusion is that they possess each a distinctive charm of its own and deserve to be independent figures, consequently.

All these three figures are based on the common foundation of Bhedābheda or non-perception of difference either of qualities or of entities Jagannātha therefore, discusses the question as to whether these three should be regarded as varieties of one figure or as three independent figures His conclusion is that they possess each a distinctive charm of its own and deserve to be independent figures, consequently.

The figure अतद्गुण is exactly the opposite of तद्गुण If a thing of an inferior quality does not take or assume the quality of another, which is endowed with superior quality, when the capacity to assume that quality is possible i e when there is every reason why it should do so, अतद्गुण occurs Thus, अतद्गुण is developed when a न्यूनगुण thing does not assume the quality of an उत्कृष्टगुण thing, even though the two are near each other and, therefore, there is every reason why such an assumption should take place Hence, the title अतद्गुण is to be explained as न तस्य अन्युज्ज्वलगुणस्य गुणः गुणलीकार. न्यूनगुणेन इत्यर्थः. अस्मिन् इति अतद्गुण

The figure Atadguṇa is exactly the opposite of Tadguṇa If a thing of an inferior quality does not take or assume the quality of another, which is endowed with superior quality, when the capacity to assume that quality is possible i.e. when there is every reason why it should do so, Atadguṇa occurs Thus, Atadguṇa is developed when a Nyūṇaguṇa thing does not assume the quality of an Utkṛṣṭaguṇa thing, even though the two are near each other and, therefore, there is every reason why such an assumption should take place Hence, the title Atadguṇa is to be explained as Na tasya anyujjvalaguṇasya guṇaḥ guṇalīkāraḥ. Nyūṇaguṇena ityārthaḥ. Asmin iti Atadguṇa

Page 511

८५०

850

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 117

Stanza 173—This stanza is हाल's गाथासप्तसती 7 65 It is an address to a nāyaka by a nāyikā, who suggests that though she is in love with him, he does not reciprocate her feelings In the first half, the lady says that though the nāyaka is white i e possessed of brilliant virtues (धवल शुचि उज्जवलगुणश्), yet he has reddened her heart i e created love in her heart (रोजित रक्तवर्णयुतं सुभ्राग संप्रति वा कृत च ) The idea in the first half is that the lady fell in love with the man on account of his virtues Now she has enthroned him in her heart, which is filled with राग i e redness and love Yet he does not become रक्त i e red and affectionate (अनुरक्त ) It will be noticed that धवल, रोजित, राग and रक्त are paronomastic The pun on राग रक्त and रोजित is very common and is based on the Sanskrit idea that the colour of love is red The word शुभग possesses the sense which is special in Sanskrit erotic poetry viz that fortunate fellow after whom ladies run The usual rule is that man runs after woman But when this is reversed, Sanskrit poets call such a man शुभग

Stanza 173—This stanza is from Hala's Gathasaptasati 7.65. It is an address by a nayika to a nayaka, suggesting that although she is in love with him, he does not reciprocate her feelings. In the first half, the lady says that although the nayaka is white, i.e., possessed of brilliant virtues, yet he has reddened her heart, i.e., created love in her heart. The idea is that she fell in love with him due to his virtues, and now he is enthroned in her heart, filled with raga (redness and love). However, he does not become red (anurakta) and affectionate. The words 'dhava', 'rojita', 'raga', and 'rakta' are paronomastic, with a common pun on 'raga', 'rakta', and 'rojita'. This is based on the Sanskrit concept that the color of love is red. The term 'shubhaga' refers to a fortunate man after whom women run, reversing the usual rule where men pursue women.

The second half of the stanza is an example of अतद्गुण Here हृदय is अत्युज्ज्वलगुण and सुलभ नायक is न्यूनगुण Though the धवल नायक is in contact with the रागभरित हृदय, he receives no tinge of राग (redness, love ) योग्यता consists in the nāyaka's being in the heart of the nāyikā and his being धवल For, the close contact with the रागभरित हृदय should have endowed him with राग Besides a धवल colour is very susceptible and readily receives another, especially a strong one like red But as the nāyaka has not attained रक्तता (redness, love), though joined with the exceedingly red mind अतिरक्तेनापि -Here construe अपि with संयुक्त thus अतिरक्तेन मनसा संयुक्त अपि), the figure अतद्गुण is developed in this line

The second half of the stanza exemplifies 'atadguna'. Here, the 'hrdaya' (heart) is 'atyujjvalaguna' (exceedingly brilliant), and the 'sulabha nayaka' (easily available hero) is 'nyunaguna' (deficient in qualities). Although the 'dhava nayaka' (white or virtuous hero) is in contact with the 'ragabharita hrdaya' (heart filled with love), he does not acquire any tinge of 'raga' (love or redness). The 'yogyata' (suitability) lies in the nayaka being in the heart of the nayika and being 'dhava'. The close contact with the 'ragabharita hrdaya' should have imbued him with 'raga', as a 'dhava' color is very susceptible and readily receives another, especially a strong one like red. However, the nayaka has not attained 'rakta' (redness or love), despite being united with the exceedingly red mind ('atiraktenapi'). The figure 'atadguna' is thus developed in this line.

It should be noted that the stanza contains two more figures The first half has विषम of the third kind, which consists in the qualities of the cause and the effect being opposed to each other Here the cause is नायक who is धवल, and the effect is राग, produced by him in the nāyikā's heart, which is red Hence, कार्यकारणयो रागनायकयो, रक्तधवलौ गुणौ विरुद्धौ इति विरुद्धात्मकमेदस्तदाहरणमिदम् Then again, underlying both these विषम and अतद्गुण is श्लेष, because the words धवल, रोजित, राग and रक्त are paronomastic But these two figures are not taken into consideration in quoting the stanza as an example of अतद्गुण, Otherwise the figure would be शृङ्खल in the stanza in general and अन्योक्तिभावक in the second line

It should be noted that the stanza contains two additional figures. The first half contains 'vishama' of the third kind, where the qualities of the cause and effect are opposed. Here, the cause is the 'nayaka' who is 'dhava' (white or virtuous), and the effect is 'raga' (love or redness) produced in the nayika's heart, which is red. Thus, there is a contrast between the 'dhava' cause and the 'rakta' (red) effect. Furthermore, both 'vishama' and 'atadguna' are based on 'shlesha' (paronomasia), as the words 'dhava', 'rojita', 'raga', and 'rakta' are paronomastic. However, these two figures are not considered when quoting the stanza as an example of 'atadguna'; otherwise, the figure would be 'shrinkhala' in the stanza in general and 'anyo ktibhavaka' in the second line.

In dealing with the figure तद्गुण we pointed out that the consideration of प्रकृत and अप्रकृत is not relevant or important and should not

In discussing the figure 'tadguna', we noted that the distinction between 'prakrta' and 'aprakrta' is not relevant or significant and should be avoided.

Page 512

किं च तदिति अप्रकृतं प्रतिपत्तव्यम्

And what is to be understood as अप्रकृतम् (not directly mentioned)?

According to Mammata who wants to give unmerited (in our view, of course) importance to प्रकृताप्रकृतयोविभाग in this figure, अतद्गुण is of two kinds viz (1) where the (न्यूगुण) अप्रकृत (नायक) does not assume the colour of the (अत्युज्ज्वलमुण) प्रकृत (हृदय), and (2) where the (न्यूगुण) प्रकृत (राजहस) does not take the colour of the (अत्युज्ज्वलमुण) अप्रकृत (गङ्गायमुनासङ्गमु). The first kind is illustrated by stanza 173 and the second by stanza 174.

तत्र means प्रकृत (हृदय) and अस्य signifies अप्रकृत (नायक).

There, 'तत्र' means प्रकृत (heart) and 'अस्य' signifies अप्रकृत (hero).

Thus, अतद्गुण means the figure where the अप्रकृत does not assume the colour of the प्रकृत But when the definition is to be made applicable to the second kind, we have to suppose that तत् points to (निर्दिश्यते) अप्रकृत (गङ्गायमुनासङ्गमु) and अस्य to प्रकृत (राजहस) Therefore, the second kind occurs when the प्रकृत does not adopt (नानुविधीयते) the form i e the quality (रूपम्) of the अप्रकृत for some reason.

It will thus be seen that owing to the introduction of the consideration of प्रकृत and अप्रकृत Mammata has to change the meanings

Page 513

४६२

462

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[ Page 118

of the words तत् and अस्य occurring in the definition of अतद्गुण That is why we maintain that the consideration of प्रकृत and अप्रकृत should have been wholly eschewed in these two figures

of the words tat and asya occurring in the definition of atadguṇa That is why we maintain that the consideration of prakṛta and aprakṛta should have been wholly eschewed in these two figures

Stanza 174 — This stanza tells us that though the royal swan plunges in the white water of the Gangā and the dark (कज्जलाभ ) water of the Yamunā, its whiteness is neither heightened nor lessened Here the water of the Gangā and the Yamunā is अत्युज्ज्वल्गुण and the swan is नूतनगुण The plunge of the swan in the water represents the योग्यता In spite of this the swan's colour undergoes no change That is how अतद्गुण is developed in this stanza

Stanza 174 — This stanza tells us that though the royal swan plunges in the white water of the Gangā and the dark (kajjalābha) water of the Yamunā, its whiteness is neither heightened nor lessened Here the water of the Gangā and the Yamunā is atyujjvalaguṇa and the swan is nūtanaguṇa The plunge of the swan in the water represents the yogyatā In spite of this the swan's colour undergoes no change That is how atadguṇa is developed in this stanza

Now we know that this stanza has been quoted as an illustration of the second kind of अतद्गुण, which arises when the प्रकृत does not take the colour of the अप्रकृत Therefore, we must see which is the प्रकृत and which the अप्रकृत in this stanza We have first to note that the stanza is really an example of अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and contains the description of a brilliant man, who remains unaffected whether in affluent or in straightened circumstances So both राजहंस and गङ्गायमुनाम्बु are really अप्रकृत Then again, if we look only at the वाच्यार्थ of the stanza, both of them would be प्रकृत But this would not do We must somehow or other declare that one is प्रकृत and the other अप्रकृत Consequently, we decide that the swan, which is the principal object of description, is प्रकृत and गङ्गायमुनाम्बु, which is referred to in order to glorify its greatness, is अप्रकृत Thus, the stanza, becomes an illustration of अतद्गुण, where the प्रकृत (राजहंस ) does not assume the colour of the अप्रकृत (गङ्गायमुनाम्बु)

Now we know that this stanza has been quoted as an illustration of the second kind of atadguṇa, which arises when the prakṛta does not take the colour of the aprakṛta Therefore, we must see which is the prakṛta and which the aprakṛta in this stanza We have first to note that the stanza is really an example of aprastutapraśaṃsā and contains the description of a brilliant man, who remains unaffected whether in affluent or in straightened circumstances So both rājahaṃsa and gaṅgāyāmunāmbū are really aprakṛta Then again, if we look only at the vācyārtha of the stanza, both of them would be prakṛta But this would not do We must somehow or other declare that one is prakṛta and the other aprakṛta Consequently, we decide that the swan, which is the principal object of description, is prakṛta and gaṅgāyāmunāmbū, which is referred to in order to glorify its greatness, is aprakṛta Thus, the stanza, becomes an illustration of atadguṇa, where the prakṛta (rājahaṃsa) does not assume the colour of the aprakṛta (gaṅgāyāmunāmbū)

It should be noted that Viśvanātha feels the difficulty of explaining प्रकृताप्रकृत्योर्विभाग in this stanza, which he has quoted in his साहित्यदर्पण apparently from Mammata, and remarks that राजहंस is only comparatively प्रकृत and गङ्गायमुनाम्बु अप्रकृत Read साहित्यदर्पण under x 91 ab

It should be noted that Viśvanātha feels the difficulty of explaining prakṛtāprakṛtyorvibhāga in this stanza, which he has quoted in his sāhityadarpaṇa apparently from Mammata, and remarks that rājahaṃsa is only comparatively prakṛta and gaṅgāyāmunāmbū aprakṛta Read sāhityadarpaṇa under x 91 ab

From the above discussion also it will be seen how inconvenient is the introduction of the consideration of प्रकृत and अप्रकृत in the title of the figure अतद्गुण This once more confirms our view that reference to प्रकृत and अप्रकृत should find no place in the definitions of तद्गुण and अतद्गुण In both these terms should be taken in the sense of अत्युज्ज्वल-गुण or उत्कृष्टगुण वस्तु When a नूतनगुण assumes the quality of an उत्कृष्टगुण owing to association, that is तद्गुण When it does not inspite of the association, that is अतद्गुण

From the above discussion also it will be seen how inconvenient is the introduction of the consideration of prakṛta and aprakṛta in the title of the figure atadguṇa This once more confirms our view that reference to prakṛta and aprakṛta should find no place in the definitions of tadguṇa and atadguṇa In both these terms should be taken in the sense of atyujjvalaguṇa or utkṛṣṭaguṇa vastu When a nūtanaguṇa assumes the quality of an utkṛṣṭaguṇa owing to association, that is tadguṇa When it does not inspite of the association, that is atadguṇa

It is worth pointing out that Ruyyaka also has been landed in an awkward position by this consideration of प्रकृत and अप्रकृत, which he apparently borrows from Mammata

It is worth pointing out that Ruyyaka also has been landed in an awkward position by this consideration of prakṛta and aprakṛta, which he apparently borrows from Mammata

Page 514

Read 'एह नूनगुणस्य विधेयगुणपदार्थर्मस्वीकरण' प्रत्यासत्त्या न्याय्य' । यदा पुनःकृत्स्न-

Read 'The acceptance of the object of the quality to be described as having the quality now' is reasonable according to the principle of proximity.

गुणवदर्थसन्निधानस्थले हेतौ सत्यपि तद्गुणस्तद्गुणस्यैव अनुतद्वर्णं नूनगुणस्य अनुवर्त्तनं भवति सोऽतद्गुणः । तस्य अतद्गुणस्य अस्मिन् गुणा न सन्तीति । यद्वा तस्य अप्रकृतस्य रूपानुपपादार. सति अनुतद्वर्णहेतौ सोऽतद्गुणः । तस्य अप्रकृतस्य गणा नास्मिन् सन्तीति कुत्सित् । ( ' तदेव व्याघ्रोनद्धेन अस्य प्रकारदय दर्शितम्' विमर्शिनी )' अलङ्कारसर्वस्व pp 171-176

When the cause is present in the context of the object having the quality, even then the quality of that object is not followed by the quality now, it is called 'not having that quality'. The qualities of that 'not having that quality' are not present in this. Or, when the unmentioned thing is not described in its form, and the cause of 'not having that quality' is present, it is called 'not having that quality'. The qualities of that unmentioned thing are not present in this, hence it is despised. ('This very thing is shown by the example of the tiger', Vimarśinī) Alankar-sarvasva pp 171-176

The absurdity of this is self-evident

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha Dāṇḍin, Udbhata, Vāmana and Rudrata do not define अतद्गुण Mammata, is the first rhetorician to do so

The ancient rhetoricians Bhāmaha, Dāṇḍin, Udbhata, Vāmana, and Rudrata do not define 'atadguṇa'. Mammata is the first rhetorician to do so.

अतद्गुण and विशेषोक्ति:

'Atadguṇa' and 'viśeṣoṅkti':

Resemblance : In both though a cause sufficient to bring about a result exists, the result does not follow

Resemblance: In both, although a cause sufficient to bring about a result exists, the result does not follow.

Distinction : While विशेषोक्ति extends to all cases of causes not producing their expected results, अतद्गुण represents only one aspect of this violation of the law of causation viz the case where a thing does not assume the quality of another, though there is sufficient reason for it to do so Thus, विशेषोक्ति may be regarded as उत्सर्ग, while अतद्गुण may be looked upon as an अपवाद Note 'अत्र च गुणप्रकर्षणस्य विशेषप्रतिपादनं विशेषोक्तिः-'

Distinction: While 'viśeṣoṅkti' extends to all cases of causes not producing their expected results, 'atadguṇa' represents only one aspect of this violation of the law of causation, viz., the case where a thing does not assume the quality of another, though there is sufficient reason for it to do so. Thus, 'viśeṣoṅkti' may be regarded as 'utsarga', while 'atadguṇa' may be looked upon as an 'apavada'. Note: 'Here, the description of the special quality is 'viśeṣoṅkti''

Resemblance : In both there is opposition, between two qualities, based upon कार्यकारणभाव

Resemblance: In both, there is opposition between two qualities, based on the relation of cause and effect.

Distinction : While charm in this विषम consists in a cause giving rise to an effect opposed to it in colour (e.g the dark-coloured sword producing white fame), the charm in अतद्गुण lies in one thing not assuming the colour of the other, though there is sufficient reason why it should do so Thus, in अतद्गुण there is no production of an opposite colour as there is in विषम Note वर्णान्तरोत्पत्त्यभावाच विषमात् ( अतद्गुणस्य

Distinction: While the charm in this 'viṣama' consists in a cause giving rise to an effect opposed to it in color (e.g., the dark-colored sword producing white fame), the charm in 'atadguṇa' lies in one thing not assuming the color of the other, though there is sufficient reason why it should do so. Thus, in 'atadguṇa', there is no production of an opposite color as there is in 'viṣama'. Note: 'Because of the non-production of a different color, it is different from 'viṣama'' ('atadguṇasya'

वेद ) l' साहित्यदर्पण

'veda') Sāhityadarpaṇa

( 60 ) व्याघात or Frustration

(60) 'Vyāghāta' or Frustration

When a certain thing, which has been accomplished by some one with a certain means, is made otherwise i e is undone or frustrated by another with exactly the same means with a desire to outshining him ( जीतनूदया ), that is known as व्याघात The essentials of व्याघात thus are : ( 1 ) Some one accomplushes a certain thing with a certain means (2) Another undoes or frustrates it with exactly the same means.

When a certain thing, which has been accomplished by someone with a certain means, is made otherwise, i.e., is undone or frustrated by another with exactly the same means, with a desire to outshine him ('jitanūdaya'), that is known as 'vyāghāta'. The essentials of 'vyāghāta' thus are: (1) Someone accomplishes a certain thing with a certain means. (2) Another undoes or frustrates it with exactly the same means.

व्याघात is निमित्तनैमित्त्यौद्रार्यति ( जयरथ p 137 ) Consequently, when the same cause produces two opposite results, this figure is not developed.

'Vyāghāta' is 'nimitta-naimittikau drāryati' (Jayratha p. 137). Consequently, when the same cause produces two opposite results, this figure is not developed.

Page 515

४६९

469

काव्यप्रकाश।

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 119

Thus ‘पाण्ड्येन प्रचण्डेन येन मायान्ति दुर्जना। तेनैव सज्जना रूढा यान्ति शान्तिमनुत्तमाम्’ ( रसमञ्जरी p 459 ) is not an example of व्याघात। Similarly, as Jayaratha points ont, कुल्लममलिन० ’( st 117 ) also is not an example of व्याघात

Thus 'By the fierce Pandya, by whom the wicked are deceived, the good are led to the highest peace' (Rasamanjari p. 459) is not an example of Vyaghat. Similarly, as Jayaratha points out, 'Kullukabhatta' (st. 117) also is not an example of Vyaghat.

जिगीषुतया—This must be taken to stand for जिगीषुतया देव For, there is no conscious desire to conquer or outshine on the part of one who undoes with the same means what some ane else has accomplished as we shall see below

Jigishutaya—This must be taken to stand for Jigishutaya deva. For, there is no conscious desire to conquer or outshine on the part of one who undoes with the same means what some other has accomplished, as we shall see below.

म साधित हेतु व्याघात — This sentence explains the significance of the title व्याघात। व्याघात literally means a stroke back, destruction, frustration As this figure is the cause (‘साधित हेतुत्वात’ इत्यर्थे। न खलु अलङ्कारोद्देश्य साधित हेतु। किंतु अलङ्कारोद्देश्यम् इदृगहेतु वर्णन हि स्यते।) of the distraction of a thing already accomplished by some one, it is called व्याघात

Maha साधित hetu Vyaghata—This sentence explains the significance of the title Vyaghata. Vyaghata literally means a stroke back, destruction, frustration. As this figure is the cause ('Sadhita hetutvat' ityarthe. Na khalu alankaroddishya sadhita hetu. Kintu alankaroddishyam idrghetu varnan hi syate.) of the distraction of a thing already accomplished by some one, it is called Vyaghata.

Page 119

Stanza 175—This is राजशेखर's ( 925 A D ) विद्धशालभञ्जिका। 1 2 Siva ( विस्वाध = विश्रान्ति विलासवतीतावधेयम् आहि कृताग्नि नयन यत्न से ) burnt Cupid to ashes with his eye i e with the fire that came out of his third e e But women of winsome or bewitching eyes ( वामे winning, fascinating, from वन् to win, नयने यासा ता ) revive मनसिज i e create love in the heart of people by means of the eye itself i e by means of glances from their eyes Thus, the destruction of Cupid, which was accomplished by Siva by means of the eye, is undone by women with the same means viz the eye That is how व्याघात is developed in this stanza It should be noted that in creating love with their eyes, women do not entertain any conscious desire to conquer or outshine Siva But their very action in undoing the work, which Siva had accomplished, with exactly the same means establishes their superiority to him That is why we point out above that जिगीषुतया means जिगीषुतया इव

Stanza 175—This is Rajshekhar's (925 A.D.) Viddhasalabhanjika. 1.2 Siva (Visvadha = Visranti vilasavati tav adheyyam ahi krtagninayana yatna se) burnt Cupid to ashes with his eye, i.e., with the fire that came out of his third eye. But women of winsome or bewitching eyes (Vame winning, fascinating, from Van to win, nayane yasa ta) revive Manasija, i.e., create love in the heart of people by means of the eye itself, i.e., by means of glances from their eyes. Thus, the destruction of Cupid, which was accomplished by Siva by means of the eye, is undone by women with the same means, viz., the eye. That is how Vyaghata is developed in this stanza. It should be noted that in creating love with their eyes, women do not entertain any conscious desire to conquer or outshine Siva. But their very action in undoing the work, which Siva had accomplished, with exactly the same means establishes their superiority to him. That is why we point out above that Jigishutaya means Jigishutaya iva.

It should be noted that व्याघात in the above stanza is based on भेदेऽपि अभेदरुपा अतिशयोक्कि। व्याघात requires that the previously accomplished thing should be undone by exactly the same means But here वामलेच्चतादृक is not the same as विश्रान्तिदृक्। But the two, though भिन्न, are looked upon as अभिन्न। Hence, भेदेऽपि अभेदरुपा अतिशयोक्कि। Similarly, the मनसिज, that was burnt by Siva, was different from the मनसिज that women create by means of their' glances But the two are regarded as identical for the purpose of this figure Here also the same kind of अतिशयोक्कि is at the basis of व्याघात। Thus, व्याघात falls within the scope of Mammata's statement ‘सदृश एव निष्पिपये अतिशयोक्किरेव प्राणतया वर्तिहले, ता निना प्र येणालङ्कारतया आगात्’ p 118

It should be noted that Vyaghata in the above stanza is based on Bhede'pi abhedarupa atishayokti. Vyaghata requires that the previously accomplished thing should be undone by exactly the same means. But here Vamalechchataadrik is not the same as Visrantidrik. But the two, though different, are looked upon as identical. Hence, Bhede'pi abhedarupa atishayokti. Similarly, the Manasija that was burnt by Siva was different from the Manasija that women create by means of their glances. But the two are regarded as identical for the purpose of this figure. Here also the same kind of atishayokti is at the basis of Vyaghata. Thus, Vyaghata falls within the scope of Mammata's statement 'Sadrsheva nishpipaye atishayokti eva pranata vartihale, ta nina pra yena alankaraya agat' p. 118.

Page 516

It may be noted that व्याघात leads to व्यतिरेक When it is said that some one undoes with the same means what another has accomplished, it naturally follows that that some one is superior to that another Thus, the essential condition of व्यतिरेक, whuch consists in the superionty of the upameya over the upamāna, is satisfied Jayaratha in fact maintains that the development of व्याघात is not possible without व्यतिरेक. 'As regards the stanza 'हशाद्गुष्य०', Jagannātha holds that व्यतिरेक itself is the figure here. Read 'अत्र वियायंते । व्यतिरेक एवात्रालङ्कार । 'जयिनी' 'विस्मयाक्षष्य' 'बालमलेचना' इति तस्यैव प्रकारान्त ।' रसगङ्गाधर p 460

It may be noted that vyāghāta leads to vyatireka. When it is said that some one undoes with the same means what another has accomplished, it naturally follows that that some one is superior to that another. Thus, the essential condition of vyatireka, which consists in the superiority of the upameya over the upamāna, is satisfied. Jayaratha in fact maintains that the development of vyāghāta is not possible without vyatireka. 'As regards the stanza 'हशाद्गुष्य०', Jagannātha holds that vyatireka itself is the figure here. Read 'अत्र वियायंते । व्यतिरेक एवात्रालङ्कार । 'जयिनी' 'विस्मयाक्षष्य' 'बालमलेचना' इति तस्यैव प्रकारान्त ।' Rasaganggāadhar p 460

Ruyyaka ( p 139 ), Jayadeva ( चन्द्रालोक 103 ), Viśvanātha and Jagannātha ( p 459 ) mention a second kind of व्याघात, which occurs, when some one points out that the same cause can even more easily produce a result exactly the opposite of that whuch according to another it produces Viśvanātha thus defines this व्याघात 'सौकर्येण च कार्यस्य विरुद्ध क्रियते यदि । 'साहित्यदर्पण x 76 ab Example of this व्याघात is, इहैव तिष्ठ दृढमहामर्षाभि कोतिपये समागनता कान्ते शुदुर्सि न चायाससहना । शुद्ध हेतु शुगभवता गन्तुमधिके न श्रद्धा सोढा यद विरहकृतमयासमसमम् ॥ सा द

Ruyyaka (p 139), Jayadeva (Chandrāloka 103), Viśvanātha and Jagannātha (p 459) mention a second kind of vyāghāta, which occurs, when some one points out that the same cause can even more easily produce a result exactly the opposite of that which according to another it produces. Viśvanātha thus defines this vyāghāta 'सौकर्येण च कार्यस्य विरुद्ध क्रियते यदि । 'Sāhityadarpana x 76 ab. Example of this vyāghāta is, इहैव तिष्ठ दृढमहामर्षाभि कोतिपये समागनता कान्ते शुदुर्सि न चायाससहना । शुद्ध हेतु शुगभवता गन्तुमधिके न श्रद्धा सोढा यद विरहकृतमयासमसमम् ॥ सा द

The ancient rhetoricians Bhamana, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not mention व्याघात as a figure Rudrata ( काव्यालङ्कार ix 52-53 ) treats of व्याघात as an alatkāra, but the nature of his व्याघात is different from that of Mammata. Mammata is, therefore, the earhest writer to define व्याघात of this Kind

The ancient rhetoricians Bhamana, Dandin, Udbhata and Vāmana do not mention vyāghāta as a figure. Rudrata (Kāvyālankāra ix 52-53) treats of vyāghāta as an alankāra, but the nature of his vyāghāta is different from that of Mammata. Mammata is, therefore, the earliest writer to define vyāghāta of this kind.

( 61 ) संसृष्टि. or Aggregation

(61) Sansṛṣṭi or Aggregation

So far Mammata has dealt with 60 figures, which are known as शुद्ध 1 e unmixed with any others Though many of the illustrations contained one or more other figures, they were regarded as not charming enough to merit consideration. So ignoring them the illustrations of the various alamkāras were quoted ( 'अलङ्कारान्तरैच सङ्क्र अनन्यविचार्यतागणयितैैव तदलङ्कारा उदाहता )' Now Māmmata proceeds to deal with two mixed figures 1 e figures which are the result of the combination of two or more of the figures treated of in the ninth and the tenth Ullāsas 1 e two or more शब्दार्थालङ्कारs

So far Mammata has dealt with 60 figures, which are known as śuddha i.e. unmixed with any others. Though many of the illustrations contained one or more other figures, they were regarded as not charming enough to merit consideration. So ignoring them the illustrations of the various alamkāras were quoted ('अलङ्कारान्तरैच सङ्क्र अनन्यविचार्यतागणयितैैव तदलङ्कारा उदाहता)'. Now Māmmata proceeds to deal with two mixed figures i.e. figures which are the result of the combination of two or more of the figures treated of in the ninth and the tenth Ullāsas i.e. two or more śabdārthālaṅkāras.

Here a question presents itself Will a combination of figures possess a charm distinct from the charm of the individual figures which are combined ? In answer to this it is pointed out that just as when some one puts on more than one ornament, they conduce to a special kind of charm, distinct from the charm of the individual ornaments, even so a combination of more than one figure

Here a question presents itself: Will a combination of figures possess a charm distinct from the charm of the individual figures which are combined? In answer to this it is pointed out that just as when some one puts on more than one ornament, they conduce to a special kind of charm, distinct from the charm of the individual ornaments, even so a combination of more than one figure

Page 517

४६६

466

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[Page 119

gives rise to some special strikingness, which is distinct from the strikingness of the individual figures Read 'यथा लौकिकानामलङ्काराणां हिरण्मयानां मणिमयानां च पृथक् सौन्दर्यहेतुत्वान्न्योन्यसवन्धेन चारुत्वातिशयो हस्यते, तैश्च काव्यालङ्काराणां रूपकादीनां मिथः सवन्धेन सौन्दर्योतिशाय प्रतীয়ते ।' प्रतापरुद्रीय p 472

gives rise to some special strikingness, which is distinct from the strikingness of the individual figures Read 'Just as among worldly ornaments made of gold and those made of gems, their individual beauty and their combined beauty are perceived differently, similarly, among the figures of speech in poetry, such as Rupaka, their individual beauty and their combined beauty are perceived differently.' Prataparudriya p 472

Combination of more than one figure in a stanza may take place in two ways viz (1) When the figures exist in a stanza with distinction (मेदेन) i e distinctly or independently of one another i e without mutual dependence The mixed figure, which arises from such combination, is known as संसृष्टि or Aggregation (2) When the figures are in some way mutually connected Such combination gives rise to a mixed figure, which is called सङ्कर or Commixutre.

Combination of more than one figure in a stanza may take place in two ways viz (1) When the figures exist in a stanza with distinction (i.e., distinctly or independently of one another i.e., without mutual dependence) The mixed figure, which arises from such combination, is known as Sansristi or Aggregation (2) When the figures are in some way mutually connected Such combination gives rise to a mixed figure, which is called Sankara or Commixutre.

संस्कृति represents what in chemistry is called a mixture, while सङ्कर stands for a compound In संसृष्टि each of the combined figures retains its own independent character In सङ्कर the figures are in separably mixed together संसृष्टि arises from संयोगन्याय or तिल्तण्डुलन्याय, while सङ्कर from समवायन्याय or नोरक्षीरन्याय.

Sansriti represents what in chemistry is called a mixture, while Sankara stands for a compound In Sansriti each of the combined figures retains its own independent character In Sankara the figures are inseparably mixed together Sansriti arises from Sanyoganaya or Tilatandulanyaya, while Sankara from Samavayanaya or Noraksiranyaya.

सेत्स्था स्थिति —This is Mammata's definition of संसृष्टि, which is admitted (इह अभीष्टता) to mean the existence (स्थिति) of these figures with distinction i e independently of one another एतेषाम्—The plural is not significant. This means that संसृष्टि arises from the combination, not necessarily of three or more figures, but also of two समनन्तरमेव just without interval i e in the ninth and tenth Ullāsas which have gone before यथासम्भवम्—This suggests that संसृष्टि possesses three varieties viz (1) the aggregation of two शब्दालङ्कारs and (2) the aggregation of a शब्दालङ्कार and an अर्थालङ्कार अन्योन्यनिरपेक्षतया is the paraphrase of मेदेन एकेन उच्यमाने—This represents the explanation of इह in the Kārikā and refers to the three varieties of संसृष्टि viz शब्दालङ्कारसृष्टि, अर्थालङ्कारसृष्टि and शब्दार्थालङ्कारसृष्टि एकार्थसमवायस्वभावा = एकस्मिन् अर्थे शब्दद्वये अर्थद्वये उभयलपेवा आधारभूते समवाय अलङ्कारयोः अलङ्करणं वा संबन्धः स्वभावः तस्य यस्ता सा This is intended to explain the title संसृष्टि given to this figure The figure is so called, because its nature consists in the connection of two or more figures with one entity or object viz the support of the figures, which is made of either word or sense or both.

Sthā स्थिति —This is Mammata's definition of Sansristi, which is admitted (i.e., desired) to mean the existence (स्थिति) of these figures with distinction i.e., independently of one another. The plural is not significant. This means that Sansristi arises from the combination, not necessarily of three or more figures, but also of two. Just without interval i.e., in the ninth and tenth Ullāsas which have gone before. This suggests that Sansristi possesses three varieties viz (1) the aggregation of two Sabdalankaras and (2) the aggregation of a Sabdalankara and an Arthālankara. The phrase 'anyonyanirapekshataya' is the paraphrase of 'meden'. This represents the explanation of 'iha' in the Kārikā and refers to the three varieties of Sansristi viz Sabdalankararsristi, Arthālankarasristi and Sabdarthalankararsristi. Ekarthasamavayasvabhāva = In one sense, two words or two meanings or both are the basis of the connection or the ornamentation of the two figures. This is intended to explain the title Sansristi given to this figure. The figure is so called, because its nature consists in the connection of two or more figures with one entity or object viz the support of the figures, which is made of either word or sense or both.

Stanza 176 — This is माण's शृङ्गारतिलक 6. 14. It describes the effect produced in a lovely damsel by a bee hovering round her face.

Stanza 176 — This is Mana's Sringaratilaka 6. 14. It describes the effect produced in a lovely damsel by a bee hovering round her face.

This stanza is an example of शब्दालङ्कारसंसृष्टि. The two figures of word that are present in this stanza, independent of each other, are

This stanza is an example of Sabdalankararsristi. The two figures of word that are present in this stanza, independent of each other, are

Page 518

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 ल and in the fourth quarter there is rhyme in लोलो-लोलो That is hōw the stanza is an example of the संसृधि of two वच्दालंकार's viz. अनुप्रास and यमक

In the first half there is alliteration of the consonant 'ma', in the third quarter there is alliteration of 'la' and in the fourth quarter there is rhyme in 'lolo-lolo'. That is how the stanza is an example of the 'samsruti' of two 'sabdalankaras' viz. 'anupraas' and 'yamak'.

अनुप्रास has been explained earlıer, यमक is thus defined स्वरव्यञनसनुदायपौनरुक्त्यं यमकम् । अलंकारसर्वस्व p 21,

'Anupraas' has been explained earlier, 'yamak' is thus defined: 'svrvyajanasamudaayapunaruktyam yamakam'. (Alankarasarvasva p. 21)

Stanza 177—This stanza has been quoted as an exmple of उपेक्षा, ( v 26 ) The first line contains उपेक्षा and the second उपमा But these are independent of each other Therefore it is an example of अर्थालंकारसंसृधि

Stanza 177—This stanza has been quoted as an example of 'upeksha', (v. 26). The first line contains 'upeksha' and the second 'upama'. But these are independent of each other. Therefore, it is an example of 'arthalankarasamsruti'.

पूर्ववत् उपमोत्रेक्षा—These two sentences explain how stanzas 176 and 177 illustrate शब्दालंकारसंसृधि and अर्थालंकारसंसृधि respectively तथा चोक्ते—परस्पर निरपेक्षे Supply ‘संसृधि प्रयोजयत् ’ after उपमोत्रेक्षे

These two sentences explain how stanzas 176 and 177 illustrate 'sabdalankarasamsruti' and 'arthalankarasamsruti' respectively. 'Tathokte—parasparanirakshye'. Supply 'samsruti prayojayat' after 'upmotreksha'.

Stanza 178—This stanza describes a village wench, whose beauty created joy, who stole the hearts of youths and whom nobody could control

Stanza 178—This stanza describes a village wench, whose beauty created joy, who stole the hearts of youths and whom nobody could control.

Here in ‘णथिय एथ्’ there is छेकानुप्रास, consisting in the repetition once of the consonants त and थ and in ‘एनां तरुणानां हृदयंप्लोष्याकोटिम्’ there is रूपक, represented by the superimposition of the character of a thief on the girl छेकानुप्रास is a शब्दालंकार and रूपक is an अर्थालंकार Both these figures are independent of each other Hence, the stanza is an example of शब्दार्थालंकारसंसृधि

Here in 'nathiya eth' there is 'chekaanupraas', consisting in the repetition once of the consonants 'ta' and 'tha' and in 'enaam tarunaanaam hrdyamploshyakotim' there is 'rupak', represented by the superimposition of the character of a thief on the girl. 'Chekaanupraas' is a 'sabdalankara' and 'rupak' is an 'arthalankara'. Both these figures are independent of each other. Hence, the stanza is an example of 'sabdaarthalankarasamsruti'.

अत्र न्यानपेक्षे—Supply ससृधि प्रयोजयत्, संसृष्ट समवेतत्वात—This clause explains where the combination of the two figures viz the शब्दालंकार छेकानुप्रास and the अर्थालंकार रूपक takes place संसृधि requires that the two figures should be combined and Mammata here tells us that there exists the combination of those two, because they both are connected with each other in one place viz in the sentence or in the stanza समवेतत्वात = परस्परसंबन्धात् Mammata thinks it necessary particularly to point out this fact to us, because here there is a combination of a शब्दालंकार and an अर्थालंकार and it is likely that the two would be regarded as अनेकस्थ स्थित or अनेकार्थसमवेत

Here, 'nyaanapekshye'—Supply 'samsruti prayojayat', 'samsrishta samavetatvaat'. This clause explains where the combination of the two figures viz. the 'sabdalankara' 'chekaanupraas' and the 'arthalankara' 'rupak' takes place. 'Samsruti' requires that the two figures should be combined and Mammata here tells us that there exists the combination of those two, because they both are connected with each other in one place viz. in the sentence or in the stanza. 'Samavetatvaat = parasparasambandhaat'. Mammata thinks it necessary particularly to point out this fact to us, because here there is a combination of a 'sabdalankara' and an 'arthalankara' and it is likely that the two would be regarded as 'anekastha sthita' or 'anekarthasamaveta'.

It should be noted that in the case of शब्दालंकारयो संसृधि and अर्थालंकारयो संसृधि the one abode where the two figures meet and become combined is शब्द and अर्थ respectively But in the case of शब्दार्थोभयालंकारयो संसृधि शब्द and अर्थ cannot be regarded as the meeting place, because they are two different entities and would constitute

It should be noted that in the case of 'sabdalankarayoh samsruti' and 'arthalankarayoh samsruti' the one abode where the two figures meet and become combined is 'shabda' and 'artha' respectively. But in the case of 'shabdaarthobhayalankarayoh samsruti', 'shabda' and 'artha' cannot be regarded as the meeting place, because they are two different entities and would constitute

Page 519

४६८

468

काव्यप्रकाश

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 120

two different abodes संसृष्टि requires one abode Hence, Mammata points out that the one abode for शब्दालंकारयो संसृष्टि 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 शब्दालंकारयो संसृष्टि and अर्थालंकारयो संसृष्टि on the other hand इह means शब्दभागे एव and अर्थविषय एव respectively, It will thus be seen that in view of this new paraphrase ‘एकत्र वाक्ये छन्दसि वा’ of इह, which Mammata gives for शब्दालंकारयो संसृष्टि, his previous paraphrase ‘उभयान्त्रापि’ 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 explained as छन्दसि, this explanation would be applicable to all the three varieties of संसृष्टि

Two different abodes require one abode for संसृष्टि (combination). Hence, Mammata points out that the one abode for the संसृष्टि of शब्दालंकार (verbal ornament) is either the sentence or the stanza. Thus, 'एकत्र वाक्ये छन्दसि वा' (in one sentence or verse) represents the paraphrase of इह (here) occurring in the Kārikā in the case of संसृष्टि of शब्दालंकार. And in the case of संसृष्टि of अर्थालंकार (sense ornament), इह means शब्दभागे एव (only in the verbal part) and अर्थविषय एव (and only in the sense), respectively. It will thus be seen that in view of this new paraphrase 'एकत्र वाक्ये छन्दसि वा' of इह, which Mammata gives for संसृष्टि of शब्दालंकार, his previous paraphrase 'उभयान्त्रापि' in the वृत्ति (commentary) must be regarded as inaccurate and as having been given without proper thinking. It may be pointed out that if इह is explained as छन्दसि (in the verse), this explanation would be applicable to all the three varieties of संसृष्टि.

The clause संसर्गैक्श शमवेतत्वात् 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 1 e with one sentence or stanza ( एकेन वाक्येन छन्दसा वा समवेतत्वात् )’ समवेतत्वात् here signifies एकैक्य-शब्दात्त्वात् एकच्छन्द् समवेतत्वात् वा This means as the शब्दालंकार and अर्थालंकार in शब्दालंकारयो संसृष्टि 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 संसृष्टि

The clause संसर्गैक्श शमवेतत्वात् 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 with one sentence or stanza (एकेन वाक्येन छन्दसा वा समवेतत्वात्).' समवेतत्वात् here signifies एकैक्य-शब्दात्त्वात् एकच्छन्द् समवेतत्वात् वा (being connected with one word or one verse). This means that as the शब्दालंकार and अर्थालंकार in शब्दालंकारयो संसृष्टि 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 संसृष्टि.

Though many ancient rhetoricians mention mixed figure, Udbhata is the earliest writer to make two distinct figures, संकर and संसृष्टि, from the combination of figures and Mammata seems to follow him in this

Though many ancient rhetoricians mention mixed figures, Udbhata is the earliest writer to distinguish between two figures, संकर (fusion) and संसृष्टि (combination), arising from the combination of figures, and Mammata seems to follow him in this regard.

( 62 ) संकर or Commixuture

(62) Sankar or Commixuture

When figures do not rest in themselves I e are not independent of one another become related to one another as subordinate (अङ्गम्) and principal (अङ्गिन्), संकर is developed This is Mammata's definition of the first kind of संकर, which has in all three varieties (1) आङ्गिभावसंकर or अनुगृहीतमुख्यकभावसंकर (2) संदेहसंकर and ( 3 ) एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसंकर, एकन्यङ्गकानुप्रवेशसंकर (Vide काव्यप्रकाश 4th Ullāsa p. 186 वामनाचार्ये), एकार्थसंकर or एकावचनुप्रवेशसंकर Supply एतेषामलेकाराणांम् after भावित्रान्ति जयुषाम् The plural is not to be regarded as significant so that संकर with only two figures is also possible, as in stanza 179 below ‘परस्परमनुप्राह्यौ आह्लादक्ताम्’ is the paraphrase of भङ्ग्यङ्गितम् This means that the figures, which combine to give rise to संकर, mutually help to heighten the beauty of one another संकर्यमाणस्वरूपत्लात्=सङ्कीयमाणे परस्परसङ्कीर्णे मिथ्यमाणे स्वरूपं येषां ते, तेषां भावः, तस्मात् This explains the title संकर, which is so called, because here the nature of the figures combined becomes mixed

When figures do not stand independently, i.e., are not independent of one another, but become related to one another as subordinate (अङ्गम्) and principal (अङ्गिन्), संकर (fusion) is developed. This is Mammata's definition of the first kind of संकर, which has three varieties: (1) आङ्गिभावसंकर or अनुगृहीतमुख्यकभावसंकर, (2) संदेहसंकर, and (3) एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसंकर or एकन्यङ्गकानुप्रवेशसंकर (see Kavyaprakasha, 4th Ullasa, p. 186, Vamanacharya). The plural is not to be taken as significant, so संकर can occur with only two figures, as in stanza 179 below. The phrase 'परस्परमनुप्राह्यौ आह्लादक्ताम्' is the paraphrase of भङ्ग्यङ्गितम्. This means that the figures that combine to give rise to संकर mutually help to heighten the beauty of one another. The term संकर is used because the nature of the figures combined becomes mixed.

Page 520

Page 121 ]

NOTES : Tenth Flash

y§9

[Page 121

Stanza 179 This stanza contains a conventional description of the valour of a certain king When the king scored a victory, the enemy wives retired to the forest where they were robbed of all their ornaments except the pearl necklaces These were mistaken for garlands of gunja fruit since owing to the lustre of their lower lips the necklaces had turned red Notice the different words used to convey the idea of ‘snatched or seized’ This is with a view to avoiding the fault of कारितपदत्वम् । सीमन्त is the parting of the hair

अत्र अन्नाक्षिभावसङ्कर — Here Mammata explains how अन्नाक्षिभावसङ्कर is developed in this stanza The red lustre of the lower lips overpowers the white colour of the pearl necklaces and makes them red Thus, the figure तद्गुण arises Then the foresters mistake the red necklaces for garlands of gunjā fruit Here we have भ्रान्तिमान् The figure भ्रान्तिमान् becomes manifest with the help of तद्गुण (तद्गुणमपेक्ष्य = तद्गुणसापेक्षेन ) Hence, भ्रान्तिमान् is अकिंतृ and तद्गुण is its शङ्ग । Further, तद्गुण appears specially charming to men of poetic appreciation (सचेतसाम्) as the basis of भ्रान्तिमान् ( तदाश्रयेण तस्य भ्रान्तिमत आभ्रयेण, तदाश्रयतयैवेन इत्यर्थः ) That is how अन्नाक्षिभावसङ्कर is developed here

Here Mammata explains how अन्नाक्षिभावसङ्कर is developed in this stanza The red lustre of the lower lips overpowers the white colour of the pearl necklaces and makes them red Thus, the figure तद्गुण arises Then the foresters mistake the red necklaces for garlands of gunjā fruit Here we have भ्रान्तिमान् The figure भ्रान्तिमान् becomes manifest with the help of तद्गुण Hence, भ्रान्तिमान् is अकिंतृ and तद्गुण is its शङ्ग । Further, तद्गुण appears specially charming to men of poetic appreciation as the basis of भ्रान्तिमान् That is how अन्नाक्षिभावसङ्कर is developed here

Thus, according to Mammata, this stanza is an example of अन्नाक्षिभावसङ्कर resulting from the combination of two figures viz तद्गुण and भ्रान्तिमत् It will thus be seen that the plural in अविश्रान्तिजुषाम् is not to be understood as विवक्षित But here it may be pointed out that there are two other figures in this stanza, which Mamta fails to notice First, there is समासगा धर्मबादिलक्षित उपमा in बिम्बोष्ठ This उपमा is the आश्रय of तदगुण Secondly, the whole stanza is an example of कारणे प्रस्तुतेऽप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा, which is based on भ्रान्तिमत् What the poet wants to convey is that the king's enemies, either through fear or through defeat, have retired into the forest. This is the कारण, which is प्रस्तुत Instead of describing it the effect thereof viz that the foresters deprive the enemies' wives of their ornaments is stated in this stanza. Hence, the figure अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा arises. Or we may regard the stanza as an example of पञ्चमीक, if we choose to consider that the प्रस्तुत कारण is coveyed to us through its effect, which also owing to its picturesqueness is प्रस्तुत.

Stanza 180—This stanza is quoted to illustrate सङ्कर arising from the combination of more than two figures. It describes the moon wandering in the sky The moon is tacitly compared with an ascetic. Its splendours are like the ascetic's matted hair The dark spot, which

Page 521

it bears on its orb, is the rosary which the ascetic holds in his hand

The moon is white (विरद), because it has lost the red colour, which it had at the time of its rise The ascetic is also pure, because he is free from passion The absence of the red colour in the moon is fancied to be as though due to grief arising from the death of separated lovers which it causes The ascetic's passionlessness is also fancied to spring as though from the destruction of transitory worldly objects, which to him are now as good as non-existent While the moon looks pale like ashes, the ascetic is pale with ashes Then again, the sky is compared with a cemetery A cemetery is marked with skulls The sky is spotted with clusters of stars, which stand for the skulls

उपमा प्रतियन्ते—Here Mammata points out that there are four figures in this stanza viz उपमा, रूपक, उत्प्रेक्षा and श्लेष which are related to each other as subordinate and principal and which consequently give rise to अङ्गाङ्गिभावसङ्कर Thus, there is उपमा in जटाभाभिम्बीभि and पित्रुन इव व्योम्नि रूपक in कलङ्करक्षवलयै and तारापरिकरकेपाल, उत्प्रेक्षा in वियोगव्यापत्तौस्तव, and श्लेष in कलितवैराग्यविशाद वियोगिल्यापत्ते and वैराग्यविशाद The उत्प्रेक्षा in वियोगव्यापत्तोस्तव is subordinate to the श्लेष in कलितवैराग्यविशाद, for the other sense of passionlessness is had from वैराग्य only when we take the उत्प्रेक्षा into consideration Further, the श्लेष in वैराग्यविशाद- is subordinate to the उपमा in जटाभाभिम्बीभि and the रूपक in कलङ्काक्षवलय, for only when the idea of वैराग्य in the sense of passionlessness is apprehended, the wearing of matted hair and the holding of a rosary become possible Then again, the रूपक in तारापरिकरकेपाल is subordinate to the उपमा in पित्रुन इव व्योम्नि, for there is no similarity intrinsically between the sky and the cemetery The comparison is, however, made possible by the superimposition of skulls on clusters of stars, which arises from their white colour Thus, as these four figures are mutually related to one another as subordinate and principal, we have अङ्गाङ्गिभावसङ्कर in this stanza

It must be noted that there is in this stanza a fifth figure viz समासोक्ति, which Mammata has not noticed Owing to the paronomastic adjectives करपत्कलङ्कवलय and कलितवैराग्यविशाद the behaviour of an ascetic is attributed to the moon That is how समासोक्ति is developed here. Mammata's failure to mention समासोक्ति is explained by his commentators by saying that it is much too obvious to be pointed out. It will be noted that this is a very lame defence. Surely, समासोक्ति is not quite so obvious as the other figures that Mammata mentions.

Page 522

कलङ्क एव अक्षवलयम्०

The problem here is this कलङ्काक्षवलयम् can be dissolved either as कलङ्क एव अक्षवलयम् ( रूपकम् ) or as कलङ्क अक्षवलयमिव ( उपमा )

The problem here is this कलङ्काक्षवलयम् can be dissolved either as कलङ्क एव अक्षवलयम् ( रूपकम् ) or as कलङ्क अक्षवलयमिव ( उपमा ). Which of these two dissolutions is correct? Or to put it otherwise, which is the figure in कलङ्काक्षवलयम्, रूपक or उपमा? We have seen before that in such cases the deciding factor is some other word in the compound or in the sentence. In the present case the adjective करधृत becomes a deciding reason ( साधकप्रमाणम् ) for understanding a metaphor ( रूपकपरिग्रहे ). When the compound कलङ्क एव अक्षवलयम् ( अस्य=कलङ्काक्षवलयमित्यस्य समासस्य ) is dissolved as कलङ्क एव अक्षवलयम् and thus rstood to contain a metaphor, अक्षवलयम्, which conceals or overpowers the form of कलङ्क, is apprehended as being principal or prominent. The word करधृत meaning 'held by the hand' is primanly applicable to अक्षवलय, because a rosary alone is everywhere known to be fit for being held by the hand. Thus, as करधृत primanly goes with अक्षवलय and अक्षवलय can attain prominence in a metaphor and not in a simile, the compound must be so dissolved as to bring out a metaphor. That is how करधृत becomes a favourable reason for metaphor.

On the other hand when कलङ्काक्षवलयम् is dissolved as कलङ्क अक्षवलयमिव so as to bring out a simile, कलङ्क is apprehended as being prominent ( उत्कटतया प्रतिपत्तौ ). But करधृत meaning 'held by the ray' is not primanly applicable to कलङ्क, for the spot is not held by the ray. It is held by the form or orb ( मूर्ते: ) of the moon. However, it is here represented to have been held by the ray ( कलङ्कस्य करधारणम् ) on account of the use of the paronomastic word करधृत. As a matter of fact the holding of the spot by the ray is not true at all ( असदेव ), but is metaphorically ( उपचाराद्=उपचारेण लक्षणया वा ) represented as true owing to the proximity of the orb and the ray ( प्रत्यासत्या = कलङ्कस्य वस्तुमात्रे धारिका मूर्तिः, उपचारेण धारक इत्येतयोः सान्निध्येन ). The spot is really held by the orb. Thus, both are प्रत्यासन्न to each other. Consequently, the spot, which is held by the one viz the orb, is metaphorically represented as having been held by the other viz, the ray. It will thus be seen that as the spot is not really held by the ray we shall have to resort to metaphor ( उपचार ) in making the word करधृत applicable even to the principal thing viz. the spot ( मुख्येsपि उपमितसमासे मुख्यमूर्तौ करधृतौ ). when we dusolve the compound कलङ्काक्षवलयम् in such a way as to bring out a simile. And it is not desirable that meataphor should be resorted to in making an adjective go with the principal. Such a resort can be made

Page 523

in the case of the non-principal thing viz. the उपमान in an उपमा or the उपमेय in a रूपक. Therefore adjective करधृत shows that कलधाक्षवलयम् must not be regarded as embodying a simile.

The whole discussion reduces itself to this. करधृत is paronomastic and primarily signifies both: 'held by the hand' and 'held by the ray.' It is intended to go with both अक्षवलय and कलङ्क. But in its primary sense the word is applicable to अक्षवलय and not to कलङ्क, to which it becomes applicable only in its secondary sense. Therefore, the compound कलधाक्षवलयम् should be so dissolved as to give prominence to अक्षवलय, which is done by understanding it to contain a metaphor. For, the general rule is that the common epithet should be primarily applicable to the prominent thing and secondarily to the non-prominent. Note 'मुख्यविषयोपचारापेक्षया च अमुख्योपचार एव श्रेयान्.' प्रदीप. The prominent thing in a simile is the उपमेय. In a metaphor prominence belongs to the उपमान.

एवंरूपत्व...दर्शयते - In stanzas 179 and 180 Mammata illustrated अन्याक्षिभावसङ्कर arising from the commixture of two and more figures of sense. Now he tells us that such सङ्कर viz. अन्याक्षिभावसङ्कर is seen in the case of two figures of word also.

Stanza 181 — This is रत्नाकर's हरविजय 5. 137. It is addressed to Śiva by Nandin and contains a description of the mountain Meru. On a slope of this mountain the sport of demons has been disturbed and a swift noisy river flows. The powerful excellent elephants on the mountain protect their herd. Construe : अभिहितदानवरासः ( अभिहितः आकुलीकृतः नाशितः दानवानां दैत्यानां रासः क्रीडा यस्यां सा ) अतिपातिसारावनदा ( अतिपाती जववती सारावनदा भ्रातिपाती जववती शबदेन सहितः नदः यस्यां सा ) इयं तटी रजति । अविरतदानवराराविरतेन सततं बहुलेन दानेन मदजलेन वरा उत्कृष्टा ) सारा ( बलिष्ठा ) वनदा ( वनानि याति गच्छति इति ) सा गजती ( गजसमूहः ) गजश्रृङ्गाद् गमूहार्थे तृप्रत्ययः ) च यूथं स्वकीय कुलम् अतिपाति अतिशयेन रक्षति ।

In view of its context the correct interpretation of the first half of this stanza is to take अभिहितदानवरास as a vocative addressed to Śiva.

Here in the second and the fourth quarters there is यमक which consists in ther rpetition of the whole of the second quarter in the fourth. यमक is a शब्दालङ्कार. Further, the second and the fourth quarters read exactly the same, whether we begin from this end or that. This represents a variety, called अनुलोमप्रतिलोम, of a शब्दालङ्कार, named चित्र. चित्र is a comprehensive figure, which includes all those quaint arrangements of words in the form of a sword ( खड्गपद्धतिः ), a tabour ( मुरजबन्धः ), a lotus ( पद्मबन्धः ) and others. Note 'तनित्र रुज व वर्णानां विन्यासो बहुविनिर्मितः.' काव्यप्रकाश

Page 524

Page 122 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash ४७३

Page 122 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash 473

1x p. 529 ( वामनाचार्य ), ‘ पद्याक्करहेतुत्वे वर्णानां चित्रसुख्यते l’ साहिल्यदर्पण x 13a6

1x p. 529 (Vamanacharya), 'padyakkarrahetutve varnanam chitrasukhhyate' Sahityadarpana x 13a6

As such चित्र includes अनुलोमप्रतिलोम also, which consists in arranging words in such a manner that they read exactly alike from either end.

As such, Chitra includes Anulompratiloma as well, which consists in arranging words in such a manner that they read exactly alike from either end.

Mammata tells us that these two शब्दालंकारs viz यमक and अनुलोमप्रतिलोम have शब्दालंकारयो अज्ञातार्थभावसङ्कर here

Mammata tells us that these two Shabalankaras, viz Yamaka and Anulompratiloma, have Shabalankarayoh ajñatārthabhāvasaṅkara here

परस्परापेक्षे—अज्ञातार्थभावसङ्कर requires that the two figures which give rise to it should be related to each other as subordinate and principal

Parasparāpekṣe—Ajñātārthabhāvasaṅkara 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 शब्दालंकारयो अज्ञातार्थभावसङ्कर’

Mammata quotes stanza 181 to illustrate 'Shabdālankarayoh ajñatārthabhāvasaṅkara'

He tells us which two शब्दालंकारs are present in the stanza, but does not explain how अज्ञातार्थभाव exists between them He simply remarks that the two figures viz यमक and अनुलोमप्रतिलोम are mutually dependent

He tells us which two Shabdālankaras are present in the stanza, but does not explain how Ajñātārthabhāva exists between them. He simply remarks that the two figures, viz Yamaka and Anulompratiloma, are mutually dependent.

Here one has to note that it is not easy to see how these two figures are dependent on each other As a matter of fact they are independent and have nothing to do with each o’ther

Here, one has to note that it is not easy to see how these two figures are dependent on each other. As a matter of fact, they are independent and have nothing to do with each other.

Vāmanacarya explains their mutual dependence by pointing out that a long rhyme such as a पादयमक and अनुलोमप्रतिलोम are each difficult to achieve and charming

Vāmanacarya explains their mutual dependence by pointing out that a long rhyme such as a Pādayamaka and Anulompratiloma are each difficult to achieve and charming.

But in order to attain special charm they require each other’s assistance

But in order to attain special charm, they require each other's assistance.

That is how mutual dependence between them arises

That is how mutual dependence between them arises.

Read पादयमक-अनुलोमप्रतिलोमयोर् प्रत्येकमेव दुष्करतया विशिष्टमनोज्ञरुकम्, तयोः साहिल्य न हि सुतरां ( अतिशयेन ) विशिष्टमनोज्ञरुकमिति परस्परापेक्षया इत्यभिप्रायः ।l’ वामनाचार्य P 759

Read 'Pādayamaka-anulompratilomayoh pratyekameva duṣkaratayā viśiṣṭamanojñrukam, tayoḥ sāhityaṃ na hi sutarāṃ (atiśayena) viśiṣṭamanojñrukamiti parasparāpekṣayā ityabhiprāyaḥ.' Vāmanācārya P 759

This explanation is by no means convincing

This explanation is by no means convincing.

By such argument any two figures that are found in a stanza can be regarded as mutually dependent.

By such an argument, any two figures that are found in a stanza can be regarded as mutually dependent.

The truth is that अज्ञातार्थभावसङ्कर of two शब्दालंकारs is not possible.

The truth is that Ajñātārthabhāvasaṅkara of two Shabdālankaras is not possible.

Stanza 181 should, therefore, be regarded as an example of either शब्दालंकारयो संसृष्टि or शब्दालंकारयो एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसङ्कर

Stanza 181 should, therefore, be regarded as an example of either Shabdālankarayoh saṃsṛṣṭi or Shabdālankarayoh ekapratipadyasaṅkara.

Ruyyaka criticizes Mammata for his शब्दालंकारयो अज्ञातार्थभावसङ्कर

Ruyyaka criticizes Mammata for his Shabdālankarayoh ajñatārthabhāvasaṅkara.

Read अलंकारसर्वस्व । p 199

Read Alankārasarvasva. p 199

We have here to point out that this शब्दालंकारयो अज्ञातार्थभावसङ्कर is Mammata’s own creation.

We have here to point out that this Shabdālankarayoh ajñatārthabhāvasaṅkara is Mammata's own creation.

Uddhata mentions a variety of सङ्कर, called शब्दार्थवत्योलङ्कार, which is thus defined ‘ शब्दार्थवत्योलङ्कारो वाक्य एकत्र भासिन । सङ्करो वा ’ काव्यालङ्कारसूत्र p 65

Uddhata mentions a variety of Saṅkara, called Shabdārthavatyolaṅkāra, which is thus defined: 'Shabdārthavatyolaṅkāro vākyai ekatra bhāsin. Saṅkaro vā' Kāvyālaṅkārasūtra p 65

It is sometimes believed that this corresponds to Mammata’s शब्दालंकारयो अज्ञातार्थभावसङ्कर

It is sometimes believed that this corresponds to Mammata's Shabdālankarayoh ajñatārthabhāvasaṅkara.

But this is incorrect.

Udbhata’s शब्दार्थवर्त्योलङ्कार सङ्कर corresponds to Mammata’s शब्दालंकारयो संसृष्टि.

Udbhata's Shabdārthavartyolaṅkāra Saṅkara corresponds to Mammata's Shabdālankarayoh saṃsṛṣṭi.

and has nothing to do with his शब्दालंकारयो अज्ञातार्थभावसङ्कर

and has nothing to do with his Shabdālankarayoh ajñatārthabhāvasaṅkara

अलंकारसर्वस्व p 204

Alankārasarvasva p 204

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.

This is incorrect because Ruyyaka came after Mammata and not before him.

So Mammata could not be

Page 525

एतस्य च ग्रहे न्यायो दोषो वा विरोधिनो वचः ।

This is Mammata's definition of the second kind of sankar, called sandehasankar.

When owing to the absence of a favourable reason (न्याय) or an unfavourable reason (दोष) for understanding (ग्रहे) any one of two or more figures in a stanza there is uncertainty (संशय) as regards the figure therein, sandehasankar arises.

द्वयोः द्वितीयः सकरः ।

In this passage Mammata explains how the second kind of sankar, known as sandehasankar, is developed.

Two or more figures are found in a stanza. But they cannot be simultaneously present therein owing to intrinsic opposition between them. There is neither a favourable reason for understanding one of them, nor an unfavourable one for excluding the others so that (येन) one of the figures could be regarded as the figure of the stanza. Thus, the second sankar possesses the form of the absence of certainty as regards the figure of the stanza.

तेन सङो त्रिरूप-परिकर्तितः ॥ 44 ॥

Though Mammata does not say so definitely, this second sankar is known as sandehasankar.

This name is, however, suggested by the occurrence of the word संदेह in the Vrtti on the two next illustrations as well as in the Vrtti on तेन सङो त्रिरूप-परिकर्तितः ॥ 44 ॥

समुदयेन = समुदयप्रतिपादकेन कारिकाकथितेन चकारेण आक्षेपात् = व्युत्पत्तौ ।

In the second half of Kārikā 54, which defines the second kind of sankar the word संकर does not occur.

Mammata, therefore, points out that the particle च, which signifies joining together, or conjunction, suggests that the संकर is to be understood here from the first half of the Kārikā.

समविभावनोच्यतेति समासोक्तिः ।

Here one may say that the sea is प्रस्तुत or that the poet primarily wants to describe the sea.

Then owing to similarity of adjectives we obtain the apprehension (प्रतीति) of an अप्रस्तुतार्थे viz. a man who is grave or serious in temperament (गंभीर), loaded with wealth (रत्ननिभृत), of spotless fame or character (निर्मलच्छाय), but whose possessions are not of use to other people (सरखपानीय कि न कृत). This gives us the figure समासोक्तिः arising from common adjectives.

Page 526

सरसपानीय is not literally applicable to the अप्रस्तुत पुरुष. But owing to general similarity it is to be metaphorically understood in the sense of परोपयोगिवस्तुमान् and thus regarded as a समविशेषण. Or the Prakrit सरसवाणीओ going with the अप्रस्तुत पुरुष. This would make the adjective सरसवाणीओ paronomastic As both साधारण विशेषणs and निष्ठ विशेषणs are included under the term समविशेषण, Mammata's statement that समासोक्ति in this stanza arises from विशेषणसाम्य is not in any way affected

Sarasaniya is not literally applicable to the अप्रस्तुत पुरुष. But owing to general similarity it is to be metaphorically understood in the sense of परोपयोगिवस्तुमान् and thus regarded as a समविशेषण. Or the Prakrit सरसवाणीओ going with the अप्रस्तुत पुरुष. This would make the adjective सरसवाणीओ paronomastic As both साधारण विशेषणs and निष्ठ विशेषणs are included under the term समविशेषण, Mammata's statement that समासोक्ति in this stanza arises from विशेषणसाम्य is not in any way affected

Or one may say that the sea is अप्रस्तुत in this stanza and that by describing it the poet wants to convey the idea of some man who is प्रस्तुत on account of his possessing qualities common with the sea (तत्समगुणत्वात् = तेन अभिधना लक्षिते इत्यर्थे समा गुणा यस्य तस्य भाव तथा). This gives rise to साधस्यमूला तुल्यस्य (कास्मिश्चित् जलनिधितुल्ये पुरुषे) प्रस्तुते अन्यस्य अप्रस्तुतस्य तुल्यस्य (प्रस्तुतपुरुषतुल्यस्य जलनिधे:) वाच्यरूपा अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

We have seen before that अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा and समासोक्ति are exactly the opposite of each other As such they cannot be simultaneously present in a stanza (एतयो अलंकारयो एकत्र समावेशे विरोध). Which of these two figures is present in stanza depends on what we consider to be प्रस्तुत and what अप्रस्तुत. In the present illustration we have no means of determining whether the ocean or the man is प्रस्तुत. Consequently, we cannot say whether समासोक्ति or अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा is the figure in this stanza. That is why the stanza is an example of समासोक्त्यप्रस्तुतप्रशंसयोः संदेहसकर

Stanza 182 is an example of the संदेहसकर of two figures. Mammata now quotes a stanza, which illustrates संदेहसकर of many figures

Stanza 183—The first line of this stanza describes the beaming or shining orb of the moon, which delights the eye, and the second tells us that darkness, which has enveloped all quarters, has not yet been dispelled. निशाांशम् is paronomastic and means (1) निशा आशां-येन तत् which has blocked hopes and (2) निशिदा आशा-इच्छा येन तत् which has blocked hopes तमः also conveys two senses viz. physical darkness and mental gloom (विरहजनित मनसोभास्वरत्वम्)

अत्र किं०—This passage explains how seven different figures are possible in this stanza according to what we understand to be the intention of the poet. Thus, first if we were to suppose that the poet wants to convey that the time is excitant of love and that he expresses this idea through a different mode (भण्यान्तरेण) i.e. in a roundabout manner by describing the rise of the delightful moon, the figure would be पर्यायोक्तम्. Or secondly, if the stanza be regarded as having been

Page 527

said by some one on seeing the shiming, delightful face of a lovely girl,

it would be an illustration of निगीर्याध्यवसानरूपा अतिशयोक्ति arising from the ascertainment ( अध्यवसानम् ) of the face as the orb of the moon Thirdly,

it would be an illustration of nigīryādhvasānarūpā atiśayokti arising from the ascertainment ( adhyavasānam ) of the face as the orb of the moon Thirdly,

if we suppose that the speaker points to the face by the word एतत् and superimposes on it the character of the moon, the figure would be रूपक on account of the force of the superimposition of that orb of the moon on the face ( तद्वारोपवशात् = तस्य इन्दुविम्बस्य रूपस्य आरोप वक्त्रे अभेदेन अध्यारोप नस्य वक्त्र साम्योत् ) Fourthly,

if we suppose that the speaker points to the face by the word etat and superimposes on it the character of the moon, the figure would be rūpaka on account of the force of the superimposition of that orb of the moon on the face ( tadvāroparopavashāt = tasya induvimvasya rūpasya āropa vaktra abhedena adhyārōpa nasya vaktra sāmyot ) Fourthly,

we may say that the common action of beaming ( प्रसादति ) is connected with the प्रकृत face, expressed by एतत्, and the अप्रकृत orb of the moon This would give rise to क्रियादीपक In this case we shall have to suppose that एतत् and विम्बम् stand for two different entities and that the speaker desires to state that the two are to be joined together ( समुच्चयविवक्षा ) so as to be construed with the common action of beaming The line then would mean एतद् ( वक्त्रम् ) इन्दोर्विम्ब ( च ) प्रसादति समुच्चय is defined as ' पस्परानुपेक्षया अनेकस्य एकस्मिन् अन्वय समुच्चयः ' सिद्वान्तकौमुदी on 'चार्थे द्वन्द्वः ' पा २ २ २९

we may say that the common action of beaming ( prasādati ) is connected with the prakṛta face, expressed by etat, and the aprakṛta orb of the moon This would give rise to kriyādīpaka In this case we shall have to suppose that etat and vimbam stand for two different entities and that the speaker desires to state that the two are to be joined together ( samuccayavivakṣā ) so as to be construed with the common action of beaming The line then would mean etad ( vaktraṃ ) indorvimba ( ca ) prasādati samuccaya is defined as ' pāspārānupakṣayā anekasya ekasmin anvaya samuccayaḥ ' sidvāntakaumudī on 'cārthe dvandvaḥ ' pā 2 2 29

Fifthly, if both the face and the orb, which are connected with the common action प्रसादति, are regarded as either प्रकृत or अप्रकृत, the figure would be तुल्ययोगिता Sixthly,

Fifthly, if both the face and the orb, which are connected with the common action prasādati, are regarded as either prakṛta or aprakṛta, the figure would be tulyayogitā Sixthly,

if we suppose that the stanza is a description of the evening ( प्रदोष ), that the orb of the moon is प्रकृत and that owing to the commonness of the adjective नयनानन्ददायि we apprehend the अप्रकृत face, the figure would be समासोक्ति And seventhly,

if we suppose that the stanza is a description of the evening ( pradoṣa ), that the orb of the moon is prakṛta and that owing to the commonness of the adjective nayanānandadāyi we apprehend the aprakṛta face, the figure would be samāsokti And seventhly,

if we were to hold that the poet wants to convey the spotlessness of the face which is thus प्रस्तुत ( मुखं नैर्मल्यस्य प्रस्तुतात् प्रस्तुतत्नादित्यर्थः ) and does so by giving a description of the moon, the figure would be अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा Thus,

if we were to hold that the poet wants to convey the spotlessness of the face which is thus prastuta ( mukhaṃ nairmalyasya prastutāt prastutannādittyarathaḥ ) and does so by giving a description of the moon, the figure would be aprastutapraśaṃsā Thus,

as there is doubt about many figures, the figure in the stanza is thus very संदेहसकर

as there is doubt about many figures, the figure in the stanza is thus very sandehasakar

From the two examples of संदेहसकर that have been quoted and explained by Mammata it is clear that this kind of सकर is possible only in the case of अर्थालंकारs or figures of sense Doubt such as gives rise to संदेहसकर is not possible in the case of शब्दालंकारs Neither Mammata nor any of the other rhetoricians mentions this important characteristic of संदेहसकर

From the two examples of sandehasakar that have been quoted and explained by Mammata it is clear that this kind of sakar is possible only in the case of arthālaṃkāras or figures of sense Doubt such as gives rise to sandehasakar is not possible in the case of śabdālaṃkāras Neither Mammata nor any of the other rhetoricians mentions this important characteristic of sandehasakar

यत्र तु न संदेहः — Mammata defined संदेहसकर as the uncertanity regarding which is the figure in a particular stanza arising from the absence of a favourable reason and an unfavourable reason for understanding any one figure as the figure therein. Now he tells us that when ( यत्र ) viz. a favourable reason ( न्याय ) and an unfavourable reason ( दोष ) is present,

yatra tu na sandehaḥ — Mammata defined sandehasakar as the uncertanity regarding which is the figure in a particular stanza arising from the absence of a favourable reason and an unfavourable reason for understanding any one figure as the figure therein. Now he tells us that when ( yatra ) viz. a favourable reason ( nyāya ) and an unfavourable reason ( doṣa ) is present,

Page 528

many ( एकतरस्य = बहूनामलङ्काराणा मध्ये एकस्य ) having been determined as the figure of the stanza, there is no doubt and consequently no संदेहसङ्कर

many (one of several ornaments) having been determined as the figure of the stanza, there is no doubt and consequently no confusion

न्यायश्र साधकत्वम् — Mammata now proceeds to define and illustrate the terms न्याय and दोष न्याय or a favourable reason means the property of being conducive ( साधकत्वम् ), or of being favourable

Mammata now proceeds to define and illustrate the terms न्याय and दोष न्याय or a favourable reason means the property of being conducive, or of being favourable

( अनुयुक्तता ), to a particular figure दोष or an unfavourable reason on the other hand means the property of being adverse or detrimental ( बाधकत्वम् ), or of being unfavourable ( प्रतिकूलता ), to a particular figure

to a particular figure दोष or an unfavourable reason on the other hand means the property of being adverse or detrimental, or of being unfavourable, to a particular figure

Pratihārendurāja explains these terms in a simple manner न्याय साधक प्रमाणम् दोषो बाधक प्रमाणम् ll p 64

Pratihārendurāja explains these terms in a simple manner न्याय is a favourable proof and दोष is an unfavourable proof p 64

Stanza 184—This line of a stanza describes the lovely face of a laughing lass and is an example of a न्याय or a favourable reason

Here the apparently doubtful word is वक्त्रशशी इव ( उपमा ), or as वक्त्रमेव शशी ( रूपकम् ) 2 हास्युतिरूपक is the deciding expression It its primary sense हास्युतिर् is applicable to the face only For, laugh primarily belongs to the face and not to the moon Therefore, it is said that हास्युतिर् attains favourableness of Simile in the face and thus leads to उपमा But हास्युतिर् is at the same time not quite so unfavourable to रूपक For, the moon can be said to laugh metaphorically in the sense of shining with its light.

Therefore, हास्युतिर् is not detrimental ( बाधक ) to Metaphor साधिक्रा वाचि ' प्रदीप

Therefore, हास्युतिर् is not detrimental to Metaphor

उपमया³ साधकम् —Here we expect the words to be उपमया साधिका, as the expression refers to हास्युतिर् As it is, साधकम् should be regarded as having been used in the neuter, according to the Vārtika ' सामान्ये नपुंसकम् '

Here we expect the words to be उपमया साधिका, as the expression refers to हास्युतिर् As it is, साधकम् should be regarded as having been used in the neuter, according to the Vārtika 'In general, the neuter is used'

Stanza 185—This line of a stanza is another example of a न्याय or second ) is the deciding factor When the regular moon is spoken of as ' another ' or ' second, ' it follows that one moon has already been referred to That, moon is naturally the moon in the form of the face ( वक्त्रमेव इन्दु ) Thus, the idea of अपर is favourable to the moon 1 e. favourable to the comprehension of the moon as principal in the word वक्त्रेन्दु ( इन्दो अनुग्रुणम् = वक्त्रेन्दी इत्यत्र इन्दो प्रधानतया प्रतीतो अनुग्रुलम्.) Hence, अपरत्वम् conduces to the figure रूपक, wherein the moon is apprehended as principal Here also we have to note that अपरत्व is not unfavourable to the face 1 e is not detrimental to Simile ( वक्त्रम् इन्दुरिव ), wherein the face is apprehended as principal.

Stanza 185—This line of a stanza is another example of a न्याय or second ) is the deciding factor When the regular moon is spoken of as ' another ' or ' second, ' it follows that one moon has already been referred to That, moon is naturally the moon in the form of the face Thus, the idea of अपर is favourable to the moon i.e. favourable to the comprehension of the moon as principal in the word वक्त्रेन्दु Hence, अपरत्वम् conduces to the figure रूपक, wherein the moon is apprehended as principal Here also we have to note that अपरत्व is not unfavourable to the face i.e. is not detrimental to Simile, wherein the face is apprehended as principal.

Page 529

For, we can somehow understand अपर in the sense of 'other than the face' and thus avoid the suggestion that one moon has been mentioned before Hence, अपरत्र does not become detrimental to Simile

Mammata has so far quoted two examples of न्याय, one of a reason favourable to उपमा and the other of a reason favourable to रूपक Now he cites two examples of दोष, one of a reason unfavourable to उपमा and the other of a reason unfavourable to रूपक

Stanza 186—Here the doubtful word is राजनारायणम् Is this to be dissolved as 'राजा नारायण इव तमू' (उपमा), or 'राजा एव नारायण तमू' (रूपकम्) आलिङ्गन is the deciding expression Embrace, practised by the beloved of another towards some one who is similar to her lover (सदृशम् = स्वप्रियकृतसदृशम्), is impossible Therefore, आलिङ्गन drives away or rules out Simile For, if we understand a Simile here, the उपमेय viz the king would be prominent and embrace would have to be construed with him And this is impossible, as we have just seen Therefore, आलिङ्गन is बाधक of उपमा Consequently, राजनारायणम् must be understood to be an example of रूपकम् (राजा एव नारायण तमू)

It will be seen that when we say that आलिङ्गन is बाधक of उपमा, it follows that it is साधक of रूपक But it is not referred to in that character, because, as Mammata will tell us at the end of his Vritti on the next illustration, बाधकत्व which definitely rules out a certain figure, is apprehended more prominently than साधकत्व

Stanza 187—This stanza is धर्मचार्यy's पद्यास्तवती 111 1 The first two lines are 'आनन्दमयसपुरन्दरदरुकतमताल्र्य मौलौ हृ्टेन निहिते महिषाङ्कुरस्य ।' This stanza is also quoted in the अलङ्कारसर्वस्व p 179, the कुवलयानन्द p 179 and the अलङ्कारकौस्तुभ p 412 Here the apparently doubtful word is पादाम्बुजम् Is this to be dissolved as पाद एव अम्बुजम् (रूपकम्), or पाद अम्बुजमिव (उपमा)

The deciding word is मञ्जुमधुरोज्ज्वलितमनोहरम् (मञ्जुना मधुरेण मञ्जीरस्य नूपुरस्य विधितेन र्णितेन मनोहरम् मनोरमम्) The jingling of an anklet is unfavourable to a lotus, because it is impossible for a lotus to have any connection with it Therefore, the jingling is stated to be contradictory or detrimental to metaphor For, if पादाम्बुजम् were a metaphor (पाद एव अम्बुजम्), अम्बुजम् would be principal But मञ्जीरविजितम् cannot be connected with it Hence, we must not understand a metaphor in पादाम्बुजम् e we must not dissolve it as पाद एव अम्बुजम्, but as पाद अम्बुजमिव so as to bring out an उपमा or a simile

न तु पादे श्रनुकूल ...प्रतिपत्ते —We have seen before that मञ्जीरविजितम् is unfavourable to अम्बुज and hence detrimental to रूपक. From this it

Page 530

Page 125 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash ४७९

Page 125 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash 479

follows that it is favourable to उपमा and hence conducive to उपमाशब्दक in preference to रूपकवाधक, because a reason which is detrimental to a certain figure and, therefore, sets aside or negatives the presence or understanding of that figure

follows that it is favourable to upama and hence conducive to upamashabda in preference to rupakabadaka, because a reason which is detrimental to a certain figure and, therefore, sets aside or negatives the presence or understanding of that figure

(विध्युपमर्दिन्= विधि विधान विहित ज्ञात अलंकार इत्यर्थे तमुपमर्दोऽयिंति निराकृतं श्लेषमस्य तस्य, कस्याचिदलंकारस्य विधिं विधान सिध्यति प्रतिपत्ति वा निराकृतोऽस्त्यर्थः), is apprehended more prominently than that i e than a reason which is favourable to the understanding of another figure

(vidhyupamardin= vidhi vidhan vihita jñāta alaṃkāra ityarthe tamupamardo'yinti nirākṛtaṃ śleṣamasya tasya, kasyacidalaṃkārasya vidhiṃ vidhan sidhyati pratipatti vā nirākṛto'styarthaḥ), is apprehended more prominently than that i e than a reason which is favourable to the understanding of another figure

(तदपेक्षया=साधकापेक्षया)

(tadapekṣayā=sādhakāpekṣayā)

The question here is Should मज्जीरशोभितम् or the abjective मञ्जुमज्जीरशोभितमनोज्ञारम्, which is both detrimental to Metaphor and conducive to Simile, be designated रूपकवाधक or उपमासाधक ? The answer is that in such cases the rule 'प्राधान्येन व्यपदेशा भवन्ति' is to be followed.

The question here is Should majjīraśobhitam or the abjective manjumajjīraśobhitamanojñāram, which is both detrimental to Metaphor and conducive to Simile, be designated rupakavadaka or upamasādhaka ? The answer is that in such cases the rule 'prādhānyena vyapadeśā bhavanti' is to be followed.

In the present case it is maintained that वाधकत्व or the character of being detrimental to figure is apprehended more prominently than साधकत्व or the character of being conducive to a figure

In the present case it is maintained that vādhakatva or the character of being detrimental to figure is apprehended more prominently than sādhakatva or the character of being conducive to a figure

For, while वाधकत्व is decisive, साधकत्व is not definitely so

For, while vādhakatva is decisive, sādhakatva is not definitely so

When we say that an attribute such as मज्जीरशोभितम् is वाधक or detrimental to रूपक, it definitely rules out the possibility of that figure being there.

When we say that an attribute such as majjīraśobhitam is vādhaka or detrimental to rupaka, it definitely rules out the possibility of that figure being there.

On the other hand, when we say हंसती is साधक or favourable to उपमा in 'मुखचन्द्र हसति', it does not definitely set aside the possibility of its being somehow favourable to रूपक as well, for हसन is metaphorically applicable to चन्द्रः.

On the other hand, when we say hasati is sādhaka or favourable to upama in 'mukhacandra hasati', it does not definitely set aside the possibility of its being somehow favourable to rupaka as well, for hasana is metaphorically applicable to candraḥ.

Thus, वाधकत्व being free from any doubt and hence decisive appears more prominent than साधकत्व, which is not so decisive, because it affords scope for some doubt that another figure may also be possible.

Thus, vādhakatva being free from any doubt and hence decisive appears more prominent than sādhakatva, which is not so decisive, because it affords scope for some doubt that another figure may also be possible.

विध्युपमर्दिनः has been understood above in the sense of 'setting aside or negativing the presence or understanding (विधि) of a certain figure,'

vidhyupamardinaḥ has been understood above in the sense of 'setting aside or negativing the presence or understanding (vidhi) of a certain figure,'

The Pradīpa notes another interpretation, according to which the expression means 'more powerful than साधक, or favourable (विधि साधकम् तदुपमर्दि तस्मात् बल्लीयः)'

The Pradīpa notes another interpretation, according to which the expression means 'more powerful than sādhaka, or favourable (vidhi sādhakam tadupamardi tasmāt ballīyaḥ)'

साधक is more powerful than साधक, because it is the basis on which साधक is founded.

sādhaka is more powerful than sādhaka, because it is the basis on which sādhaka is founded.

As long as we do not know that मज्जीरशोभितम् is impossible in a lotus, we cannot be sure that it leads to उपमा alone

As long as we do not know that majjīraśobhitam is impossible in a lotus, we cannot be sure that it leads to upama alone

एवमन्यत्रापि परीक्ष्यम्— Supply साधकवाधकत्वम्.

evamanyatrāpi parīkṣyam— Supply sādhakavādhakatvam.

Mammata here just tells us that in other places also the question as to whether an adjective is साधक or वाधक shovld be examined in the same way

Mammata here just tells us that in other places also the question as to whether an adjective is sādhaka or vādhaka should be examined in the same way

In this connection the Udyota quotes 'यस्याङ्गनारी दिव्यपददरषणारविन्दरुचिरस्मित-अफिफलारविन्दमा' as an example where उदस्पत्नित is वाधक of उपमा, because उत्कंसन cannot possibly go with a foot

In this connection the Udyota quotes 'yasyāṅganārī divyapadadaraṇāravindaruciraśmit-aphifalāravindamā' as an example where udaspatnita is vādhaka of upama, because utkamsana cannot possibly go with a foot

Page 531

सुटमेकत्र व्यवस्थित च —

This is Mammta's definition of the third variety of सकर, known as एकपदप्रतिपायसकर

It arises when two figures, one of word and the other of sense, are distinctly (सुटम् is to be taken as an adverb as is shown by its paraphrase सुटतया ) stationed ( व्यवस्थित ) in one province or place i e in one word ' अभिये ( not different i e the same ) एव पदे ' is the paraphrase of एकत्र विषये Thus, एकपदप्रतिपायसकर arises when one figure of word and one of sense are distinctly found in one word

Stanza 188—This is रत्नाकर's हरविजय 19 1 and contains a description of the evening

निर्णयसागर edition reads ' स्पष्टेच्छसन् ' for ' कलापमुषावतार ' for ' कलापमुखावतार ' The Principal clause is दिवसारविन्द ( दिवस एवं अरविन्दम् ) सञ्चुकोच ( Perfect 3rd singular from सम् + कुच्‍ञ्. कुचति to contract or close)

स्पष्ट यथा स्यात् तथा उल्लसन्त सुरन्त किरणा एवं केसराः किजल्का ( filaments ) यस्य ताहश, सूर्यबिम्ब रविमण्डलमेव विस्तीर्णी विशाला कर्णिका वराट ( pericarp or seed -vessel ) यस्य तथाभूतम्

The lotus in the form of the day possessed the shining rays of the sun for its filaments and the orb of the sun for its pericarp or seed-vessel

क्षित्या परस्परसम्बद्धा श्रृङ्गे दिशा एवं दलकलाप यस्य ताहश मुख रात्रौ प्रारम्भ तस्य अवतारेण आगमनेन बद्ध रचित अन्यकार एवं मधुपावलि अमरपङ्क्ति यस्य तथाभूतम्

With the निर्णयसागर reading ' कलापमुषावतार , ' क्षिताश्रयदलकलापम् is one adjective and उषावतारकदम्बकामधुपावलि is another

Here उषावतार means राज्यवतार Note ' उषा रात्रिनिशां शिभि ' हैम

The day-lotus had the closely-connected quarters for its collection of petals and the darkness formed at the advent of the evening for its row of bees

Here in each of the expressions ' किरणकेसर ' ' सूर्यबिम्बविस्तीर्णकर्णिक ' ' दिवसारविन्द ' ' क्षिताश्रयदलकलाप ' and ' अन्यकारमधुपावलि ' we have a शब्दालङ्कार viz अनुप्रास and an अर्थालङ्कार viz रूपक

Thus, the stanza really contains five examples of एकपदप्रतिपायसकर

The word एकपद in ' एकपदनुप्रनिष्टो ' stands for each of the five expressions pointed out above

It will be noticed that the whole stanza contains an elaborate metaphor and is an example of समस्तवस्तुविषय साङ्ग रूपक

From Mammata's definition of एकपदप्रतिपायसकर it is clear that according to him this kind of सकर arises when one शब्दालङ्कार and one अर्थालङ्कार are found in one word

Ruyyaka does not like this idea however

He maintains that this सकर is developed even when two शब्दालङ्कारs or two अर्थालङ्कारs occur in one place

Viśvanàtha holds the same view

According to the Pradipa एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसकर arises also when two शब्दालङ्कारs are seen in one place

Here अनुप्रास is developed by the

Page 532

repetition of the consonants क् and ड् and यमक is formed by the repetition of लकलो

With reference to the view of Ruyyaka and others that एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसकर 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 In the examples of एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसकर of two शब्दालंकारs and two अर्थालंकारs, that have been quoted above, we note that the संकर occurs, not in एकपद, but in अनेक पदs Therefore, if any regard is to be paid to the expression एकपद we must hold with Mammata that एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसंकर occurs only by the commixture of one शब्दालंकार and one अर्थालंकार Two शब्दालंक rs and two अर्थालंकारs are not possible in एकपद or अभित्रे एव पदे If, how ever, we understand एकपद or अभित्रे एव पदे as an उपलक्षण, or hold that the singular in these two expressions is not विवक्षित, or interpret विषय and पद in the sense of a stanza, it would be possible to have एकपद प्रतिपाद्यसकर of two शब्दालंकारs or two अर्थालंकारs in अनेक पदs But this would certalnly not be Mammata's view

तेन ( उपरिनिर्दिष्टप्रकारेण ) हि ( संकर ) त्रिधा परिकोतीत —Mammata 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 अनुप्रासाद्याहकभावसकर, सदेहसकर and एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसकर

Thus (in the manner described above) it is divided into three - Mammata 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 अनुप्रासाद्याहकभावसकर, सदेहसकर and एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसकर

प्रकारान्तरेण तथ्रभेदानाम—that three broad divisions of संकर, given by him above, are the only practicable divisions Not that it is absolutely impossible to divide सकर in other ways ( प्रकारान्तरेण इति समुहेतुचचनम् । प्रकारान्तरैरित्यर्थः ) For example, the अननुप्रासानुप्राहकभावसकर and एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसकर can be regarded as having as many divisions as there are possible combinations of the शब्दालंकारs and the अर्थालंकारs treated of in the 9th and the 10th Ullāsas But such divisions ( तथ्रभेदानाम= प्रकारान्तरेण व्याकृतस्य तथा सकरस्य प्रभेदानाम् ) would be almost endless and hence not possible to be mentioned

In another way, the sub-divisions - that three broad divisions of संकर, given by him above, are the only practicable divisions Not that it is absolutely impossible to divide सकर in other ways For example, the अननुप्रासानुप्राहकभावसकर and एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसकर can be regarded as having as many divisions as there are possible combinations of the शब्दालंकारs and the अर्थालंकारs treated of in the 9th and the 10th Ullāsas But such divisions would be almost endless and hence not possible to be mentioned

सृष्टि 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 सृष्टि 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

Page 533

एति प्रतिपादिता अलंकारा —

This sentence, which concludes Mammata's treatment of figures, tells us that figures, according to Mammata, are of three kinds viz. शब्दालंकार, अर्थालंकार and उभयालंकार.

कुत 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.

तुल्ये काव्यशोभातिशयहेतुत्वे

All figures are equally the cause of imparting excellence of beauty to poetry.

व्यवस्था दोषगुणालंकारवैचित्र्याद् अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां प्रवर्तते ।

In answer to this question Mammata says he has already stated in the 9th Ullāsa that in the matter of the arrangement (व्यवस्था) of defects (दोष), excellences (गुण) and figures (अलंकार) 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, अन्वय or presence and व्यतिरेक or absence alone are competent (प्रवर्तते), because no other reason, which can satisfactorily account for this division, exists.

अर्थालंकारः ।

This means that the basis of the division of दोष, गुण and अलंकार into शब्दगत, अर्थगत and उभयगत is the presence and absence of शब्द, अर्थ and both शब्द and अर्थ respectively.

यमकं शब्दालंकारः ।

The idea is that a figure is determined to belong to that whose presence and absence it follows.

स्मरमते रमतेऽस्म वचोज्झलने ।

Thus, if a figure is present when a certain word is present and is absent, it is a शब्दालंकार.

रघुवंश 9.47

For example, यमक is a शब्दालंकार.

उपमा रूपकं वा ।

An example of यमक is स्मरमते रमतेऽस्म वचोज्झलने.

मुखचन्द्रः ।

Here if we substitute कामाभिप्राये for स्मरमते, or मोदते for रमतेः, the figure यमक would vanish.

वदनेन्दु, वक्त्रशशि, आस्यमृगाङ्क etc ।

Thus, as यमक follows the presence and absence of certain words, it is determined to be a शब्दालंकार.

रूपकं ।

Then again, उपमा or रूपक is an अर्थालंकार.

मुखं, चन्द्रः ।

मुखचन्द्र is an example of either उपमा or रूपक.

विदग्धमानीषिहृदयैः ।

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.

अर्थालंकारः ।

Thus, वदनेन्दु, वक्त्रशशी, आस्यमृगाङ्क etc. are all examples of either उपमा or रूपक.

श्लिष्टवाचकपरंपरितरूपकम्,

But if we use merely मुखं or merely चन्द्रः, the figures उपमा and रूपक would not arise.

उभयालंकारः ।

Thus, as उपमा and रूपक follow the presence and absence of the sense 'face-moon', they are determined to be अर्थालंकार.

Further, श्लिष्टवाचकपरंपरितरूपकम्, illustrated in विदग्धमानीषिहृदयैः, is, as we have already seen (Vide pp. 56 and 443), really an उभयालंकार.

Page 534

or शब्दार्थालङ्कार, because it follows the presence and absence of both the particular sense as well as the particular word viz मानस

or śabdārthālaṃkāra, because it follows the presence and absence of both the particular sense as well as the particular word viz mānas

It will thus be seen that according to Mammata the basis of the threefold division of figures, as of defects and excellences, is अन्वय and व्यतिरेक

This अन्वय-व्यतिरेक basis of division is practically the same as the basis of शब्दपरिसृष्टि शब्दालङ्कारs are शब्दपरिसृष्टिसह 1 e in शब्दालङ्कारs we cannot change the particular words, which give rise to the particular figures, and substitute synonyms in their place अर्थालङ्कारs on the other hand are शब्दपरिसृष्टिसह 1 e in figures of sense we can exchange the words for their synonyms, but we must not change the sense

This anvaya-vyatireka basis of division is practically the same as the basis of śabdaparisṛṣṭi śabdālaṃkāras are śabdaparisṛṣṭisaha 1 e in śabdālaṃkāras we cannot change the particular words, which give rise to the particular figures, and substitute synonyms in their place arthālaṃkāras on the other hand are śabdaparisṛṣṭisaha 1 e in figures of sense we can exchange the words for their synonyms, but we must not change the sense

उभयालङ्कारs are those in which some word admits of change with a synonym, while another does not.

उक्तमत्र- This refers to what Mammata has said in the 9th Ullāsa That passage reads 'इह दोषगुणालङ्काराणा शब्दार्थंगनत्वेन यो विभाग स अन्वयव्यतिरेककार्यामेव व्यवलितष्ठते । तथाहि । कष्यतादिगाढरववायुप्रसादाय व्यर्थतादिप्रौढचायुपमादयस्तद्धावनाजुविभावितादेव शब्दार्थंगतत्वेन व्यवस्थ्यन्ते ।' p 518 (नामनाचायं)

uktamatra- This refers to what Mammata has said in the 9th Ullāsa That passage reads 'iha doṣaguṇālaṃkārāṇāṃ śabdārthāṃganatvena yo vibhāga sa anvayavyatirekāryāmeva vyavalitṣṭhate । tathāhi । kaṣyatādigāḍharavavāyuprasādāya vyarthatādiprouḍhāyupamādayastaddhāvanājuvibhāvitādeva śabdārthāṃgatvena vyavasthāyante ।' p 518 (nāmanācāyṃ)

अन्वयव्यतिरेकी- These words mean presence and absence, or invari-able association and its absence

anvayavyatirekī- These words mean presence and absence, or invari-able association and its absence

कस्यचिद् वस्तुन सत्वे कस्यचिदर्शनस्य वस्तुन सत्वेन्वय । यथा धूमस्य सत्वे वह्नि सत्त्वम् । कस्यचिद् वस्तुन अभावे कस्यचिदनस्य वस्तुन अभावो व्यतिरेक । यथा वह्नेरभावे धूमस्य अभाव ।

एवं च यथा लक्षित —In this paragraph Mammata tells us that just as the शब्दालङ्कार पुनरुक्तवदाभास and the अर्थालङ्कार (श्लिष्टे वाचके) परपरितल्पकम are उभयालङ्कारs, because they follow the presence and absence of both word and sense, even so the अर्थालङ्कार श्लेषहेतुक 1 e श्लेषमूलक अर्थान्तरन्यास is an उभयालङ्कार

evaṃ ca yathā lakṣita —In this paragraph Mammata tells us that just as the śabdālaṃkāra punaruktavadābhāsa and the arthālaṃkāra (ślisṭe vācake) paraparitalpakaṃ are ubhayālaṃkāras, because they follow the presence and absence of both word and sense, even so the arthālaṃkāra śleṣahetuka 1 e śleṣamūlaka arthāntaranyāsa is an ubhayālaṃkāra

But in these (श्लिष्टशब्दनिबन्धन) परपरितल्पक and शब्दहेतुक अर्थान्तरन्यास strikingness or charm of sense shines prominently

is the reason why these two are treated among figures of sense (वाच्यालङ्कारस्थे=अर्थालङ्कारमध्ये) even against the true state of things viz that they are उभयालङ्कारs

is the reason why these two are treated among figures of sense (vācyālaṃkārasathe=arthālaṃkāramadhye) even against the true state of things viz that they are ubhayālaṃkāras

Though Mammata does not say so definitely, he evidently means that पुनरुक्तवदाभास has likewise been treated among figures of word, because therein the strikingness of word appears prominently

The figure पुनरुक्तवदाभास has been dealt with by Mammata at the end of the 9th Ullāsa, which is devoted to figures of word

It is thus defined punaruktavadābhāso vibhāvakāraśabdagā । ekārthateva, śabdasya tathā śabdārthayorayaṃ ।। Viśvanātha's definition is 'āpātato yadarathasya ponaḥkṛtyāvabhāsanam । punaruktavadābhāsa sa milyākāra śābdagā ।' sāhityadarpaṇa X

It is thus defined पुनरुक्तवदाभासो विभावकारशब्दगा । एकार्थतेव, शब्दस्य तथा शब्दार्थयोःरयम् ।। Viśvanātha's definition is 'आपाततो यदर्थस्य पोनःकृत्यावभासनम् । पुनरुक्तवदाभास स मिल्याकारा शाब्दगा ।' साहित्यदर्पण X

2 This figure occurs when words of

Page 535

different form and different meaning create a superficial impression of repeated sense पुनरुक्तवदाभास is both a शब्दालंकार and a शब्दार्थालंकार, as the last portion of Mammata's definiton states We are here concerned with the शब्दार्थालंकार or उभयालंकार पुनरुक्तवदाभास

different form and different meaning create a superficial impression of repeated sense Punruktavādābhāsa is both a Śabdālankāra and a Śabdārthālankāra, as the last portion of Mammata's definition states We are here concerned with the Śabdārthālankāra or Ubhayālankāra Punruktavādābhāsa

An example of (श्लेषैकद्वानेकवाच्ये) परंपरितलूपकम् is 'विद्रुमैरसंहितैः' (p 51) or 'सद्रससिक्तारत्नम्' (p 52) Here the words मानसंप् and वंग are परिकृतिसह, while the words इस and मुक्तारत्नम् are परिकृतिसह So this variety of परंपरितलूपक is an उभयालंकार

An example of (Śleṣaikadvānekavācye) Parampāritalakpam is 'Vidrumerasamhitaih' (p 51) or 'Sadrasasiktāratnam' (p 52) Here the words Mānasaṃ and Vaṃga are Parikrtisaha, while the words Isa and Muktāratnam are Parikrtisaha So this variety of Parampāritalakpam is an Ubhayālankāra

शब्दहेतुक्रोभ्यान्तरन्यास means अर्थान्तरन्यास caused by i e. based on word i e a figure of word such as श्लेष An example of such अर्थान्तरन्यास is उत्पादयति लोकस्य प्रोतिं मलयमारुतः । ननु दक्षिणस्य सपत्नः सर्वस्य भवति प्रियः ॥ दक्षिण्य-सपत्न = (1) दक्षिणदिगागत (2) सारल्यादिगुणवान् Here the word दक्षिण्य is परिकृतिसह That is why the विशेषस्य सामान्येन समर्थनरूप अर्थान्तरन्यास in this stanza is an उभयालंकार

Śabdhetukrohyāntaranyāsa means Arthāntaranyāsa caused by i e. based on word i e a figure of word such as Śleṣa An example of such Arthāntaranyāsa is Utpādayati lokasya Protiṃ Malayamarutaḥ । Nanu Dakṣiṇasya Saptaḥ Sarvasya Bhavati Priyaḥ ॥ Dakṣiṇya-Sapta = (1) Dakṣiṇdigāgata (2) Sāralyādiguṇavān Here the word Dakṣiṇya is Parikrtisaha That is why the Viśeṣasya Sāmānyena Samarthanārūpa Arthāntaranyāsa in this stanza is an Ubhayālankāra

शब्दहेतुकायोन्तरन्यासप्रभृतयोपि—By the word प्रभृति here are to be understood all those figures of word which are based on श्लेष Thus, 'सकलकल ( सकला कला यस्म तन् =कलकलैन सहित यत् तत् ) प्रभेतेज्जात संपति सुधाजु-बिम्बमिव' is an example of शब्दहेतुका or श्लेषमूला उभा It is really an उभयालंकार, because the word सकलकलम् is परिकृतिसह

Śabdhetukāyontaranyāsaprabhṛtyopi—By the word Prabhṛti here are to be understood all those figures of word which are based on Śleṣa Thus, 'Sakalakala ( Sakalā Kalā Yasm Tan = Kalakalan Saha Yat Tat ) Prabhetejjāta Saṃpati Sudhājubimbamiva' is an example of Śabdhetukā or Śleṣamūlā Ubhā It is really an Ubhayālankāra, because the word Sakalakalam is Parikṛtisaha

तत्र = परंपरितलूपके शब्दहेतुकार्थान्तरन्यासप्रभृतिषु च उभयालंकारेषु वस्तुस्थितिम् = तथाभूयालंकारत्वम्

Tatra = Parampāritalakpake Śabdhetukārthāntaranyāsaprabhṛtiṣu ca Ubhayālankāreṣu Vastusthitim = Tathābhūyālankāratvam

It may be noted that this paragraph offers further indications of Mammata's loose writing The figures पुनरुक्तवदाभास and परंपरितलूपकम् are each of two kinds Out of these four only two viz शब्दार्थयोः पुनरुक्तवदाभास and श्लेषे वाच्ये परंपरितलूपकम् follow the presence and absence of both word and sense and are hence उभयालंकार's But Mammata does not tell us this definitely He uses the words पुनरुक्तवदाभास and परंपरितलूपकम् generally This is inexact writing

It may be noted that this paragraph offers further indications of Mammata's loose writing The figures Punruktavādābhāsa and Parampāritalakpam are each of two kinds Out of these four only two viz Śabdārthayoḥ Punruktavādābhāsa and Śleṣe Vācye Parampāritalakpam follow the presence and absence of both word and sense and are hence Ubhayālankāra's But Mammata does not tell us this definitely He uses the words Punruktavādābhāsa and Parampāritalakpam generally This is inexact writing

Secondly, Mammata mentions शब्दहेतुकार्थान्तरन्यास as though the figure has been treated of before and is known to his readers But no reference to this variety of अर्थान्तरन्यास, or to a possibility of अर्थान्तरन्यास proceeding from शब्द or श्लेष, is made in his treatment of that figure.

Secondly, Mammata mentions Śabdhetukārthāntaranyāsa as though the figure has been treated of before and is known to his readers But no reference to this variety of Arthāntaranyāsa, or to a possibility of Arthāntaranyāsa proceeding from Śabda or Śleṣa, is made in his treatment of that figure.

Thirdly, in 'अर्थेऽस्तु तत्र वैचित्र्यम्' तत्र would naturally refer to all the three उभयालंकार's mentioned in the preceding sentence But it is intended to stand for only two viz परंपरितलूपक and शब्दहेतुकार्थान्तरन्यासप्रभृति

Thirdly, in 'Arthe'stu Tatra Vaicitryam' Tatra would naturally refer to all the three Ubhayālankāra's mentioned in the preceding sentence But it is intended to stand for only two viz Parampāritalakpam and Śabdhetukārthāntaranyāsaprabhṛti

Fourthly, लक्षिता is not strictly true of शब्दहेतुकार्थान्तरन्यास, because it is not defined among the figures of sense at all And fifthly, in this passage we expect Mammata to tell us why the really उभयालंकार (उभयार्थी) पुनरुक्तवदाभास has been treated of among figures of word

Fourthly, Lakṣitā is not strictly true of Śabdhetukārthāntaranyāsa, because it is not defined among the figures of sense at all And fifthly, in this passage we expect Mammata to tell us why the really Ubhayālankāra (Ubhayārthī) Punruktavādābhāsa has been treated of among figures of word

Page 536

Page 127 ] NOTES Tenth Flash 485

But he does not do so The reason ‘शब्दस्य तु तत्र वैचित्र्यमुक्ततया प्रातिभासते’ is left for us to infer

योड्लेकारो ज्यायान्.—Mammata has stated before that the mutual distinction or division ( परस्परव्यतिरेक ) of figures into शब्दालंकारs, अर्थालंकारs and उभयालंकारs is based on the अन्वय and व्यतिरेक of शब्द, अर्थ and शब्दार्थ respectively In this passage he criticizes the view that such division is based on आश्रयाश्रयिभाव According to this view a figure belongs to that ( तद्लेकार ) on which it is dependent or by which it is supported ( यदाश्रित ) Note ‘लोके हि योड्लेकारो यदाश्रित स तद्लेकारतयोच्यते यथा कुण्डलादि कर्णाश्रितसनदलकार । एवंविधापि शब्दार्थाश्रिततदलकार इति सिद्ध एवं विषयविभागरूप प्रतिनियमः’ Jayarath p 205 Thus, शब्दालंकारs, अर्थालंकारs and उभयालंकारs are those that possess शब्द, अर्थ and शब्दार्थ respectively as their support Against this view Mammata points out that it presupposes, or is itself based on, the idea of अन्वय and व्यतिरेक For, a specialized relation such as आश्रयाश्रयिभाव is not possible without resort to अन्वय and व्यतिरेक ( तदध्ययनम् = अन्वयव्यतिरेकयोः आश्रयणम् ) The idea is when we say that figures are supported by, or are dependent on, either अर्थ or शब्दार्थe, we mean that they follow the presence and absence of these So even when we accept आश्रयाश्रयिभावn as the basis of this three fold division of figures, we have to rely on the idea of अन्वय and व्यतिरेक as the basis of this आश्रयाश्रयिभावn It is, therefore, better to hold that the division is based on अन्वय and व्यतिरेक, as stated before

Who before Mammata held this view that आश्रयाश्रयिभाव is the basis of the division of figures into शब्दालंकारs, अर्थालंकारs and उभयालंकारs and whom consequently he is criticising here cannot be definitely known For, in none of Mammata’s well known predecessors, who have treated of figures, viz Bhāmaha, Dandin, Udbhata, Vāmana and Rudrata do we find this view mentioned Ruyyaka, who flourished after Mammata does not approve of Mammata’s अन्वय-व्यतिरेक basis and holds that the cause of the three-fold division of figures is आश्रयाश्रयिभाव Read ‘तत्र शब्दालंकारा यमकादयः । अर्थालंकारा उपमादयः । उभयालंकारा लाटानुप्रासादयः । संछादनादिकरप्रकारयोगेपी कमक्षि(तद्व)त्पलात् । लोकवदाश्रयाश्रयिभाववश्त्तद्लेकार निवन्धनम् । अन्वयव्यतिरेकैः तत्रैव प्रयोजकौ, न तद्लेकारत्वे । तद्लेकारप्रयोजकत्वे तु श्रौतोपमादेरपि शब्दालंकारत्वं प्रसज्यात् । तस्मादाश्रयाश्रयिभावेनैव चिरन्तनमतानुसारम्(त्ति) । अलंकारसर्वेस्व pp 204-205 The last sentence of this quotation suggests that the opinion that आश्रयाश्रयिभाव forms the basis of the three-fold division of the figures is ancient But as we noted above we are unable to trace which ancient rhetorician is responsible for it

According to the Agnipurāṇa the basis of this three-fold division is apparently अलंकरण or embellishment Figures of word embellish word

Page 537

those of sense and those of both word and sense embellish both word and sense Read अध्याय 344 and 345

those of sense and those of both word and sense embellish both word and sense Read chapter 344 and 345

Many commentators such as the authors of the Udyota and the Prabha and Vāmanacarya say that Mammata here criticizes the view of Ruyyaka This, we have to point out once more, is impossible, because Mammata is a predecessor of Ruyyaka and not a successor

Many commentators such as the authors of the Udyota and the Prabha and Vāmanacarya say that Mammata here criticizes the view of Ruyyaka. This, we have to point out once more, is impossible, because Mammata is a predecessor of Ruyyaka and not a successor.

Page 128

Kārikā 56—Ancient writers like Bhāmaha, Dandin, Vāmana, Rudrata and Bhoja mention defects of certain figures, while dealing with them Mammata does not do this He states the reason for doing so in this Kārikā Though some faults of these figures ( एषाम् = अलङ्काराणा शब्दालङ्काराणामर्थालङ्काराणा 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 = समेष्वोल्लासप्रोक्तेषु ) in the 7th Ullasa The 7th Ullasa treats of काव्यदोषs Mammata'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

Kārikā 56—Ancient writers like Bhāmaha, Dandin, Vāmana, Rudrata and Bhoja mention defects of certain figures, while dealing with them. Mammata does not do this. He states the reason for not doing so in this Kārikā. Though some faults of these figures (these include both word and sense embellishments) are possible, they have not been separately explained or treated, because they are included, according to special circumstances, in the faults already mentioned in the 7th Ullasa. The 7th Ullasa treats of poetic defects. Mammata's plea is that defects in figures are not so distinct from poetic defects as to merit separate treatment. They can be shown to fall under one or other of the poetic defects dealt with in the 7th Ullāsa.

In the remaining part of the 10th Ullāsa what Mammata 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

In the remaining part of the 10th Ullāsa, what Mammata does is to enumerate certain defects in figures, which have apparently been mentioned by previous writers, and to state that they are included under one or the other of the poetic defects treated by him in the 7th Ullāsa.

अनुप्रासदोषा

Defects in Alliteration

Three defects of अनुप्रास viz प्रसिद्धयभाव ( absence of known ness ), वैफल्यम् ( fruitlessness ) and वृत्तिविरोध ( opposition to style ) are mentioned Mammata declares that these three are not respectively ( यथाक्रमम् ) different from प्रसिद्धिविरुद्धता ( Opposition to Usage ), अप्राशर्थेनवम् ( 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 प्रसिद्धभाव , वैफल्यम् and वृत्तिविरोध as defects of अनुप्रास is not known Evidently some predecessor of Mammata must have done so

Three defects of alliteration, namely, absence of known-ness, fruitlessness, and opposition to style, are mentioned. Mammata declares that these three are not respectively different from opposition to usage, non-nourishment of sense, and unfavourableness of letters, which have been enumerated among poetic defects in the 7th Ullāsa, because both possess the same nature. It is not known who has mentioned the absence of known-ness, fruitlessness, and opposition to style as defects of alliteration. Evidently, some predecessor of Mammata must have done so.

प्रसिद्धविरुद्धता or opposition to what is well known has been mentioned by Mammata among 23 अर्थदोषs in the 7th Ullāsa It is of two kinds viz ( 1 ) लोकप्रसिद्धविरुद्धता and ( 2 ) कविप्रसिद्धविरुद्धता An example of ( 1 ) is इदं तै केनोक्तम् ? quoted by मम्मट in the 7th उल्लास to illustrate the defect called प्रसिद्धविरोध 'पादाघातादशोकेन संजाताहकुरकण्टक ।' अत्र पादाघातादशोके

Opposition to what is well known has been mentioned by Mammata among 23 defects of meaning in the 7th Ullāsa. It is of two kinds, namely, (1) opposition to what is well known in the world and (2) opposition to what is well known among poets. An example of (1) is 'इदं तै केनोक्तम् ?' quoted by Mammata in the 7th Ullāsa to illustrate the defect called opposition to what is well known, 'पादाघातादशोकेन संजाताहकुरकण्टक ।' Here, 'पादाघातादशोके'.

Page 538

पुष्पोद्रम एव कविप्रसिद्ध, न तु अकृत्रिमोद्रम इति कविप्रसिद्धिविरुद्धता।

Puspodram eva kavprasiddh, na tu aktrimodram iti kavprasiddhiviruddhata.

Is an example of (2)

अतिवितततगगनसरणिप्रसरणपरिस्फुरद्विश्रमानन्द। महुद्यैसितसौरभकमलाकरहासकृद रविज्जीयति।

Ativitata-gaganasarani-prasaran-parisphurad-vishramananda. Mahudyasita-saurabha-kamalakara-hasa-krd ravijjiyate.

Where अतिवितत and महुद्यैसितसौरभ are अपुष्टार्थ

प्रतिकूलवर्णता is a वाक्यदोष।

Pratikulvarnta is a vakya-dosa.

It consists in the use of words, which are made of such letters as are opposed to the development of the sentiment that is relevant

अकुण्ठेकण्ठया।

Akunthekanthaya.

(Stanza 192)

Stanza 189—This is मयूर's सूर्यशातक 71 and contains a description of the sun's chariot (अहिमहचे अग्नोतकिरणस्य स्पन्दन रथ)।

Stanza 189—This is Mayura's Suryasataka 71 and contains a description of the sun's chariot (ahimahache agnotkiranasya spandan ratha).

The stanza is an example of अनुप्रासस्य प्रसिद्धभाव Mayūra here tells us that certain gods praise certain parts of the sun's chariot

चक्राणां सराणां कीलकानां परिघ परापरम्।

Chakranam saranam kilakanam parigha paraparam.

Visnu (चक्र) is described as praising the row of the spokes of the wheels (चक्राणां सराणां कीलकानां परिघ परापरम्), simply because his name चक्री alliterates with चक्रार

Stanzas 190 and 191—These stanzas are quoted from क्षेमेन्द्र's काव्यलकार 2 22-23, where they occur as an illustration of the मझुरा गृहीते of अनुप्रास।

Stanzas 190 and 191—These stanzas are quoted from Ksemendra's Kavyalankara 2 22-23, where they occur as an illustration of the Madhura grhIte of anupraas.

Here they illustrate अनुप्रासस्य वैफल्यम्

अनणु तार यथा स्तात तथा रन्ती शब्दे कुवती मणिमेखला मणिचिता काञ्ची यस्मिन्। अविरतं सततं शिञ्जाने शब्दायमाने मज्जू सुमन्दरे मज्जोरे नूपुरे यस्तिमन्। रणरणकं उत्कण्ठाम्।

Ananu taara yathaa staat tatha rantii shabde kuvatii manimekhalaa manicittaa kaanchii yasmin. Aviratam satatam shinjane shabdaayaamaane majjuu sumandare majjoore nupure yastiman. Ranaranakam utkanthaam.

अत्र वाच्यस्य अनुप्रासस्य वैफल्यम् is contained in the adjectives अनणुरणन्मणिमेखलम् and अविरतशिञ्जानमज्जोझोरम्।

Atra vaachyasyaanupraasasya vaifalyam is contained in the adjectives ananuranmanimekhalam and aviratasinjanamajjozhoram.

The expressed sense of these two adjectives (वाच्यस्प = 'अनणुरणन्' 'अविरत०' इति विशेषणद्वयस्य वाच्यार्थस्य) is apprehended as possessing no charm whatsoever

Page 539

even when we ponder over the matter (विचिन्त्यमानम्) The adjectives have been used simply to develop अनुप्रास That is how they give rise to अनुप्रासस्य वैफल्यम् Mammata's idea is that this अनुप्रासस्य वैफल्यम् is nothing but his अपुष्टार्थता For, we can easily see that the adjectives do not nourish the relevant sense The lady's departure to her lover's abode causes anxiety to the disappointed suitor The jingling of her girdle and anklets has no effect on that anxiety, which would have been there even if there had been no jingling of those ornaments That is how these adjectives are अपुष्टार्थ Thus, what others call अनुप्रासस्य वैफल्यम् is nothing but अपुष्टार्थता

even when we ponder over the matter (विचिन्त्यमानम्) The adjectives have been used simply to develop anuprāsa That is how they give rise to the failure of anuprāsa Mammata's idea is that this failure of anuprāsa is nothing but his lack of clarity For, we can easily see that the adjectives do not nourish the relevant sense The lady's departure to her lover's abode causes anxiety to the disappointed suitor The jingling of her girdle and anklets has no effect on that anxiety, which would have been there even if there had been no jingling of those ornaments That is how these adjectives are not supporting the meaning Thus, what others call the failure of anuprāsa is nothing but lack of clarity

वाच्यस्य विचिन्त्यमानस्य (अपि) वाच्यस्य sense intended is विचिन्त्यमानस्य (अपि) वाच्यस्य

The intended meaning is of the expressed sense even when it is being contemplated

Stanza 192—The stanza is an address to a female messenger of sweet voice by a nāyaka and contains a request that she should secure for him an embrace of the nāyikā by the neck कल मधुर कण्ठ स्वर यस्या तत्सबुधि । अकुण्ठ अप्रतिहता सातिशया या उत्कृष्ट औत्कृष्य तथा आकृष्ट कण्ठपर्यन्ते पूर्ण भरिते मों करकुण्ठया कम्बु शक्कु से इव कण्ठे प्रिया यस्या तस्या नाथिकाया कण्ठे क्षणं कुरु, क्षणमात्रे तस्या कण्ठालिङ्गनं मा प्राप्तयस्वेत्यर्थ । कष्यार्तिं मदीया तदालिङ्गनौ स्तुक्याल्पा पीडाम् उद्धर दूरीकुरु ।

Stanza 192—The stanza is an address to a female messenger of sweet voice by a hero and contains a request that she should secure for him an embrace of the heroine by the neck O, you whose voice is sweet, whose intelligence is unobstructed and unsurpassed, and whose neck is fully filled with the ornaments like the conch shell, make her embrace me by the neck for a moment Do not let my pain last long, relieve the suffering caused by the longing for her embrace

This stanza is an example of अनुप्रासस्य वृत्तिविरोध वृत्ति here is the same as रीति or style Mammata mentions three वृत्तिस in the 9th Ullāsa viz उपनागरिक, परुषा and कोमला, which, he tells us, correspond to the three रीतिस, mentioned by Vāmana and others viz वैदर्भी, गौडी and पांचाली उपनागरिकी वृत्ति, which is characterized by letters that reveal the excellence, sweetness, is fit for the delineation of the sentiment of love In the above stanza the poet has adopted परुषा वृत्ति which contains रक्शार That is how it gives rise to अनुप्रासस्य वृत्तिविरोध Mamma ta's point in this connection is that this अनुप्रासस्य वृत्तिविरोध is nothing but प्रतिकूलवर्णता, which he has mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa Read 'अत्र उपनागरिकां विमुच्य पुरुषाया अझीकाराद् यो वृत्तिविरोध स वर्णप्रतिकूल्याभ्राप्तिरिति च्यते । प्रभा P 464

This stanza is an example of the conflict between anuprāsa and vṛtti Here, vṛtti is the same as rīti or style Mammata mentions three vṛttis in the 9th Ullāsa, namely, upanagarika, puruṣā, and koṃalā, which, he tells us, correspond to the three rītis mentioned by Vāmana and others, namely, vaidarbhī, gaudī, and pāñcālī The upanagariki vṛtti, which is characterized by letters that reveal excellence and sweetness, is fit for the delineation of the sentiment of love In the above stanza, the poet has adopted the puruṣā vṛtti, which contains harsh letters That is how it gives rise to the conflict between anuprāsa and vṛtti Mammata's point in this connection is that this conflict is nothing but the inappropriateness of the letters, which he has mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa

पूर्वोक्तरीत्या — This refers to what Mammata has said in the 8th Ullāsa regarding the use of certain kinds of letters to reveal the excellences such as माधुर्ये

As mentioned earlier — This refers to what Mammata has said in the 8th Ullāsa regarding the use of certain kinds of letters to reveal excellences such as sweetness

पादत्रययमनम् or rhyme in three quarters is a यमकदोष or defect of rhyme, which apparently had been noted by some ancient rhetorician Who this rhetorician was is again not known Mammata remarks

The rhyme in three quarters is a defect of rhyme, which apparently had been noted by some ancient rhetorician Who this rhetorician was is again not known Mammata remarks

Page 540

that the यमकदोष पादत्रययमननम् is covered by the दोष अप्रयुक्तत्वम्, which he has mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa among 16 पददोषs 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

that the Yamakadṛṣṭa Pādatrayayamanam is covered by the fault Apryukta, which he has mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa among 16 Pada faults Apryukta arises when a poet uses a certain thing, which, though sanctioned by such works as lexicons, is not made current by the general use of poets

Thus, the words दैवत and पथ् are given in the अमरकोष as both masculine and neuter But poets generally use these words in the neuter gender

Thus, the words Daivata and Path are given in the Amarakoṣa 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 Examples are (1) यथाय दारणाच्चार सर्वदैव विभाव्यते। तथा मन्ये दैवतौस्थ पिशाचो राक्षसौस्थ वा ॥ का प्र (2) भाति पथ्म- सरोवर । सा द

Consequently, if someone were to use them in the masculine gender, the defect Apryukta would arise. Examples are (1) Yathāya Dāṛṇāccāra Sarvadaiva Vibhāvyate. Tathā Manye Daivatostha Pischāco Rākṣasostha Vā ॥ Kā Pra (2) Bhāti Pathma- Sarovara । Sā Da

Similarly poets generally use यमक in one, two or four quarters, because there is the prohibition 'यमकं तु विधातव्यं न कदाचिदपि त्रिपात' But if a poet were to use it in three quarters, as in stanza 193, अप्रयुक्तत्व would arise Thus, पादत्रययमननम्, which is given as a यमकदोष by some, is nothing but अप्रयुक्तत्वम्

Similarly, poets generally use Yamaka in one, two, or four quarters because there is the prohibition 'Yamakaṃ tu vidhātavyaṃ na kadācidapi Tripat' But if a poet were to use it in three quarters, as in stanza 193, Apryukta would arise. Thus, Pādatrayayamanam, which is given as a Yamakadṛṣṭa by some, is nothing but Apryukta

Stanza 193—This stanza tells us by the use of similes how deceitful persons attract the heart of a man, though he may be aware of their wickedness सदृम्भा (1) सत् विद्यमानत्वम् अम्भः तेज यास्मिन् in which there is brilliancy (2) सत् समीचीनत्वम् अम्भ जलं यस्याम् in which there is good water (3) दुर्न्ताताम्=दु अन्त अन्तर्भाव अन्त करणमित्यर्थ येषा तेषा भाव ताम् प्राहे नकै (sharks) अवकोर्णा व्यासा (crowded.) प्रभु बलात्कारण

Stanza 193—This stanza tells us by the use of similes how deceitful persons attract the heart of a man, though he may be aware of their wickedness Sadṛśbhā (1) Sat Vidyamānatvam Ambhaḥ Teja Yāsmṛn in which there is brilliancy (2) Sat Samīcīnatvam Ambha Jalaṃ Yasyaam in which there is good water (3) Durntātām=Du Anta Antarbhāva Anta Karaṇamityartha Yeṣā Teṣā Bhāva Tāṃ Prāhe Nakai (sharks) Avakōṛṇā Vyāsā (crowded.) Prabhu Balātkāraṇa

Here the rhyme सदृम्भा occurs in three lines only That is how the defect पादत्रययमननम् is developed As poets do not generally compose such a rhyme, पादत्रययमननम् is nothing but the defect अप्रयुक्तत्वम् उपमादोषा

Here the rhyme Sadṛśbhā occurs in three lines only. That is how the defect Pādatrayayamanam is developed. As poets do not generally compose such a rhyme, Pādatrayayamanam is nothing but the defect Apryukta Upamādoṣā

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 —

Mammata notes 13 Upamādoṣas 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 —

(1) उपमानस्य जातिगतन्न्यूनता e g चण्डालिरेव =अनुचिता त्वम् (7) लिङ्भेद e g चिन्तार्तललामिव (2) उपमानस्य प्रमाणगतन्यूनता e g वह्निस्फुलिङ्ग इव =औचित्यम् (8) वचनभेद e g शक्तावो भक्तिता (3) उपमानस्य जातिगताधिक्यम् e g अयं पद्मासनासीना =हेतूपमा (9) कालभेद- = भमप्रक त्वम् (4) उपमानस्य प्रमाणगताधिक्यम् e g पातालस्पर्श =विप्रलम्भ (10) पुरुषभेद e g प्रत्यग्रमननन (5) उपमानस्य धर्मोश्र्यान्यनता e g स मुनि =नेपद (11) विधिभेद e g गत्वैव (6) उपमानस्य धर्मोश्र्याधिक्ष्यम् e g स पीतवासा =आधिक पदत्त्वम् (12) असादृश्यम् e g म्रश्रामि =असामान्यत्वम् (13) असंभव e g निपेष्टु

(1) Upamānasyā Jātigatannūnatā e.g. Chaṇḍālireva = Anucitā Tvam (7) Liṅgabheda e.g. Cintārtlalāmiva (2) Upamānasyā Pramāṇagatanyūnatā e.g. Vahnisphuliṅga Iva = Ōucityam (8) Vacanabheda e.g. Śaktāvo Bhaktitā (3) Upamānasyā Jātigatādhikyam e.g. Ayaṃ Padmāsanāsīnā = Hetūpamā (9) Kālabheda- = Bhramaprak Tvam (4) Upamānasyā Pramāṇagatādhikyam e.g. Pātālasparśa = Vipralambha (10) Puruṣabheda e.g. Pratyagramannanana (5) Upamānasyā Dharmaśryānyanatā e.g. Sa Muni = Nepada (11) Vidhibheda e.g. Gatvaiv (6) Upamānasyā Dharmaśryādhikṣyam e.g. Sa Pītavāsā = Ādhik Padatvam (12) Asādṛśyam e.g. Mraśrāmi = Asāmānyatvam (13) Asambhava e.g. Nipeṣṭu

Page 541

अनुचितार्थत्वम्

Inappropriateness of meaning

answers 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 तपस्विभिर्यो मुचिरेण लभ्यते प्रयत्नत: सत्रिभिरियत: च या । प्रयान्ति तामाशु गर्तिं यशस्तिनो रणाङ्गमेषे पङ्क्तिरपश्रुता viii Viśvanātha's illustration is ' शूरा अमरतां यान्ति पद्भ्रुता रणाङ्गरे '.

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 'तथाभता दृष्टा,' v 3 in 3rd उल्लास, on which Mammata observes 'अत्र' अस्माभि' इति, वित्ते इत्यस्मात् पूर्वम् 'इत्यम्' इति च [ पद न्यूनम् ] । काव्यप्रकाश vii It may be pointed out that Mammata designates this defect as न्यूनपदत्वम् in the 7th Ullāsa Why he paraphrases it here by हीनपदत्वम् is not clear.

The term हीनपदत्वम्, previously referred to as न्यूनपदत्वम्, is discussed among the वाक्यदोषs in the 7th Ullāsa. It involves the omission of a word necessary for understanding the sentence's meaning. An example is 'तथाभता दृष्टा,' found in verse 3 of the 3rd उल्लास. Mammata comments on it, 'अत्र' अस्माभि' इति, वित्ते इत्यस्मात् पूर्वम् 'इत्यम्' इति च [ पद न्यूनम् ] । This is discussed in काव्यप्रकाश vii. It is noteworthy that Mammata terms this defect न्यूनपदत्वम् in the 7th Ullāsa, and the reason for paraphrasing it as हीनपदत्वम् here is unclear.

Technical designations are in our opinion शब्दपरिक्रित्यसह 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 'स्फटिकाकृतिनिर्मैल प्रकामे प्रतिसेक्मतानिशातशाश्तलतव । अविरलदसमन्वितोफिक्रुजि:प्रतिमहास्तमयोदय स कोपि ॥' Here the word आकृति in स्फटिकाकृतिनिर्मैल is redundant स्फटिकनिर्मैल would have been enough to convey the intended sense Viśvanātha gives 'वाच्यशुवाच कौत्स' रघुवंश 5 30 as an example of अधिकपदत्वम्

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 ' यदनुपादाने अथों न बाधते ' But while an अधिक पद is absolutely redundant, an अपुष्टार्थ पद conveys a sense which though intended need not have been expressed

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 ' यदनुपादाने अथों न बाधते '. But while an अधिक पद is absolutely redundant, an अपुष्टार्थ पद conveys a sense which though intended need not have been expressed.

भमप्रकमतत्व has also been mentioned as a वाक्यदोष in the 7th Ullāsa- It arises from उपक्रमसंधारायोमेद 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 भमप्रकमतत्व is of many kinds. An example of प्रतिगर्तं भमप्रकमतत्व is ' नाथे निशाम्या नियतेर्नियोगादस्ते गते हन्त निशापि याता । कुलाकुलाना हि दशाहुरुह्यं नात'परं भद्रतरं समीक्ष्यते ॥' अन्र 'अस्तं गते' इति गतिहुपाया प्रकृते प्रस्तावे 'याता' इति याहुपाया प्रकृते प्रयोग' इति प्रकृतिप्रक्रमभङ्ग ।

भमप्रकमतत्व has also been mentioned as a वाक्यदोष in the 7th Ullāsa. It arises from उपक्रमसंधारायोमेद. 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. भमप्रकमतत्व is of many kinds. An example of प्रतिगर्तं भमप्रकमतत्व is ' नाथे निशाम्या नियतेर्नियोगादस्ते गते हन्त निशापि याता । कुलाकुलाना हि दशाहुरुह्यं नात'परं भद्रतरं समीक्ष्यते ॥' अन्र 'अस्तं गते' इति गतिहुपाया प्रकृते प्रस्तावे 'याता' इति याहुपाया प्रकृते प्रयोग' इति प्रकृतिप्रक्रमभङ्ग ।

तादश्री = उपमानस्य जातिप्रमाणगता न व्यभिचरत = नातिवर्तते Bhāmaha, Dandin, Vāmana, Rudrata and Bhoja have treated of वाक्यदोषs 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,

Page 542

उपमानस्य जातिगतन्यूना चण्डालः

The lowest caste, Chandal, is used as an upaman

This line is taken from Vāmana and exemplifies उपमानस्य जातिगतन्यूना (the defect of the upaman being of a lower caste). चण्डाल is the name of the lowest and the most despised of the mixed castes in Hindu society, representing the progeny of a Brāhmaṇa mother and a Śūdra father.

उपमानस्य प्रमाणगतन्यूना

A spark of fire is certainly a very small upama for the sun

This line is also taken from Vāmana and illustrates उपमानस्य प्रमाणगतन्यूना (the defect of the upaman being disproportionately small). Mammata declares that this is nothing but अनुचितार्थत्वम् (inappropriateness).

ब्रह्मा कल्पभेदेन भेदाद् ब्रह्मत्वं जाति ।

The Creator, with whom the Cakravāka bird is compared, is ever so much superior to the bird

This stanza is found in भामह (II.55) and illustrates उपमानस्य जातिगताधिक्यम् (the defect of the upaman being of a higher caste). Though ब्रह्मा is really a द्रव्यवाचक (a substance) or सज्ञावाचक (a proper noun), it should be looked upon as जातिवाचक (a class) in view of the fact that every कल्प (period of the universe) has a different Creator.

अत्र चण्डालादिमि अनुचितार्थता

In this line Mammata tells us that the upameyas, which form the matter in hand in the four illustrations given above, are slighted or brought into ridicule by the various upamanas such as चण्डालः

Mammata tells us that the upameyas are slighted or brought into ridicule by the various upamanas.

मुनिः = अग्युमान् (सूर्ये), कृष्णाजिनपट = जीवृतभाम

Here मुनि = sage, covered with a portion of a cloud, कृष्णाजिनपट = black antelope's hide

This stanza is quoted from वामन's काव्यालंकार (4.2.9). It contains a comparison of the lustrous sage Nārada, marked by the munjā girdle and dressed in the hide of a black antelope, with the sun, covered with a portion of a cloud.

Page 543

४९२

काव्यप्रकाशः

[ Page 132

consisting of उपमानस्य धर्मोश्र्यान्यूनता arises Mammata says that this

उपमादोष is nothing but न्यूनपदत्वम् or हीनपदत्वम्

Stanza 199—This stanza is भामह ii 58 Here we have a comparison of Krsna with a cloud Thus, कृष्ण = मेघ , पीतवास = शतहृदा ( विद्यत् ) and शार्ङ्ग = इन्द्रायधम् ( rainbow ) The उपमान मेघ has an additional characteristic viz शशिना ससृज्यमानत्वम् ( सबध्यमानत्वम् ) The moon corresponds to the conch ( शङ्ख ), which the lord carries, But it has not been mentioned Therefore, the उपमादोष उपमानस्य धर्मोश्र्याधिक्यम् arises Mammata says that this defect is the same as अधिकपदत्वम्

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,

Page 132

लिङ्गवचनभेदोक्तिः.—In this passage Mammata explains the nature of लिङ्गभेद and वचनभेद as उपमादोषs and shows how they fall within the province of भमप्रकत्वम् When the उपमान and the उपमेय differ in gender or in number, and consequently it becomes necessary to change the word expressive of common property so as to make it go with either the उपमान or the उपमेय, with both of which it cannot be construed as it is owing to their different gender or number, the fault लिङ्गभेद or वचनभेद arises, e g हंसीव धवलक्ष्वन्द्र सरांसमीवामल नभः Here in ‘हंसीव धवलक्षन्द्र’

the उपमान ( 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 Therefore, ‘हंसीव धवलक्षन्द्र’ is an example of the उपमादोष लिङ्गभेद If we say ‘हंसीव धवला चन्द्र’ the same fault arises, because धवला has to be changed into धवल in order to make it go with the उपमेय Similarly, ‘सरांसीवामल नभः’ is an example of वचनभेद Here, the उपमान ( सरसी ) and the उपमेय ( नभः ) 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 That is how the उपमादोष

वचनभेद arises. If we were to say ‘सरांसीव अमलानि नभः,’ the same fault would arise, as अमलानि would have to be changed into अमलम् in order to construe it with the उपमेय It may be noted that expressions like ‘हंसीव धवलम् चन्द्रम्’ and ‘सरांसीव अमलानि नभः’ or not current in the language, but have been taken into consideration in order to exhaust a possible alternative. From all this it will be seen that our usual illu

Page 544

Page 132 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash 493

stration of उपमा viz ' चन्द्र इव सुन्दरमुखादर्श वां मुखम् ' is defective, because it contains लिङ्गभेद

The illustration of simile, namely 'चन्द्र इव सुन्दरमुखादर्श वां मुखम्', is defective because it contains a difference in gender.

In cases like 'हसीव धवला चन्द्र सरासीवामलानि खमू' and 'हसीव धवलचन्द्र सरासीवामल नभ ' what happens is this

In cases like 'हसीव धवला चन्द्र सरासीवामलानि खमू' and 'हसीव धवलचन्द्र सरासीवामल नभ', what happens is this.

The difference in gender and number of the उपमान and the उपमेय makes the intended common property (साधारणम्=साधारणत्वेन विवक्षितम्)

The difference in gender and number between the उपमान and the उपमेय makes the intended common property (साधारणम्).

अन्यरूपम्= असाधारणम् उपमाने (नवे उपमेयेनैव वा सबन्धात्) Thus, as the common property is understood to be connected with either the उपमान only or the उपमेय only the उपमान or the उपमेय, as only qualified by that 'common' property, is apprehended as उपमान or उपमेय owing to some other suggested or understood (प्रतीयमानेन= शब्दानुरूपेन उपमयोरुगम्यमाने शब्दोक्तसमानवमव्यतिरिक्तेन केनापिमानेनिव चन्द्र 's सकेत ) property This really means that

The common property is understood to be connected with either the उपमान or the उपमेय, and thus the उपमान or उपमेय is apprehended as such due to some other suggested or understood property.

in order to make the simile understandable, we have to presume some other property as the basis thereof For example, in ' हसीव धवलचन्द्र '

In order to make the simile understandable, we have to presume some other property as the basis thereof. For example, in 'हसीव धवलचन्द्र'.

as धवल is understood to be connected only with the उपमेय, the उपमेय here is really apprehended to be धवलचन्द्र (विशेषणणयैव) and not चन्द्र

As धवल is understood to be connected only with the उपमेय, the उपमेय here is really apprehended to be धवलचन्द्र and not चन्द्र.

धवल thus ceases to be the common property and becomes an attribute of the moon only Therefore, we understand some other common property such as प्रकाशन as the basis of this simile Our sentence then becomes ' धवलचन्द्रो हसीव प्रकाशते ' Similarly ' सरासीवामल नभ ' would really be equal to ' अमल नभ सरासि इव गोभा दधते ' It is here easy to see that

धवल thus ceases to be the common property and becomes an attribute of the moon only. Therefore, we understand some other common property such as प्रकाशन as the basis of this simile. Our sentence then becomes 'धवलचन्द्रो हसीव प्रकाशते'. Similarly, 'सरासीवामल नभ' would really be equal to 'अमल नभ सरासि इव गोभा दधते'. It is here easy to see that.

the matter in hand or the matter with which we start viz to convey that धवलत्व and अमलत्व are the basis of these similes (प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य= प्रस्तुतस्य अर्थस्य धवलत्वममलत्वं च अनयोःपमयोरनुक्तम साधारणो धर्मे इति प्रतिपादनामकस्य is clearly not carned out, because we presume another property as the basis thereof Therefore, Mammata says that the उपमादोषः लिङ्भभेद and

The matter in hand or the matter with which we start, namely to convey that धवलत्व and अमलत्व are the basis of these similes, is clearly not carried out because we presume another property as the basis thereof. Therefore, Mammata says that the defects in simile are लिङ्भभेद and वचनभेद.

वचनभेद ( अस्य = लिङ्गवचनभेदस्य उपमादोषत्वं ) are nothing lıut लमप्रकतत्वम्

वचनभेद (अस्य = लिङ्गवचनभेदस्य उपमादोषत्वं) are nothing but लमप्रकतत्वम्.

It must here be pointed out that it may not always be possible to understand another common property in a form which would be ' उपयानुगम्यम् ' or capable of being construed with both the उपमान and the उपमेय Far example, in illustraton No 200 it is not easy to think of

It must be pointed out here that it may not always be possible to understand another common property in a form that would be 'उपयानुगम्यम्' or capable of being construed with both the उपमान and the उपमेय. For example, in illustration No. 200, it is not easy to think of.

another common property, which would be applicable to चिन्तारत्नम् and त्वम in the same form But this does not materially affect the main agrument about ' प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य स्कुटमनिवाँह ' What actually happens

Another common property, which would be applicable to चिन्तारत्नम् and त्वम in the same form. But this does not materially affect the main argument about 'प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य स्कुटमनिवाँह'. What actually happens.

even in this illustration is that when we construe the line as ' मे करत च्युत ( त्व ) चिन्तारत्नमिव अस्ति ' the idea does arise in our mind that the basis of this simile is some property other than च्युत But च्युत is surely intended to be the common property underlying the simile here

Even in this illustration, when we construe the line as 'मे करत च्युत (त्व) चिन्तारत्नमिव अस्ति', the idea arises in our mind that the basis of this simile is some property other than च्युत. But च्युत is surely intended to be the common property underlying the simile here.

That is how प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य स्कुटमनिवाँह comes in

That is how प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य स्कुटमनिवाँह comes in.

Page 545

We have stated above that प्रक्रमभङ्ग in the case of लिङ्भेद and वचनभेद consists in this that what the poet intended as the common property of the simile is not regarded as such, but that some other property is understood as the basis thereof We may explain the प्रक्रमभङ्ग in another way also The poet intends that the common property mentioned by him should be applicable to both the उपमान and the उपमेय in the same form But the difference in gender or number between them makes this impossible We have, therefore, to change its form so as to make it go with the उपमेय or the उपमान as the case may be Herein lies the 'प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य स्कुटमनिरोधः ' It will thus be seen that under this interpretation प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य=साधारोण धर्म उपात्तेन रुपेण उपमानोपमेयोभयगामी स्यादित्यभिप्रायरुपस्य प्रस्तुतस्य अर्थस्य and प्रतीयमानो=लिङ्गादिवचनविपरिणामेन उपमेयान्वययोग्यतल उपमानान्वययोग्यत्वं वा प्राप्नोतेन प्रथमतर शब्दोयुपात्तेन Thus, the sentences would ultimately appear as 'धवल इव हंसौ धवलक्ष्वन्द् ' and 'अमलानि सरांसि अमल नभ ' Out of these two interpretations we prefer the former, because we feel that it is more natural to suppose that the प्रकान्तार्थ is the idea that the specified quality is the basis of the simile rather than that the specified quality should be applicable to both the उपमान and the उपमेय in the same form

We have stated above that the प्रक्रमभङ्ग in the case of लिङ्भेद and वचनभेद consists in this that what the poet intended as the common property of the simile is not regarded as such, but that some other property is understood as the basis thereof. We may explain the प्रक्रमभङ्ग in another way also. The poet intends that the common property mentioned by him should be applicable to both the उपमान and the उपमेय in the same form. But the difference in gender or number between them makes this impossible. We have, therefore, to change its form so as to make it go with the उपमेय or the उपमान as the case may be. Herein lies the 'प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य स्कुटमनिरोधः '. It will thus be seen that under this interpretation प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य=साधारोण धर्म उपात्तेन रुपेण उपमानोपमेयोभयगामी स्यादित्यभिप्रायरुपस्य प्रस्तुतस्य अर्थस्य and प्रतीयमानो=लिङ्गादिवचनविपरिणामेन उपमेयान्वययोग्यतल उपमानान्वययोग्यत्वं वा प्राप्नोतेन प्रथमतर शब्दोयुपात्तेन. Thus, the sentences would ultimately appear as 'धवल इव हंसौ धवलक्ष्वन्द् ' and 'अमलानि सरांसि अमल नभ '. Out of these two interpretations we prefer the former, because we feel that it is more natural to suppose that the प्रकान्तार्थ is the idea that the specified quality is the basis of the simile rather than that the specified quality should be applicable to both the उपमान and the उपमेय in the same form.

According to the prabhā प्रकमभङ्ग here arises, because we begin with the उपमान or the उपमेय as not qualified by an adjective and end by regarding it as such only as qualified by an adjective Read 'एवमु पस्तुधर्मविशिष्टत्वमुपमानोपमेयोरन्यतरस्य भवेत्, तथाच प्रकमभङ्गः । अन्यतरस्य सर्वथैव विशेषणत्वं प्रकान्तविरुद्धमित्यर्थः ' प्रभा p 466 The Vivarana on the other hand thinks that in लिङ्गवचनभेद the प्रकमभङ्ग is due to the fact that the common property, which is applicable to the उपमेय in its express form (as in 'चन्द्र इव मुखं सुन्दरम् ') becomes applicable to the उपमान in an implied i. e changed form (such as 'सुन्दर', which we have to presume in order to make it go with the उपमान), or that the common property which is applicable to the उपमान in its express form (as in 'चन्द्र इव सुन्दरो मुखम्'), becomes applicable to the उपमेय in an implied i e changed form (such as 'सुन्दरम्'). It appears to us that both these commentaries have missed the real meaning of प्रकान्तस्य अर्थस्य

Stanza 200—This line illustrates लिङ्गभेद Here the उपमान (चिन्तारल्नम्) and the उपमेय (त्वम्, referring to some man, understood on account of the verb असि) differ in gender with the result that the word expressive of common property viz च्युत has to be changed to च्युतम् in order to make it go with the उपमान That is how the defect लिङ्गभेद arises This in Mammata's view is only a case of भनप्रकमतव

Stanza 200—This line illustrates लिङ्गभेद. Here the उपमान (चिन्तारल्नम्) and the उपमेय (त्वम्, referring to some man, understood on account of the verb असि) differ in gender with the result that the word expressive of common property viz च्युत has to be changed to च्युतम् in order to make it go with the उपमान. That is how the defect लिङ्गभेद arises. This in Mammata's view is only a case of भनप्रकमतव.

Page 546

परमातिव लिस्नेहा शीतला परकार्येवत् ॥

paramātiva lissneha śītalā parakāryeva

The line quoted by Mammata is an example of वचनभेद (vachanabheda). Here the उपमान (upamāna) वधू (vadhū) and the उपमेय (upameya) सक्तवः (saktavaḥ) differ in number with the result that the word signifying common property viz शीतला (śītalā) cannot be construed with the उपमान (upamāna) वधू (vadhū) except in the changed form शीतलाः (śītalāḥ).

यत्र तु नानात्वेऽपि स्वभावल्वात्

yatra tu nānātve'pi svabhāvatvāt

In this passage Mammata tells us that where the word, expressive of the common property, does not require to be changed when construed with both the उपमान (upamāna) and the उपमेय (upameya), inspite of the fact that the उपमान (upamāna) and the उपमेय (upameya) differ in gender and number, there this defect viz अप्रक्रमत्व (aprakramatva) does not arise, because the word denoting the common property (अस्य=सामान्याभिधायिपदस्य) is capable of going with both the उपमान (upamāna) and the उपमेय (upameya) in exactly the same form.

रत्नैः गुणैः

ratnaiḥ guṇaiḥ

Here the उपमान (upamāna) रत्नैः (ratnaiḥ) and the उपमेय (upameya) गुणैः (guṇaiḥ) differ in gender. But the word expressive of the common property viz अनर्घ्यैः (anarghyaiḥ) is capable of going with both रत्नैः (ratnaiḥ) and गुणैः (guṇaiḥ), because the instrumental plural of both neuter and masculine nouns ending in अ (a) assumes the same form.

वेषो विलासविलोलैर्दधते विभ्रमैः

veṣo vilāsavilolair dadhatē vibhramaiḥ

This is an illustration where अप्रक्रमत्व (aprakramatva) does not arise inspite of वचनभेद (vachanabheda). Here the dress of a certain girl is compared with her gestures. The उपमान (upamāna) वेषः (veṣaḥ) is singular and the उपमेय (upameya) विभ्रमैः (vibhramaiḥ) is plural. Thus, there is वचनभेद (vachanabheda).

Page 547

अत्रोदाहरति न धीमताम् ।। 51 श्रीव गच्छति पण्ठोद्य वक्त्येषा श्रीरुमानिव । प्राणा इव प्रियोड्ये कोलपुरुषविध्यादित् ।। 52

which in Mammata's view is the same as भमप्रकमत्, does not arise, even though the उपमान and the उपमेय differ in number

It will be seen from above that according to Mammata the sole criterion as to whether लिख्यमेद and वचनमेद between the उपमान and the उपमेय give rise to भमप्रकमत् or not is whether they necessitate a change in the form of the word expressive of common property or not in order to make it go with both the उपमान and the उपमेय Dandin offers a more elastic test According to him a simile is not made defect ive by लिख्यमेद, वचनमेद, हीनता and अधिकता, if they do not cause, dissatisfaction to the intelligent Where such dissatisfaction is caused, the defect arises

Read ‘ न लिख्यवचने मित्रे न हीनाधिकतापि वा । उपमानदूषणायालं मे विद्या धनमिवार्जिता ।। ’

व्यास — Mammata here tells us that in the उपमानदूष known as कालमेद, पुरूषमेद and विध्यादिमेद the apprehension of the comparison ( प्रतीति = उपमाप्रतीति ) is not had in such an unstumbling or unhalting manner as it would be if there had been no such difference ( तथा = कालपुरुषविध्यादिमेदाभावे यथा भवेततथा ) Consequently, these defects are also covered by भमप्रकमता The idea is when the उपमान and the उपमेय sentences differ in tense ( काल ), person ( पुरूष ) and mood ( विधि ), it becomes necessary to change the form of the verb in such a manner as to make it suitable for going with the उपमान sentence Thus, the apprehension of the comparison is not direct, but halting Mammata maintains that these defects can be included under भमप्रकमता

Stanza 204—This stanza in रघुवंश 171 It describes the birth of a son to Queen Kumudavati from Kuśa, the son of Rāma The second line has reference to the fact that the mind attains clearness or transparency during the last watch of the night i e from 3 A M to 6 A M, which consequently is looked upon as the best time for study. Mallinātha's remark in this connection is ‘ब्रह्मे [काले] सर्वेषां बुद्धिवैगया भवतीति प्रसिद्ध ।’

Here the verb in the उपमेय clause is आप (prefect of आप् आप्नोत to obtain ) It must be changed to आप्नोति in order to make it go with the उपमान clause Thus, the simile in its expanded form becomes ‘यथा चेतनां पौर्णमास्री यामिनीमात्र प्रसन्नमानसे तथाऽऽकुलस्थतां प्राप्नोति आर्तथ नाम पुत्रमात्र कालमेद arises from this necessity of changing आप into आप्नोति According to Mammata कालमेद is included in भमप्रकमता.

Stanza 205—This stanza is रत्नावली i 20 and is addressed by Vatsarāja to Queen Vāsavadattā The queen is here compared with

Page 548

प्रतुम्रो नूतन अधिरकृत य मज्जनविशेष स्नानविशेषः

The first three lines go with both the queen and the creeper, thus प्रतुम्रो नूतन अधिरकृत य मज्जनविशेष स्नानविशेष (The queen had taken a special bath, because she wanted to worship Cupid)

तेन विशिष्टा शुद्धा मनोहरा मूर्ति शरैः यस्या (देवीपक्षे)।

तेन विशिष्टा शुद्धा मनोहरा मूर्ति शरैः यस्या (देवीपक्षे)

प्रत्यप यतू मज्जन सेचन (sprinkling)।

प्रत्यप यतू मज्जन सेचन (sprinkling)

केशुम्मेन कुसुम्मसेब निधाना (belonging to safflower) कुसुम्मान्प्रकितने कियर्थं रागेण वर्णेन कुजित सुदृढ सुक्तुन।

केशुम्मेन कुसुम्मसेब निधाना (belonging to safflower) कुसुम्मान्प्रकितने कियर्थं रागेण वर्णेन कुजित सुदृढ सुक्तुन

श्राजमान अधुकुस्य वध्रस्य अन्त प्रात यस्या (देवीपक्षे)।

श्राजमान अधुकुस्य वध्रस्य अन्त प्रात यस्या (देवीपक्षे)

केशुम्भानि कुसुम्भपुष्पाणि तेषां रागेण वर्णेन रुचिरा, स्कुरद्धि अशुभि पुष्पशुभलिङ्गी (pollen) कान्ता मनोज्ञा च (लतापक्षे)।

केशुम्भानि कुसुम्भपुष्पाणि तेषां रागेण वर्णेन रुचिरा, स्कुरद्धि अशुभि पुष्पशुभलिङ्गी (pollen) कान्ता मनोज्ञा च (लतापक्षे)

थनेन विशेषेण उपमानभूता लता कुसुम्भलतावेतिः गम्यते।

थनेन विशेषेण उपमानभूता लता कुसुम्भलतावेतिः गम्यते

मकरकेलि समद्रुम् अर्चैन्त्यो शोभयन्ती समुद्रतीरे स्थितत्वात् (लतापक्षे) बालकवलनानूतनपल्लवानि विटपाना शाखाना च प्रभव उत्पत्ति यस्या।

मकरकेलि समद्रुम् अर्चैन्त्यो शोभयन्ती समुद्रतीरे स्थितत्वात् (लतापक्षे) बालकवलनानूतनपल्लवानि विटपाना शाखाना च प्रभव उत्पत्ति यस्या

इदं विशेषण लतागामि एव।

इदं विशेषण लतागामि एव

Here the verb in the उपमेय clause is विभ्राजसे, which is present second person singular It cannot as such be connected with the उपमान clause, which possesses लता (third person) as its agent विभ्राजसे must, therefore, be changed into विभ्राजते The simile then takes the form ‘यथा लता विभ्राजते तथा लं विभ्राजसे’ As विभ्राजसे has to be turned into विभ्राजते the defect पुरुषभेद develops पुरुषभेद in Mammata's opinion is nothing but भमप्रकमता

संवोध्यमानोनेतव्यः परभाङ्गस्य=संवोध्यमाना बारवदत्ता तादृशस्य तादृश्यवस्य तद्धामिनं परभाङ्गस्य 'विभ्राजसे' इति क्रियापदस्य अनितमभाङ्गस्य 'से' इति प्रययालस्यकस्य

This refers to the termination से, the last part (परभाग) of the verb विभ्राजसे, which belongs to the person addressed (संवोध्यमान) viz Vásavdattā This last part viz. से has to be changed व्यत्यासतन्-ते इत्याकारेण परिवर्तनात् into ते, when it is to be made applicable to लता, which is not the thing addressed (असंवोध्यमान) Therefore, पुरुषभेद arises in this stanza

Page 134

Stanza 206—This line illustrates विधिभेद Here the imperative third singular प्रवहत् which belongs to the उपमेय clause, has to be changed into प्रवहति in order to make it applicable to the उपमान clause Thus, the line expands into यथा गङ्गा सदैव प्रवहति तथा ते कीर्ति प्रवहत् 'As the injunction (विधि), expressed by the form प्रवहत्, has to be changed into indication conveyed by प्रवहति the defect विधिभेद arises This, Mammta holds, is nothing but भमप्रकमता

विधि means injunction or order Its nature is to impel one who is not active to activity (अप्रवृतस्य प्रवर्तनम् आत्मा यस्य तादृशस्य) विधि here refers to the अश्रुतप्रवर्त्तनम् expressed by the imperative form प्रवहत् After 'अश्रुतप्रवर्त्तनात्मनो विधे' supply 'व्यत्यास कर्तव्य' or 'व्यत्यासात् विधिभेद', विधे = विधिवाकस्य 'प्रवहत्' इत्यादिथेस्य क्रियापदस्य

एवंजातीयकस्य विध्यादिमेदः —This line points out the significance of the term आदि in 'कालपुरुष्यादिमेदेऽपि' When another verbal

Page 549

४२८

428

काव्यप्रकाश:

Kavyaprakasha:

[Page 134

form of this kind ( एवंजातीयकस्य अन्यस्य अर्थस्य= वहतु ' इत्थंविधस्य अन्यस्य कियापदस्य is found to be impossible of construction with the उपमान ( उपमानगतस्य असंभावात्= उपमानगतत्वेन असंभवात्, उपमानगुणगम्यभावविरहत्वात् ), the defect referred to by आदि in विध्यादिविमेद arises It should be noted that the expression उपमानगतस्य असंभावात् विध्यादिविमेद is not happily worded The intended sense has to be extracted from it with some difficulty

A defect of this kind (i.e., where the word 'such' or 'thus' cannot be construed with the object of comparison) arises due to the absence of a quality in the object of comparison. It should be noted that the expression 'absence of a quality in the object of comparison' is not well-worded, and the intended meaning has to be inferred with some difficulty.

An example of another kind of विध्यादिविमेद is ' सुप्रायं निधनं युद्धे वीर स्वर्गजयेऽिरम् । प्राचीने भारते जन्मे हता ध्रारा नरा इव ॥ ' Here the potential form जयेत् has to be changed into अजयन् in order to make it go with हता ध्रारा नरा, who are the उपमान

Another example of a defect in the form of 'विध्यादिविमेद' is 'सुप्रायं निधनं युद्धे वीर स्वर्गजयेऽिरम् । प्राचीने भारते जन्मे हता ध्रारा नरा इव ॥'. Here, the potential form 'जयेत्' needs to be changed to 'अजयन्' to make it agree with 'हता ध्रारा नरा', which is the object of comparison.

ननु समानम् इत्थंर्थ्यावगमात्— This paragraph contains an objection against Mammata's treatment of कालपुष्करविजातीयविमेद It may be thus explained

Now, an objection is raised against Mammata's treatment of 'कालपुष्करविजातीयविमेद' as follows:

Sentences like ' बलवान्य राजा भीम इव भाति ' and ' अयं राजा भीम इव भाति ' are considered by you as examples of प्रकृतधर्मविमेद, because they contain कालवेद For, भाति cannot be construed with the उपमान ( भीमः ), unless it is changed ( भेदः=व्यत्यासः, परिवर्तनम् ) into अभाति, 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 ( धर्मोत्तरम् ), which may either have been mentioned ( उच्यारितम् ) or have to be understood प्रतीममानम्=अध्याहृतम् ) Thus, in ' बलवान्य राजा भीम इव भाति ' and ' अयं राजा भीम इव भाति ' we should not understand भाति as containing the common property of the simile, but should take बलवान् as the common property—it would be उच्यारित in the first sentence and प्रतीममान in the second—and thus make the simile complete ( पर्यवसित ) In this way बलवान् would go with both the उपमान and the उपमेय ( when the sentence takes the form ' अयं राजा भीम इव बलवान् भाति ) and consequently the defect कालवेद would not arise After thus completing the simile the relevant property viz shining ( प्रकृतधर्मः भाति इत्यनेन निर्दिष्ट ) could be construed with the उपमेय alone As it is not now the basis of the उपमा, कालवेद is not developed

Sentences like 'बलवान्य राजा भीम इव भाति' and 'अयं राजा भीम इव भाति' are considered by you as examples of 'प्रकृतधर्मविमेद' because they contain 'कालवेद'. However, it is argued that these sentences can be seen as defectless examples of 'उपमा' by considering another common property, either mentioned or understood. Thus, in 'बलवान्य राजा भीम इव भाति' and 'अयं राजा भीम इव भाति', 'भाति' should not be understood as the common property, but 'बलवान्' should be taken as the common property, making the simile complete. In this way, 'बलवान्' would agree with both the object of comparison and the subject of comparison, and the defect 'कालवेद' would not arise.

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 धर्मोत्तर could be thought of, कालवेद 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 कालवेद Thus, in ' युवाविचित्र

However, there may be cases where the simile is understood based on the expressed common property alone, because it is the only common property between the object of comparison and the subject of comparison. In such cases, 'कालवेद' may seem inevitable. But it is maintained that even here, it is possible to understand a flawless simile by reinterpreting the already mentioned common property in a way that avoids the defect 'कालवेद'.

Page 550

इवायं सत्यं वदति' the common property between the उपमान and the उपमेय is सत्यवादन and it has been so expressed as to make it go with the उपमेय alone Here though no other common property between युद्धिष्ठिर and अयम् can be thought of, we shall understand (प्रतिपत्त्यामहे = ज्ञात्यामहे) the sentence to be equal to 'युद्धिष्ठिर इव सत्यवादी अयं सत्यं वदति' by twisting it a little to suit our purpose Now, as सत्यवादी goes with both the उपमान and the उपमेय, कालवेद is not developed

The common property between the standard and the object of comparison in 'इवायं सत्यं वदति' is truthfulness, and it is expressed in such a way that it aligns with the object of comparison alone. Here, although no other common property between Yudhishthira and this (person) can be considered, we will understand (we will know) the sentence to be equivalent to 'युद्धिष्ठिर इव सत्यवादी अयं सत्यं वदति' by slightly twisting it to suit our purpose. Now, as truthfulness applies to both the standard and the object of comparison, the sense of time is not developed.

You would perhaps object to this by saying that it involves the fault पौनरुक्त्य or tautology, deceause सत्यवादन is unnecessarily repeated in 'सत्यवादी सत्यं वदति' In reply to this we point out that we could do away with the पौनरुक्त्य by making some distinction between सत्यवादन as expressed by सत्यवादी and सत्यवादन as denoted by सत्यं वदति The former could be looked upon as habitual, natural or general सत्यवादन (सत्य वक्तृ शीलमस्य असौ सत्यवादी), while the latter might refer to the special case of the man's सत्यवादन A similar distinction is made in understanding 'रैपोष पुष्णाति' (he nourishes by nourishing with wealth), which is available from Pānini's 'स्वे पु' 3 4 40 रैपोषण is a नञ्मूल form obtained from रै = wealth and पुष् पुष्णाति to nourish Here in order to avoid repetition it is held that पुष् in पुष्णाति conveys the general idea of nourishing, while पुष् in रैपोषण expresses the specific idea of nourishing with wealth

You might perhaps object to this by saying that it involves the fault of redundancy or tautology because truthfulness is unnecessarily repeated in 'सत्यवादी सत्यं वदति'. In response to this, we point out that we could avoid the redundancy by making a distinction between truthfulness as expressed by 'सत्यवादी' and truthfulness as denoted by 'सत्यं वदति'. The former could be considered as habitual, natural, or general truthfulness (one whose nature is to speak the truth), while the latter might refer to the specific instance of the person's truthfulness. A similar distinction is made in understanding 'रैपोष पुष्णाति' (he nourishes by nourishing with wealth), which is derived from Pānini's rule 'स्वे पु' 3 4 40. 'रैपोषण' is a form derived from 'रै' meaning wealth and 'पुष् पुष्णाति' meaning to nourish. Here, to avoid repetition, it is understood that 'पुष्' in 'पुष्णाति' conveys the general idea of nourishing, while 'पुष्' in 'रैपोषण' expresses the specific idea of nourishing with wealth.

सत्यमेतत् प्रमाणम्—This passage contains Mammata's reply to the above objection Mammata admits that there is a certain amount of truth in the elaborate interpretation proposed by the objector, but remarks that such justification (समर्थनम्) is to be resorted to in the case of usages (प्रयोगेषु) already extant or current in the language, according to the maxim 'स्थितस्य गतिद्विन्तनीया' But even this justification, Mammata points out, is not wholly (सर्वथा) blameless or unobjectionable The blame or weak point in it lies in this that here the apprehension of the matter in hand viz the simile is obstructed or delayed (प्रस्तुतवस्तुप्रतीत्यवाघातात् = प्रस्तुतस्य वस्तुनः उपमा रुपस्य प्रतीते व्याघाताद् अवरोधाद् विलम्बाद् इत्यर्थं उप्याप्रतीति अवरुद्धा विलम्बेन वा भवतीति) inasmuch as we have to go through the process of understanding a गर्भीतर्, or of twisting the sentence, before the simile is completely apprehended. Mammata ultimately appeals to men of heart i e of poetic appreciation to decide whether such justification involves प्रस्तुतप्रतीत्यवाघात or not.

This passage contains Mammata's response to the above objection. Mammata acknowledges that there is a certain amount of truth in the detailed interpretation proposed by the objector, but notes that such justification is to be employed in the case of usages already existing or current in the language, according to the maxim 'स्थितस्य गतिद्विन्तनीया'. However, Mammata points out that even this justification is not entirely blameless or unobjectionable. The weakness in it lies in the fact that it obstructs or delays the understanding of the matter at hand, namely the simile (because we have to go through the process of understanding a complex or twisted sentence before the simile is fully comprehended). Mammata ultimately appeals to those with a poetic appreciation to decide whether such justification involves obstruction to the understanding of the presented meaning or not.

असादृश्यार्संभवौ पर्यवस्यत्.—In this sentence Mammata remarks that the उपमादोष असादृश्यम् and असंभव are included in अनुचितार्थता The de-

In this sentence, Mammata remarks that the poetic faults 'असादृश्यम्' and 'असंभव' are included in 'अनुचितार्थता'. The

Page 551

४००

400

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 135

fect असादृश्य arises when there is no similarity between the उपमान and

The defect Asadṛshya arises when there is no similarity between the Upamāna and

the उपमेय, while the defect असंभव is developed when the उपमान is

the Upameya, while the defect Asambhava is developed when the Upamāna is

represented to be such as is absolutely impossible The distinction

represented to be such as is absolutely impossible. The distinction

between the two is this In असंभव the उपमान is such as enjoys no

between the two is this: In Asambhava the Upamāna is such as enjoys no

existence in the world at all, while in असादृश्य the उपमान exists, but is

existence in the world at all, while in Asadṛshya the Upamāna exists, but is

not known to be similar to the उपमेय

not known to be similar to the Upameya

Stanza 207 — This line is taken from वामन's काव्यालङ्कारसूत्रवृत्ति 4 2

Stanza 207 — This line is taken from Vāmana's Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti 4 2

16 Here we find that co-attributeness or resemblance between a poem

Here we find that co-attributeness or resemblance between a poem

and the moon, and senses and the rays is nowhere known ( प्रतीतम् =

and the moon, and senses and the rays is nowhere known (Pratītam =

प्रसिद्धम् ) That is how असादृश्य as an उपमादोष is here developed

Prasiddham). That is how Asadṛshya as an Upamādoṣa is here developed

Mammata holds that this असादृश्य is nothing but अनन्वितार्थत्वम्

Mammata holds that this Asadṛshya is nothing but Ananvitārthatvam

Stanza 208 — This stanza is भामह ii 47 It describes an archer

Stanza 208 — This stanza is Bhāmaha ii 47. It describes an archer

discharging arrows from his bow The first half contains an उत्प्रेक्षा The

discharging arrows from his bow. The first half contains an Utprekṣā. 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

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

water coming from the mid-day sun, possessed of a halo. Thus, the

following are compared दीधा शरा = जाज्वल्यमाना वारिधारा, धनुर्मेघलम् =

following are compared: Dīdhā śarā = Jājvalyamānā vāridhārā, Dhanurmeghalam =

परिवेष and अस्याम् = अर्के Here it is impossible that burning showers of

Pariveṣa and Asyām = Arke. Here it is impossible that burning showers of

water should fall from the orb of the sun When a poet expresses such

water should fall from the orb of the sun. When a poet expresses such

an idea, it leads to inappropriateness or अनन्वितार्थता

an idea, it leads to inappropriateness or Ananvitārthatā

उत्प्रेक्षादोष

Utprekṣādoṣa

One defect of उत्प्रेक्षा had apparently been noted by some ancient

One defect of Utprekṣā had apparently been noted by some ancient

rhetorician It is called अशक्ति, which is really equal to यथाशब्दस्य संभावने

rhetorician. It is called Aśakti, which is really equal to Yathāśabdasya samabhavane

प्रतिपादयितुम् अशक्ति or the incapacity of the word यथा to denote probabi

Pratipādayitum aśakti or the incapacity of the word Yathā to denote probability

lity The essence of उत्प्रेक्षा is संभावनम् or probability It is expressed by

The essence of Utprekṣā is Sambhavanam or probability. It is expressed by

words like ध्रुवम् and इव Somebody may perhaps think that because the

words like Dhruvam and Iva. Somebody may perhaps think that because the

word इव is संभावनावाचक in addition to being साधर्म्यवाचक, the word यथा,

word Iva is Sambhāvanāvācak in addition to being Sādṛśyavācak, the word Yathā,

which is साधर्म्यवाचक, could also be used as संभावनावाचक Against this

which is Sādṛśyavācak, could also be used as Sambhānavācak. Against this

idea it is pointed out that यथा has no power to convey probability It

idea it is pointed out that Yathā has no power to convey probability. It

can, when used singly ( केवलस्य ), express similarity alone and similarity

can, when used singly (Kevalasya), express similarity alone and similarity

is not intended to be the esserce in उत्प्रेक्षा Therefore, when the word

is not intended to be the essence in Utprekṣā. Therefore, when the word

यथा is used to express probability, which it has no power to do, the

Yathā is used to express probability, which it has no power to do, the

defect अशक्ति arises This defect, Mammata holds, is nothing but अवा

defect Aśakti arises. This defect, Mammata holds, is nothing but Avā

चकत्वम्, which he has already mentioned among the 16 पद्दोषs in the

Cakratvam, which he has already mentioned among the 16 Paddoṣas in the

7th Ullāsa

अवाचकत्वम् or Inexpressiveness consists in the use of a word to

Avācakatvam or Inexpressiveness consists in the use of a word to

denote a sense, which it has no power to do. e. g गीतेषु करणमाददे' साहित्य

denote a sense, which it has no power to do. e.g. 'Gīteṣu karṇamādatte' Sāhitya

दर्पण vii. Here आददे is used in the sense of 'gives'. But आददे has no

Darpan vii. Here 'Ādadate' is used in the sense of 'gives'. But 'Ādadate' has no

power to express this sense.

Page 552

उत्प्रेक्षायामपि — Here अपि has no sıgnficance It had better been dropped केवलस्य = प्रदान्तरेण असमस्ततस्य uncompounded with any other word When यथा is compounded with other words, it expresses senses other than साधर्म्य Thus, the अभ्ययीभाव compounds यथाकालम्, यथोत्तरम् and याथाशक्ति express योग्यता, वीर्य and पदार्थोनातिरत्ति respectively Note ‘योग्यता—वीर्य-पदार्थोनातिरत्ति—सादृश्येन यथा’ सिद्धान्तकौमुदी आवचक्षितलत्—This is once again a careless expression As a matter of fact similartiy is intended to be expressed in उत्प्रेक्षा, because it is a figure which, like some others, is based on औपम्य अविवक्षितत्वात must, therefore, be taken in the sense of प्रान्तवैषम्य आधातत्वेन वा अविवक्षितत्वात, for the essence of उत्प्रेक्षा is संभावनम् and not साधर्म्य, which is the essence of उपमा

In उत्प्रेक्षायामपि — Here 'apī' has no significance. It had better been dropped. 'Kevalasya' = 'pṛthantareṇa asamastatasyā' uncompounded with any other word. When 'yathā' is compounded with other words, it expresses senses other than 'sādṛśya'. Thus, the 'avyayībhāva' compounds 'yathākalām', 'yathottaram', and 'yāthāśakti' express 'yogyatā', 'vīrya', and 'padārthānātiśakti' respectively. Note 'yogyatā-vīrya-padārthānātiśakti-sādṛśyena yathā' siddhāntakaumudī āvacakṣitalat—. This is once again a careless expression. As a matter of fact, similarity is intended to be expressed in 'utprekṣā', because it is a figure which, like some others, is based on 'sāmyam avivakṣitatvāt'. Therefore, it must be taken in the sense of 'prāntavaidharmyādhāratvena vā avivakṣitatvāt', for the essence of 'utprekṣā' is 'sambhāvanam' and not 'sādṛśya', which is the essence of 'upamā'.

Page 136

Stanza 209—This stanza descrıbes the bud (मुकले मुकुलभावापनम् ) of a blue lotus rising from the middle of a well (दौर्घिकागर्भीभत = वाभीमध्यात् ) The poet imagines that the lotus is as though closed or contracted ( मकुचित ) through fear of the beauty ( चातुर्येण = सौदर्यम् ) of the woman's eyes The figure in the stanza is उत्प्रेक्षा and the poet has used the word यथा to convey it That is how the defect अशक्ति arises, which in Mammata's, view is nothing but अवाचकत्वम् The defect can be removed by reading धुनम् instead of यथा

Stanza 209—This stanza describes the bud (mukule mukulabhāvāpanam) of a blue lotus rising from the middle of a well (daurghikāgarbhībhata = vāpīmadhyāt). The poet imagines that the lotus is as though closed or contracted (makucita) through fear of the beauty (cāturyeṇa = saundaryam) of the woman's eyes. The figure in the stanza is 'utprekṣā', and the poet has used the word 'yathā' to convey it. That is how the defect 'aśakti' arises, which in Mammata's view is nothing but 'avācakatvam'. The defect can be removed by reading 'dhunam' instead of 'yathā'.

अर्थान्तरन्यासदोष

Arthāntaranyāsadoṣa

निर्विषयत्वम् as a defect of अर्थान्तरन्यास had apparently been mentıoned by some predecessor of Mammata Māmmata now tells us that this defect is nothing but अनुचितार्थता अर्थान्तरन्यासस्य निर्विषयत्वम् just means उत्प्रेक्षाप्रतिपादितार्थैःसाम्येनकार्योन्तरस्योपादानम् The essence of अर्थान्तरन्यास lies in corroboration Corroboration becomes necessary, when there is a possibility of a certain proposition being questioned, or of its being properly understood A certain thing is poetically fancied as being true But as it does not possess a real form (तास्त्विकेन रूपेण परिवर्जितत्वात = पारमार्थिकेन रूपेण विहीनत्वात् ), it is as good as unreal or unsubstantial from the ordinary practical point of view Though it may be so, it does not require any corroboration, because the poet has fancied it to be true and the reader naturally believes in the poet's fancy When, therefore, an अर्थान्तरन्यास is used to corroborate a poetically fancied thing or proposition, which does not really require to be corroborated, the defect निर्विषयत्व occurs, because अर्थान्तरन्यास in such a case has no province or scope This निर्विषयत्व of अर्थान्तरन्यास, Mammata urges, is nothing but अनुचितार्थता, because it is inappropriate to use an अर्थान्तरन्यास to support a thing, which does not require to be supported

The defect 'nirviṣayatvam' of 'arthāntaranyāsa' had apparently been mentioned by some predecessor of Mammata. Māmmata now tells us that this defect is nothing but 'anucitārthatā'. 'Arthāntaranyāsasya nirviṣayatvam' just means 'utprekṣāpratipāditārthaiḥ sāmyenakāryontarasyaopādānam'. The essence of 'arthāntaranyāsa' lies in corroboration. Corroboration becomes necessary when there is a possibility of a certain proposition being questioned or of its being properly understood. A certain thing is poetically fancied as being true. But as it does not possess a real form (tāstvikena rūpeṇa parivarjitattvāt = pāramārthikena rūpeṇa vihīnatvāt), it is as good as unreal or unsubstantial from the ordinary practical point of view. Though it may be so, it does not require any corroboration because the poet has fancied it to be true, and the reader naturally believes in the poet's fancy. When, therefore, an 'arthāntaranyāsa' is used to corroborate a poetically fancied thing or proposition, which does not really require to be corroborated, the defect 'nirviṣayatva' occurs because 'arthāntaranyāsa' in such a case has no province or scope. This 'nirviṣayatva' of 'arthāntaranyāsa', Mammata urges, is nothing but 'anucitārthatā', because it is inappropriate to use an 'arthāntaranyāsa' to support a thing which does not require to be supported.

Page 553

४०२

402

काव्यप्रकाशः

Kavyaprakasha

[ Page 136

आलेख्यामेव गगनतले — As a drawing on the surface of the sky is exceedingly improper, because it has no place to stand upon, even so is अर्थान्तरन्यास employed to support an उत्क्षितार्थ

Just as a drawing on the surface of the sky is highly improper because it has no base to stand on, similarly, Arthantaranyasa is used to support an Utprekshitartha.

Stanza 210 — This stanza is कुमारसंभव 1 12 and forms part of the description of the Himālaya mountain The idea is that the “mountain possesses caves which the rays of the sun cannot penetrate and where in consequently darkness exists even by day The first line contains an उत्पेक्षा The poet fancies that darkness is afraid of the sun by day and, therefore, takes resort to the caves of the Himālaya who thereupon protects it there The second line contains a general proposition to cor roborate the action of the Himalaya in protecting such an insignificant thing as darkness The lofty peaked i e the high minded ( उच्चैः शिरसाम् ) have great personal regard even towards an insignificant person who resorts to them for protection Thus, the stanza is an example of अर्थान्तरन्यास, where a poetically fancied thing viz protection of the darkness by the Himālaya is corroborated by a general proposition

Stanza 210 — This stanza is from Kumarasambhava 1.12 and is part of the description of the Himalaya mountain. The idea is that the mountain has caves where the sun's rays cannot penetrate, and thus darkness exists even during the day. The first line contains an Utpeksha. The poet imagines that darkness is afraid of the sun during the day and therefore takes refuge in the caves of the Himalaya, which protect it. The second line contains a general proposition to corroborate the action of the Himalaya in protecting something as insignificant as darkness. The lofty or high-minded (Uchchaih Shirasam) have great regard for even an insignificant person who seeks their protection. Thus, the stanza is an example of Arthantaranyasa, where a poetically imagined concept, namely the protection of darkness by the Himalaya, is supported by a general proposition.

अत्र यत्न — 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 ( प्रयोज्यमानस्य परित्राणस्य ) by that fear But when this protection ( भास्य=अभिद्रुतस्य परित्राणस्य ) is fancied to be true by the poet, there is no improbability whatsoever with regard to it The refore, the effort to corroborate it by means of a general proposition is useless Thus, arises अर्थान्तरन्यासस्य निर्विषयत्वम्, which is the same as अनौचित्यार्थता

Here, firstly, it is not possible for inanimate darkness to be afraid of the sun. Secondly, it is equally impossible for the inanimate mountain to provide protection necessitated by that fear. But when this protection is imagined to be true by the poet, there is no improbability whatsoever regarding it. Therefore, the effort to corroborate it by means of a general proposition is useless. Thus, arises the defect of Arthantaranyasa being without a subject, which is the same as Anauchityartha.

संभावितेन=उत्प्रक्षितेन स्वरूपेण प्रतिभासमानस्य भास्य (= परित्राणस्य ) — These words show that Mammata understands an implied उत्प्रेक्षा in रक्षति also, which thus becomes equal to रक्षति इव The general proposition is stated to justify the protection When that protection appears in its fancied form i e. when that protection is fancied by the poet, there is no अनुपपत्ति or improbability with regard to it Consequently its corroboration by means of a general proposition useless

The phrase 'Samvabitena=Utprekshitena Swarupena Pratibhasamansya Bhasyah (=Paritranasya)' shows that Mammata understands an implied Utpreksha in 'Rakshati' also, which thus becomes equivalent to 'Rakshati iva'. The general proposition is stated to justify the protection. When that protection appears in its imagined form, i.e., when it is fancied by the poet, there is no Anupapatti or improbability regarding it. Consequently, its corroboration by means of a general proposition is useless.

Thus, the अनौपपत्ति, which is at the basis ofनिर्विषयत्व 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.

Thus, the Anupapatti, which is the basis of Nirvishayata as a defect of Arthantaranyasa, is the lack of support for the Utprekshitartha (Paritranasya), because an Utprekshitartha does not need support. As it has been imagined by the poet, it has to be accepted as true.

We have noted above that the construction of the first line is दिवा दिवाकराद् भीतिमिव अत एव गृहात् श्लीनम् It is possible to construe the words

We have noted above that the construction of the first line is 'Diva Divakarad Bhitimiva Ata Eva Gruhat Shlinam'. It is possible to construe the words

Page 554

as दिवाभीतम् उलूककम् ( an owl ) इव गुहासु लीनम् which is lying in the caves like an owl In this case उत्प्रेक्षा would vanish and उपमा would take its place But as we know from the Vṛtti Mammata does not favour this construction

as an owl lying in caves like an owl In this case utprekṣā would vanish and upamā would take its place But as we know from the Vṛtti Mammata does not favour this construction

समासोक्तिदोष

Samāsoktidoṣa

अनुपादेयत्वम् ( Read अनुपादेयत्वे for अनुपोदेयता on p 137 ) as a defect of समासोक्ति 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 अनुपादेय शब्देन अनिदेश्यत्वम् In समासोक्ति the उपमान, though unmentioned by any word, is revealed or understood owing to the force of common adjectives When the same is mentioned again, the defect अनुपादेयत्वम् arises, because there is no purpose for mentioning it again This अनुपादेयत्व is the same as अपुष्टार्थत्व or पुनरुक्तता

Anupādeyatvam (Read Anupādeyatve for Anupodeyatā on p 137) as a defect of Samāsokti had apparently been mentioned by some ancient rhetorician Mammata tells us that this Anupādeyatvam is the same as Apuṣṭhārthatvam or Punāroktatā Samāsoktau Anupādeyatvam means Samāsoktau Upamānasya Anupādeya Śabdena Anideśyatvam In Samāsokti the Upamān, though unmentioned by any word, is revealed or understood owing to the force of common adjectives When the same is mentioned again, the defect Anupādeyatvam arises, because there is no purpose for mentioning it again This Anupādeyatvam is the same as Apuṣṭhārthatva or Punaruktatā

पुनरुक्तता, like अपुष्टार्थत्वम् has been mentioned by Mammata among 23 अर्थेदोषः 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 'अह्न्याह्न्यावलीढप्रतिभसलजलधेरन्नतरवार्चौयमाने सेनानीये रितेऽस्मिन् मम पितरि गुरौ सर्वधनव्वीश्वराणाम् । कर्णील सप्तमेण व्रज कुप समर सुरुच हृदयक्ष श्लाघा ताते चापद्वितीये वहति रणधुर को भयस्यावकाशः ॥' वेणीसंहार 3 7, on which he observes 'अत्रचतुर्थपादवाक्यार्थी पुनरुक्त ।' p 384 ( वामनाचार्य )

Punaruktatā, like Apuṣṭhārthatvam has been mentioned by Mammata among 23 Arthadoṣaḥ When a certain thing, which has once been expressed by means of words, is again conveyed by other words, the defect Punaruktatā occurs Punaruktatā differs from Apuṣṭhārthatva, because the sense which is denoted by an Apuṣṭhārtha word is not actually expressed by some word before, though it may have been generally implied Mammata's example of Punaruktatvam is 'Ahnyāhnyāvalīḍhapratibhasalajaladherannatarvārchoyamāne Senānīye Rite'smin Mampi Tari Guraur Sarvadhanavvīśvarāṇām । Karṇīla Saptaemṇa Vraja Kupa Samara Surucha Hṛdayakṣa Ślāghā Tāte Chāpadvitīye Vahati Ranadhura Ko Bhayasya Avakāśaḥ ॥' Veṇīsaṃhāra 3 7, on which he observes 'Atra Chaturthapādavākyārthī Punarukta ।' p 384 (Vāmanācārya)

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 चिरायिनिदिनश्रिया ( चिरायिनो दीर्घंगामिणि ये दिना तेषा श्री तया ) The idea in the stanza is that in summer the days grew long and the heat there of increased As the sun ( तिग्मांशु = उष्णप्रकाश सूर्ये. ) touched the quarters ( ककुभ् = दिशा ) with his rays ( करै किरणै हस्तैः ), the Glory of the days with her heat ( ताप उष्णत्व मनस्तापक्ष ) increased, assumed great proportion i e length ( अतिमान महत्तरिमाण महद्भिमानस्थ ) चिरायिन्—though the days were already long, they became longer still It also means that the girl was the man's beloved for a long time चिरया = दीर्घेया, चिरकालीयनया वा The reading चिरायिनिदिनश्रिया is better, because चिरया with regard to दिनश्री cannot be easily understood For, there is no propriety in saying that the day was already long

Stanza 211—This stanza is Ratnākara's Harivijaya 3 37 and forms part of the description of Grīṣma or summer The printed edition (Nirṇayasāgara) reads Ciraāyindinaśriā (Ciraāyino Dīrghāngāmiṇi Ye Dinā Teṣā Śrī Tayā) The idea in the stanza is that in summer the days grew long and the heat there of increased As the sun (Tigmāṃśu = Uṣṇaprakāśa Sūrye) touched the quarters (Kakubh = Diśā) with his rays (Karai Kiraṇai Hastiḥ), the Glory of the days with her heat (Tāpa Uṣṇatva Manastāpakṣa) increased, assumed great proportion i e length (Atimāna Mahattarimāṇa Mahadbhimānāstha) Ciraāyin—though the days were already long, they became longer still It also means that the girl was the man's beloved for a long time Ciraāyā = Dīrgheyyā, Cirakālīyanayā vā The reading Ciraāyindinaśriā is better, because Ciraāyā with regard to Dinśrī cannot be easily understood For, there is no propriety in saying that the day was already long

Page 555

अत्र तिग्मरुचे स्वशब्दोपादानैन—

Here Mammata rightly points out that

Here the description of the increasing days is given in such a manner that we get the idea of a girl, who with increased mental affliction, assumes great pride, when she sees her lover touching an other woman with his hands This idea is obtained through the force of common adjectives ( सहशविशेषणवशेन ) such as करे, स्रुराति, विरुम्भिततापया, अतनुमानपरिप्रहया, स्रुरिया and चिरया and because we apprehend the particular genders ( व्यक्तिविशेषैः लिङ्गविशेषौ स्त्रीपुरुषलिङ्गौ इत्यर्थी ) viz the feminine gender of ककुभ and of दिनश्री and the masculine gender of तिग्मरुचे

The adjectives are based on श्लेष because the words कर, ताप and मान are paronomastic and because चिरया also yields two shades of meaning क्रचिरया may be regarded as a साधारण adjective Thus, the stanza becomes an example of समलङ्कविशेषणोत्था समासोक्ति

just as owing to सहशविशेषणs and व्यक्तिविशेषs ( particular genders ) we apprehend ( व्यकित = अभिव्यक्ति प्रतीति ) the sun and the quarters ( understood collectively as one ) as नायक and नायिका respectively, even so owing to those very reasons we would understand the glory of the summer days as प्रतिनायिका There is, therefore, no point in expressing this idea of प्रतिनायिका by the use of a special word viz दयितया ( स्वशब्दोपादानैन= प्रतिनायिकाद्योतकद्योतनशब्दप्रयोगेन ) The use of the word दयितया constitutes the defect known as अनुपादेयत्वम्, which is said to be peculiar to समासोक्ति

According to Mammata this अनुपादेयत्व is either अपुष्टार्थत्वम or पुनरुक्तता

While Mammata is generally right in his contention in this passage, two points call for criticism Mammata says that ककुभ are apprehended as नयिका and दिनश्री as प्रतिनायिका Our reading of the stanza creates in us an exactly opposite impression We believe that दिनश्री is apprehended as नायिका and ककुभ as प्रतिनायिका The word दयितया favours our interpretation When the नायिका finds the नायका touching the idea in the prati नायिका with his hands, she is afflicted and assumes pride We think this is the idea in the stanza Secondly, Mammata we think is not correct in saying that अनुपादेयत्वम is either अपुष्टार्थत्वम or पुनरुक्तता We have to urge that it cannot be पुनरुक्तता We have seen before that पुनरुक्तता arises when an idea, which has already been expressed by means of a word, is once again conveyed by another word The idea conveyed by दयितया has not before been expressed by any word Therefore, the use of दयितया cannot lead to the defect पुनरुक्तत्वम् Mammata's statement that अनुपादेयत्वम् may in the alternatively be पुनरुक्तत्वम् is a piece of careless writing अनुपादेयत्वम् may be all right. For, the use of दयितया does not nourish the intended sense or purpose viz the development of समासोक्ति

Page 556

श्लेषोपमायास्तु प्रतीति—

Regarding the perception of Shleshopama—

This sentence is directed against those who would say that in the above stanza 'स्पृशति .' we should not understand समासोक्ति as the figure and then declare that it is defective, but that we should consider it as an example of श्लेषोपमा, wherein the mention of दयितया would be unobjectionable Mammata points out the proper province of श्लेषोपमा in this sentence and thus suggests its distinction from श्लिष्टविवक्ष्योक्त्या समासोक्ति

That is the proper province of श्लेषोपमा, where inspite of common adjectives based on paronomasia ( साधारणेषु = श्लिष्टवेन साधारणेषु ) the upamāna is not apprehended as such ( तथाऽ= उपमानत्वेन ) unless it is mentioned by means of a word ( उपादानमन्तरेण = शब्दनिदर्शनेन विना )

That is the proper province of श्लेषोपमा, where inspite of common adjectives based on paronomasia the upamāna is not apprehended as such unless it is mentioned by means of a word

But in श्लिष्टविवक्ष्योक्त्या समासोक्ति owing to the force of the paronomastic adjectives the upamāna is distinctly understood so that if it were mentioned by means of a word, the defect अनुपादेयत्वम् or अपुष्टार्थता arises By thus pointing out the proper province of श्लेषोपमा Mammata suggests that in 'स्पृशति .' owing to paronomastic adjectives the upamāna दयिता 's distinctly apprehended and consequently it cannot be regarded as an example of श्लेषोपमा

Stanza 212—This stanza comes from प्रतापरुद्रदेव's वृत्ति on उद्भट's काव्यालंकारसारग्रह p 55

Stanza 212—This stanza comes from Prataparudradev's commentary on Udbhat's Kavyalankarasaragraha p 55

It had been quoted before in the 9th Ullāsa as an illustration of अभङ्ग ( 1st half ) and समङ्ग ( 2nd half ) श्लेष

पक्चनौ इव किसलयौ इव आाताम्रौ आसन्नतात् लोहितौ भास्वत्कौ दीपिमान्तौ यौ करौ ताभ्या विरा जिनी विराजमाना ( पावतीपक्वे )

Her hands, red like the tender leaves, shining like the lamps, were resplendent

पश्चनवत् आताम्रे भास्वत्के विराजिनी वा ( प्रभातसदृशापेक्षे )

Like the red glow of the morning twilight

सुखेन आययते इति स्वाप सुलभम् न स्वापम् अस्वाप दुल्लेभ यत् फलं मोक्षरूप तस्मिन् ये छुद्धा सञ्जाताभिलाषा तेषाम् इह्हितस्य अभीष्टार्थस्य प्रदा दात्री ( पार्वतीपक्षे )

The giver of the desired object, i.e., liberation

स्वाप निद्रा, न स्वाप अस्वाप जागरण महेशे प्रयूषे उत्थानं, तस्य यत् फल स्नानसाध्यादिकम् अभ्युदयादिकं वा, तस्मिन् छुद्धे जने हितप्रदा इष्टदात्री ( प्रभातसदृश्यापेक्षे )

The bringer of welfare, i.e., the rituals performed at dawn

From the first adjective the two senses are obtained without its being split up in two different ways So it is an example of अभङ्गश्लेष

From the first adjective the two senses are obtained without its being split up in two different ways So it is an example of abhangashlesha

The second adjective requires to be split up in two different ways in order to yield the two senses Therefore, it exemplifies समङ्गश्लेष

In this stanza though the two adjectives are common ( साधारण ) we would not have comprehended प्रभातसदृश्या as the उपमान for Pārvatī, had it not been specifically mentioned Therefore, it is an example of श्लेषोपमा and the mention of प्रभातसदृश्या does not constitute a defect

In this stanza though the two adjectives are common we would not have comprehended prabhatsadṛśyā as the upamān for Pārvatī, had it not been specifically mentioned Therefore, it is an example of shleshopama and the mention of prabhatsadṛśyā does not constitute a defect

But in 'स्पृशति .' the common adjectives do give us the idea of दयितया Therefore, it is an example of समासोक्ति and the mention of दयितया gives rise to the defect अनुपादेयत्वम् or अपुष्टार्थत्वम्

Page 557

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा

Aprastutapraśaṃsa

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा is exactly the opposite of समासोक्ति. Therein the अप्रस्तुत or उपमान is expressed and the प्रस्तुत or the उपमेय is understood in the same manner is through the force of common adjectives (अनन्वयधर्माविशेषणैः). 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) अनन्वादेयत्वम्, which in Mammata's opinion is the same as अपुष्टार्थेत्वम् or पुनरुक्तता

Aprastutapraśaṃsa is exactly the opposite of Samāsokti. Therein, the अप्रस्तुत or उपमान is expressed, and the प्रस्तुत or उपमेय is understood in the same manner through the force of common adjectives (अनन्वयधर्माविशेषणैः). 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 अनन्वादेयत्वम्, which in Mammata's opinion is the same as अपुष्टार्थेत्वम् or पुनरुक्तता.

Stanza 213—This is भट्टनगतक 69 (काव्यमाला चतुर्थ गुच्छक p 150), where we have 'मध्ये वा धुरि वा वसन्' for 'मध्येवारिधि वा वसन्'. It contains censure or condemnation of generality (सामान्यम्), which does not consider the distinction between things (अनामृष्ट तत्त्वान्तर तत्वानां वस्तुनाम् अन्तर नपश्यन् 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 विहगम equally with an eagle Thus, the सामान्य विहगमतत्व makes no distinction between an insignificant sky-goer like a mosquito and the king of birds viz the eagle That is how it is अनामृष्टतत्वान्तर 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. वासन् can also be looked upon as one word It will then be nom sing of the present participle from वासति, which is a frequentative from वस् वसति to dwell वासन् continually dwelling The reading 'मध्ये वा धुरि वा वसन्' means 'मणीनां मध्ये धुरी अनले वा वसन्' Then again even a fire fly trembles not in moving among luminaries For, the generality तेजस्वित्त्व is as much applicable to it as to the sun.

Stanza 213—This is Bhatta Nāgata 69 (Kāvyamālā Chaturtha Gucchaka p. 150), where we have 'मध्ये वा धुरि वा वसन्' for 'मध्येवारिधि वा वसन्'. It contains censure or condemnation of generality (सामान्यम्), which does not consider the distinction between things (अनामृष्ट तत्त्वान्तर तत्वानां वस्तुनाम् अन्तर नपश्यन् 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 विहगम equally with an eagle. Thus, the सामान्य विहगमतत्व makes no distinction between an insignificant sky-goer like a mosquito and the king of birds, viz., the eagle. That is how it is अनामृष्टतत्वान्तर. 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 supposed to attract grass, as a magnet attracts iron. वासन् can also be looked upon as one word. It will then be nom. sing. of the present participle from वासति, which is a frequentative from वस् वसति to dwell. वासन् continually dwelling. The reading 'मध्ये वा धुरि वा वसन्' means 'मणीनां मध्ये धुरी अनले वा वसन्'. Then again, even a firefly trembles not in moving among luminaries. For, the generality तेजस्वित्त्व 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 अनामृष्टतत्वान्तरम्, as a qualification of सामान्यम्, shows that सामान्य is अप्रस्तुत and is intended to stand .cor some one else. For, अनामृष्टतत्वान्तरम् is really a property of sentient beings and, therefore, cannot properly be construed with

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, अनामृष्टतत्वान्तरम्, as a qualification of सामान्यम्, shows that सामान्य is अप्रस्तुत and is intended to stand for some one else. For, अनामृष्टतत्वान्तरम् is really a property of sentient beings and, therefore, cannot properly be construed with

Page 558

the non sentient सामान्य But when we remember that सामान्य is अप्रस्तुत and is intended to stand for some sentient being, the construction of अनामृष्टतत्त्वान्तरम् with it becomes understandable And the प्रस्तुत sentient being, for whom the अप्रस्तुत सामान्य stands, is an indiscriminate or thoughtless ( अचेतन ) master He is revealed or apprehended through the अप्रस्तुत generality as qualified by the adjective अनामृष्टतत्त्वान्तरम् ( अप्रस्तुत विशेष्यं च 'अनामृष्टतत्त्वान्तरम्' इति विशेषणयुक्तं च यत् सामान्य तस्य द्वारेति ) What is meant is that the adjective अनामृष्टतत्त्वान्तरम्, which qualifies सामान्यम्, reveals that an indiscriminate master is प्रस्तुत here Therefore, his mention again by the word प्रभुम् leads to the fault अनुपादेयत्वम्, which is the same as अपुशब्दार्थत्वम् or पुनरुक्तता

the non sentient sāmannya But when we remember that sāmannya is aprastuta and is intended to stand for some sentient being, the construction of anāmṛṣṭatattvāntaram with it becomes understandable And the prastuta sentient being, for whom the aprastuta sāmannya stands, is an indiscriminate or thoughtless ( acetan ) master He is revealed or apprehended through the aprastuta generality as qualified by the adjective anāmṛṣṭatattvāntaram ( aprastuta viśeṣyaṁ ca 'anāmṛṣṭatattvāntaram' iti viśeṣaṇayuktaṁ ca yat sāmānya tasya dvāreṇa ) What is meant is that the adjective anāmṛṣṭatattvāntaram, which qualifies sāmānyam, reveals that an indiscriminate master is prastuta here Therefore, his mention again by the word prāsum leads to the fault anupādeyatvam, which is the same as apuśabdārthatvam or punaruktatā

अचेतनस्य प्रभो —अचेतनस्य is here used in the sense of अचेतस् or अविवेकिन् Its use in this sense is objectionable अचेतन means inanimate non-sentient, as opposed to चेतन which denotes animate or sentient As a matter of fact सामान्य is अचेतन and प्रभु चेतन The use of the word अचेतन in the sense of अविवेकिन् is the last indication of Mammata's inexact style अप्रस्तुतविधेयत्वमामान्यद्वारेति is really equal to अप्रस्तुतस्य सामान्यस्य 'अनामृष्टतत्त्वान्तरम्' इति विशेषणद्वारेति

तदेतेऽत्रहि—Here Mammata concludes his treatment of अलङ्कारदोष possibility ( यथासम्भविन् ) i e whenever circumstances which give rise to them are present and others of a similar kind are included in the class or group of defects ( दोषजात्या = दोषसमूहेन ),' already mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa Consequently, they do not deserve to be treated separately पूर्वोक्त्या = पूर्वोक्तिस्म सङ्कोचाद्रित्युत्त्या

tatetetrahi—Here Mammata concludes his treatment of alankāradoṣa possibility ( yathāsambhavin ) i e whenever circumstances which give rise to them are present and others of a similar kind are included in the class or group of defects ( doṣajātyā = doṣasamūhena ),' already mentioned in the 7th Ullāsa Consequently, they do not deserve to be treated separately pūrvoktyā = pūrvoktismin saṅkocād ity uktyā

अन्येऽपि एवं जातीयका —By this expression defects of figures like the following are referred to (1) 'अर्केश्वरेजसि राजाय भाति सूर्य इव द्विपि |' Here the superimposition of the sun on the king is detrimental to the apprehension of the simile (2) 'प्रौदीमुख चुम्बतीद रुक्म शोभाशामण्डलम् |' Here the neuter gender of शोभाशामण्डलम् blocks the apprehension of the attribution of नायकत्वधार to the moon and consequently समासोक्ति is not properly developed (3) 'या धर्मभाससस्तनयापि गीतलै स्वया यमस्यापि जनस्य जीवनै कृष्णापि शुद्रोदरेधिके विषायिर्मिविहन्तुमेहासि जले पट्टयसी ॥' This stanza contains a description of the river Yamunā, who is a daughter of the sun ( धर्मभास = उष्णतेजस् सूर्यस्य ) and a sister of Yama, who is a son of the sun ( Compare the Marathi, expression 'यमाजी भास्कर' ) It is an example of विरोध which, however, is not properly developed therein on account of the fact that the contradictory things, which are supposed to give

anyepi evaṁ jātīyakā —By this expression defects of figures like the following are referred to (1) 'arkeśvarejasi rājāya bhāti surya iva dvipi |' Here the superimposition of the sun on the king is detrimental to the apprehension of the simile (2) 'praudīmukha cumbatīda rukma śobhāśāmaṇdalam |' Here the neuter gender of śobhāśāmaṇdalam blocks the apprehension of the attribution of nāyakalvyadhāra to the moon and consequently samāsokti is not properly developed (3) 'yā dharmabhāsasastanayāpi gītalai svayā yamasya api janasyajīvanai kṛṣṇāpi śudrodare dhike viṣāyirmivihantum ehāsi jale patṭayasī ||' This stanza contains a description of the river Yamunā, who is a daughter of the sun ( dharmabhās = uṣṇatejas sūryasya ) and a sister of Yama, who is a son of the sun ( Compare the Marathi, expression 'yamājī bhāskar' ) It is an example of virodha which, however, is not properly developed therein on account of the fact that the contradictory things, which are supposed to give

Page 559

अत्र धर्मीभासस्तत्नयालादीनां शीतलत्वादीनां विरोध उक्तः । स च मिश्राधारतयैव निर्देशान्न सैम्भवति । एकार्थत्वेनैव विरोधस्य निरूपितत्वात् ।

Here, the opposition between धर्मीभास (dharmībhāsa) etc. and शीतलत्व (śītalatva) etc. is stated. And this opposition is possible only when they are mixed, as it is described in the context of mixed bases.

वामनाचार्ये इति सम्पूर्णसिद्धं काव्यलक्षणम्—We have shown before that the whole of the Kāvyaprakāśa is devoted to the treatment of the various topics referred to in the definition of poetry That is why at the end of his work Mammata remarks that the definition of poetry i e its treatment (काव्यलक्षणम्=काव्यलक्षणप्रतिपादनम्) comes to an end

एष मार्गे

This is the path

stands for the manner in which Mammata has dealt with the different topics in his book एष मार्गे =अयं काव्यप्रकाशान्तर्गतविचित्र-विषयप्रतिपादनप्रकारः विद्वद्भ्याम्=काव्यप्रकाशाध्येतृणां 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 Mammata himself, because it suggests that the learned are satisfied with the organic unity of his Kāvyaprakāśa Or विदुषाम् may be construed with विभिन्न instead of with प्रतिभाते विद्वां विभिन्न then becomes equal to विदुषा भरतोक्क्टादीनां प्राचीनालङ्कारिकाणां ग्रन्थेषु विभिन्नत्वेन दृष्ट

The stanza is capable of another interpretation also In this case we have to suppose that it is the composition of either Allata, who is supposed to have completed the 10th Ullāsa, left unfinished by Mammata at the end of the figure परिकर, or of some other writer who believed in the double authorship of the 10th Ullāsa. According to

Page 560

Page 139 ] NOTES : Tenth Flash 409

this interpretation the stanza tells us that this path viz the way in which the figures are treated in the 10th Ullāsa ( एष मार्गः = एष दशमोल्लासप्रतिपादनप्रकार ), though broken (विभिन्न = मम्मट—अल्लट—इति कतुं न्रद्य—विरंचित ), appears to the learned as of undroken form ( अभिन्नरूप = एककर्तृक ) 1 e as the composition of one author This need not cause surprise, because the cause thereof is well executed The second half of the stanza contains a compliment to Allata for the excellent performance of the task which fell to his lot He is so successful in engrafting his work on Mammata's that it is hardly possible to detect that two authors have united their efforts in the composition of the 10th Ullāsa

this interpretation the stanza tells us that this path viz the way in which the figures are treated in the 10th Ullāsa (this is the method of presentation in the tenth chapter), though broken (different, i.e., Mammata, Allata, etc., created it), appears to the learned as of unbroken form (of the same author) i.e., as the composition of one author. This need not cause surprise, because the cause thereof is well executed. The second half of the stanza contains a compliment to Allata for the excellent performance of the task which fell to his lot. He is so successful in engrafting his work on Mammata's that it is hardly possible to detect that two authors have united their efforts in the composition of the 10th Ullāsa

These two interpretations have been offered by comentators beginning with माणिक्यनाथ

These two interpretations have been offered by commentators beginning with Manikyanatha

Page 561

नियतिकृतनियममरहिता ह्लादैकमयीमनन्यपरतन्त्राम् ।

Not bound by the rules of fate, she is the sole embodiment of joy and is not dependent on anything else.

नवरसरचिरा निमित्तिमादधती भारती कवेज्जयति ॥ १ ॥

The speech that is ever-new, beautiful, and dependent on occasion, triumphs over the poet.

काव्य यशसेर्थकृते व्यवहारविदे शिवेतरक्षतये ।

Poetry is for fame, wealth, knowledge of conduct, removal of ill fortune, and for the destruction of misfortune.

सद्यः परनिर्वृतये कान्तासम्मिततयोपदेशयुजे ॥ २ ॥

It gives immediate joy, is like the instruction of a beloved, and is a means of teaching.

शक्तिनिपुणता लोकशास्त्रकाव्याद्यवेक्षणात् ।

Skill in power comes from the observation of people, scriptures, poetry, etc.

काव्यशास्त्रव्यप्यास इति हेतुस्तदुद्भवे ॥ ३ ॥

The study of poetry and science is the cause of its emergence.

तद्दोषौ शब्दार्थौ सगुणावनलंकृती पुनः क्वापि ।

The faults of that (poetry) are in the word and meaning, but it is endowed with qualities and is sometimes adorned.

इदमुत्तममति शयिनि व्यङ्ग्ये वाच्याद् ध्वनिबुधैः कवित्‌ ॥ ४ ॥

This is considered the best by those who are wise in the dhvani, where the suggested meaning is superior to the literal meaning.

अतादृशि गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यं व्यङ्ग्यं तु मध्यममम् ।

Where the suggested meaning is not like that, it is considered secondary, and the suggested meaning is moderate.

शब्दचित्र वाच्यचित्रमलंकारदृश त्ववरं स्मृतमम ॥ ५ ॥

The poetic picture that is a play on words or a play on meaning is considered inferior, as it is seen as an ornament.

स्याद् वाचकलो लक्षणिक. शब्दद्वद्र व्यञ्जकल्क्षिधा ।

The word is indicative, denotative, or suggestive, and is threefold.

वाच्यादयस्तदर्था: स्युस्तत्प्रातिपार्थ्योऽपि केशवचित् ॥ १ ॥

The meanings of these are literal, etc., and sometimes they are also counter-literal.

सर्वेषा प्रायोदर्थाना व्यञ्जकत्वमपीष्यते ।

It is desired that all these meanings have a suggestive power.

साक्षात् सकेतितं योडर्थोऽमिधत्ते स वाचकः ॥ २ ॥

The word that directly signifies a meaning, either explicitly or implicitly, is called a 'vacak'.

संकेतिकताश्रितौ भेदौ जायतादिजातिरेव वा ।

The two types of signification, conventional and contextual, or even the universal and particular.

स मुख्योऽर्थस्तत्र मुख्यो व्यापरोऽस्याभिधोच्यते ॥ ३ ॥

In that case, the primary meaning is said to be the primary function of the word.

मुख्यार्थबाधे तद्योगे रूढितोडर्थ प्रयोजनात् ।

When the primary meaning is obstructed, it is used figuratively, either due to convention or purpose.

अन्योऽर्थ लक्ष्यते यत् सा लक्षणारोपिता क्रिया ॥ ४ ॥

The meaning that is indicated is the one that is figuratively imposed.

स्वसिद्धये परार्थे स्वसमर्पणम् ।

For its own establishment, it surrenders to another meaning.

उपादान लक्षण चेत्युक्तता शुद्धेव सा द्विधा ॥ ५ ॥

It is said to be of two types: pure and impure, depending on whether it is based on inclusion or indication.

सारोपान्या तु यत्राक्तौ विषयी विषयस्तथा ।

Where the superimposition is based on similarity, the subject and object are treated similarly.

विषयग्रन्थ कृतिन्यसिमन् सा स्यात् साध्यवसानिका ॥ ६ ॥

When the subject is closely connected to the object, it is called 'sādhya-vasanikā'.

भेदाचिमौ च साधुर्यात् सबन्धान्तरतातस्तथा ।

Due to the difference in the connection between the two, it is considered 'sādhurya' and 'sambandhāntarata'.

गौणी शुद्धौ च विज्ञेयौ लक्षणा तेन पद्धिधा ॥ ७ ॥

Thus, the indication is known to be of two types: pure and impure.

व्यङ्ग्येन रहिता रूढौ, सहित तु प्रयोजने ।

It is devoid of suggestion when it is based on convention, but it is accompanied by purpose.

तच्च गूढमगूढं वा तद्रूपा कथिता त्रिधा ॥ ८ ॥

That is said to be of three types: hidden, not hidden, and having that form.

तद्लूलक्षणकस्तत्र व्यापारो व्यञ्जनात्मक:

The function that is suggestive in nature is the one that is characterized by that indication.

Page 562

यस्य प्रतीतिमाधातुं लक्षणा समुपास्यते ॥ ९ ॥

For whom the secondary signification is employed to convey the intended meaning. (9)

फले शाब्दैक्यम्येऽत्र व्यञ्जनाव्यापारा क्रिया ।

In this case, the action of suggestion is performed through the primary meaning of the word. (10)

नामिधा समया|मावादेऽतद्भावात्र लक्षणा ॥ १० ॥

The secondary signification is not based on the primary meaning, but on the context or other factors. (10)

लक्ष्य न मुख्यं, नाप्यत्न बाधो, योग. फलेन नो ।

The primary meaning is not the intended meaning, nor is there an attempt to convey a different meaning, nor is there a connection with the result. (11)

न प्रयोजनमेतस्मिन्, न च शब्दः स्वलद्र्वाति: ॥ ११ ॥

There is no purpose in this, nor is the word used in its primary sense. (11)

एवमभ्यनवस्था स्याद् या मूललक्षणकारिणी ।

Thus, there would be an infinite regress, which is the root cause of secondary signification. (12)

प्रयोजनेन सहित लक्षणीयं न गुज्यते ॥ १२ ॥

The secondary signification is not understood along with its purpose. (12)

ज्ञानस्य विषयो हानि. फलमन्यदुदाहत्तम् ।

The object of knowledge is lost, and a different result is obtained. (13)

विशिष्टे लक्षणा नैव विशेषो: स्मुस्तु लक्ष्षिते ॥ १३ ॥

The secondary signification is not different from the primary signification in the case of a specific object. (13)

अनेकार्थस्य शब्दस्य वाचकतवे नियन्न्रिते ।

The word having multiple meanings is restricted to its primary signification. (14)

संयोगादैरवाच्यार्थीगौदृ व्याप्तिरज्ननम् ॥ १४ ॥

The connection between the word and its meaning is established through convention. (14)

तद्युक्तो व्यञ्जक: शब्दो यत्सोऽर्थान्तरयुक तथा ।

The suggestive word is connected to the intended meaning, and it is also related to another meaning. (15)

अर्थोंडपि व्यकक्तस्तत्र सहकारितया मतः ॥ १५ ॥

The meaning is also considered to be suggestive in that context, along with its auxiliary role. (15)

ततीय उल्लास:

Third Chapter:

अर्था प्रोक्ता. पुरा तेषामर्थव्यक्ततौच्यते ।

The meanings are explained earlier, and now their manifestation is discussed. (1)

वक्तृबोद्धव्यकारकूनां वाक्यवाच्यार्थसनिधे: ॥ १ ॥

The speaker, the listener, and the means of expression are all related to the meaning of the sentence. (1)

प्रस्तावदेशकालादेर्विशिष्टौघात प्रतिबाधुषाम् ।

The context, time, and place, etc., are all factors that influence the understanding of the meaning. (2)

योऽर्थस्त्यान्यार्थधीहेतुत्व्यापारो व्यक्तिरेव सा ॥ २ ॥

The meaning that is understood through the sentence is the manifest meaning. (2)

शाब्दप्रामाण्यवेद्योऽर्थो व्यङ्क्तव्यान्तर यत: ।

The meaning that is understood through the authority of the word is the suggested meaning. (3)

अर्थस्य व्यञ्जकत्वे तद्बन्धस्य सहकारिता ॥ ३ ॥

The connection between the meaning and the word is the auxiliary factor in suggestion. (3)

दशाम उल्लास:

Tenth Chapter:

साधर्म्यमुपमा श्रेये पूर्णा लुप्ता च साधिग्रा ।

The simile is considered to be a figure of speech, either complete or incomplete. (1)

श्रौत्यार्थी च न भेदवत् वाक्ये समासे तद्धिते तथा ॥ १ ॥

The distinction between the two is not based on the sentence, compound, or derivative. (1)

तद्धद्रर्मेस्य लोके स्यातत्र श्रौती तद्धिते पुन: ।

The same applies to the derivative, and the secondary signification is used in the context. (2)

उपमानानुपादाने वाक्यगाथा समासगा ॥ २ ॥

The simile is used in a sentence or compound, with or without the mention of the object being compared. (2)

वादेलोंपे समासे सा कर्मोधारक्याचि कयचि ।

In some cases, the simile is used in a compound, and it is considered to be a karmadhāraya compound. (3)

कर्मकत्रोंर्णमुल्येतदृक्लिलोपे क्रिस्मासगा ॥ ३ ॥

In some cases, the simile is used with a verb or a noun, and it is considered to be a compound. (3)

धर्मोंपमानयोलोंपे कृत्तौ वाक्ये च दृश्यते ।

The simile is used in a sentence or with a verb, with or without the mention of the quality being compared. (4)

क्यचि वाच्युपमेयासे त्रिलोे च न समासगा ॥ ४ ॥

In some cases, the simile is not used in a compound, even when the object being compared is explicitly mentioned. (4)

उपमानोपमेयत्वे पकसयैवैकवाक्यगे ।

When the object being compared and the standard of comparison are related, they form a single sentence. (5)

अनन्वयो, विप्र्यास उपमेयोपमा तयो: ॥ ५ ॥

The ananvaya and viparyāsa are types of similes where the object being compared and the standard of comparison are related. (5)

सभावनमध्येपेक्ष्या प्रकृतस्य समेन यत् ।

The comparison is made between the object being described and something similar. (6)

समोहेतु मता|पेक्षा तथ्युक्ता च सांश्रया ॥ ६ ॥

The comparison is considered to be based on the similarity between the two objects, and it is dependent on the context. (6)

Page 563

तद् रूपक्रमभेदो या उपमानोपमेययोः । समस्तवस्तुविषयं श्रौता आरोपिता यद्वा ॥ ७ ॥

The distinction in the order of the Upamana and Upameya, whether it is related to the compounded or uncompounded object, is either heard or charged, or else.

श्रौता अर्थालङ्कृ ते यस्मिंश्रेकदे शाविचार्ति तत् । साक्ष्मेतरद्रङ्गं तु शुद्धं माला तु पूर्ववत् ॥ ८ ॥

That in which the auditory ornament is considered in one part, and the rest is considered in another part, is called 'Sakṣmetaradṛśaṅga'. The pure one is called 'Śuddha', and the garland is like the previous one.

नियतारोपणोपायः स्यादारोपः परस्य यः । तत् परम्परितं श्लेषे वाचकके भेदभाजि वा ॥ ९ ॥

The means of charging is fixed, and it is the charging of the other. That which is related to the Śleṣa or the distinction of the Vācaka.

प्रकृतं यत्रिषिद्ध्यार्थं साध्यते सा त्वपह्नुति । श्लेषः स वाक्ये पकस्मि यत्रानेकार्थता भवेत् ॥ १० ॥

The Apahnuti is that where the Prakṛta is proved for the sake of the Isiddhyartha. The Śleṣa is that where there is a multiplicity of meaning in a single sentence.

परोक्षिमेवदृक् श्लेषः समासोक्तिनिदर्शनौ । अभवन् वस्तुसम्बन्ध उपमापरिकल्पकः ॥ ११ ॥

The Śleṣa is perceived only in the context of the Pāroksya. The Samāsokti and the Nidarśanā are the creators of the relation between the objects.

स्वस्वहेतुस्वन्वयस्पोक्तः क्रिययैव च सापप । अप्रसुतप्रशासा या सैव प्रभुत्वाथ्रया ॥ १२ ॥

The Svabhāvahetu is expressed by the very action, and it is the same as the Sāpadeśa. The Aprastutapraśaṃsā is that which is praised without being presented.

कार्ये निमित्ते सामान्त्ये विशेषे प्रस्तुते सति । तदन्यस्य वचस्तुल्ये तुल्यस्येति च पन्नघा ॥ १३ ॥

When the Kārya, Nimittā, Sāmānya, or Viśeṣa is presented, the speech of the other is similar, and it is said to be 'Tulyasya' or 'Tadanyasya'.

निगीर्याधयवसान तु प्रकृतस्य परेण यत् । प्रस्तुतस्य च धर्मस्य ग्यधर्मोकिः च कल्पनाम् ॥ १४ ॥

The Nigīrīryādhyavasāna is that which is related to the Prakṛta by the other. The Dharmokti is the conception of the quality of the presented object.

कार्यकारणयोर्यश्रै पूर्वापर्यविपर्ययः । विशेषेयातिशयोकिः सा, प्रतिवस्तूपमा तु सा ॥ १५ ॥

The Kāryakāraṇayor is that where there is a reversal of the order of the cause and effect. The Viśeṣeyātiśayokti is that, and it is also called 'Prativastūpama'.

सामान्यस्य द्विरेकस्य यत्र वाक्यद्वये स्थितिः । दृष्टान्त पुनरते यां स्ववेशां प्रतिविम्बनम् ॥ १६ ॥

The Drṣṭānta is that where the Sāmānya is present in both the sentences. The repetition of the same is called 'Prativimbana'.

सकृदुक्तिस्तु धर्मस्य प्रकृताप्रकृतात्मनाम् । सैव क्रियांतु बहिषु कारकस्येति दीपकम्म ॥ १७ ॥

The Dharmasya is mentioned once, and it is related to both the Prakṛta and Aprākṛta. The same is called 'Dīpaka' when it is related to many actions or agents.

मालादीपकमाचं चेत्थद्योत्तरगुणावाहवम । नियतानां सकृद् धर्मः स पुनस्तुल्ययोगिता ॥ १८ ॥

The Mālādīpaka is that which is followed by the subsequent qualities. The Tulyayogitā is that where the fixed Dharmas are mentioned once.

उपमानादृ यदन्यस्य व्यतिरेकः स एव सः । हेतोरुक्तावनुक्तिस्तु तत्रैव साम्ये निवेदिते ॥ १९ ॥

The Vyatireka is that which is different from the Upamāna. The Hētu is that where the cause is mentioned or not mentioned, and it is presented in the same context.

शब्दार्थाभ्यामध्याक्षिने श्लेषे तत् त्रिरष्ट तत् । निषेधो वक्तुमिष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया ॥ २० ॥

The Śleṣa is that which is related to both the Śabda and Artha. The Nisedha is that which is prohibited, and it is intended to be expressed by the Viśeṣa.

वश्यमानोक्तविषयः स आक्षेपो द्विधा मतः । क्रियाया: प्रतिषेधेऽपि फलव्यक्तिर्यविमर्शना ॥ २१ ॥

The Ākṣepa is that which is related to the Vasyamānokta, and it is considered to be of two types. The Phalavyaktir is that where the fruit is manifest, even if the action is prohibited.

विशेषोक्तिरखण्डेऽपु कारणेषु फलावचः । यथासङ्कर्य कमेऐव कमिकाणां समन्वयः ॥ २२ ॥

The Viśeṣokti is that which is related to the unbroken causes, and it is the expression of the fruit. The Yathāsamkhyam is the arrangement of the items in the same order.

सामान्यं वा विशेषो वा तदन्येन समर्थ्यते । जय सोऽर्थान्तरन्यासः साधर्म्येणेतरण वा ॥ २३ ॥

The Sāmānya or Viśeṣa is supported by the other. The Arthāntaranyāsa is that which is related to the same or different context.

Page 564

विरोधः सोऽविरोधेऽपि विरुद्धत्वेन यत् वचः ।

The statement that is considered contradictory even when it is not contradictory.

जातिश्रुत्यादिमिञ्जात्यादैविरुद्धा स्याद् गुणत्रिभिः ॥ २४ ॥

Is considered contradictory due to jāti, śruti, etc., and is opposed by the three qualities. || 24 ||

त्रिया द्रव्यामथ द्रव्य द्रव्येणैवैति ते दशा ।

The ten categories are: kriyā (action), dravya (substance), and dravya with dravya.

स्वभावोक्तिरस्तु डिम्बादौ स्वक्रियारूपवर्णनम् ॥ २५ ॥

Svabhāva-ukti is the description of one's own nature, as in the case of Dimbā, etc. || 25 ||

व्याजस्तुतिरमुषे निन्दा स्तुतिर्वा रुचिरन्यथा ।

Vyāja-stuti is when praise is given in the form of blame or blame is given in the form of praise.

सा सहोक्तिः सार्थस्य वलादेक द्विवाचकम् ॥ २६ ॥

Sahokti is when two words convey a single meaning forcefully. || 26 ||

विनोक्तिः सा विनायेन यथान्यत् । सन्न नेतरः ।

Vino-ukti is when something is described in a way that is different from its actual nature.

परिकृत्यैवेनिमयो योडर्थानां स्पात् समासमैः ॥ २७ ॥

Parikrtya-ivā-nimaya is when a compound word is used to convey a specific meaning. || 27 ||

प्रत्यक्ष एव यद् भावाः क्रियन्ते भूतभाविनः ।

Pratyakṣa is when past or future events are described as if they are present.

तद्राविक, काव्यलिङ्गं हेतोरैक्यपदार्थता ॥ २८ ॥

Tad-rāvik and kāvya-linga are when a cause is described as a single entity. || 28 ||

पर्यायोक्तं विना वाच्यवाचकत्वेन यद् वचः ।

Paryāyokta is when a statement is made without using the literal meaning.

उदात्त वस्तुनः स्पन्द्, महता चोपलक्षणम् ॥ २९ ॥

Udātta is when an object is described with grandeur and characteristic features. || 29 ||

तत्सिद्धिहेतवेकस्मिन्न् यत्राडन्यत् तत्कर भवेत् ।

Tat-siddhi-heta is when a single cause leads to multiple effects.

समुच्चयोऽस्मौ स त्वक्यो यत्रपद् या गुणक्रियाः ॥ ३० ॥

Samuccaya is when multiple words or qualities are combined. || 30 ||

पक कमेणानेकस्मिन्न् पर्योऽन्यस्ततोऽन्यथा ।

Prakramaṇa is when a sequence of events is described in a particular order.

अनुमान तदुक्त यत् साध्यसाधनयोरवचः ॥ ३१ ॥

Anumāna is when a conclusion is drawn based on a premise. || 31 ||

विरोषणैर्यत् साकृतैहकि परिकरस्तु सः ।

Viroṣaṇa is when something is described with distinctive characteristics.

ध्याजोक्तिश्चिनोद्याद्वस्तुरुपनिगूहनम् ॥ ३२ ॥

Dhyājokti is when an object is described in a way that conceals its true nature. || 32 ||

किञ्चित् पृष्ठमपुष्टं वा कथितं यत् प्रकटपते ।

Kincit is when something is described in a way that is not entirely clear.

तादगण्यपरोहाय परिसख्या तु सा स्मृता ॥ ३३ ॥

Tād-gunya-parohāya-parisankhyā is when something is described in a way that is considered to be a characteristic. || 33 ||

यथोत्तरं चेत् पूर्वस्य पूर्वस्यार्थस्य हेतुता ।

Yathottaram is when a subsequent event is caused by a preceding event.

तदा कारणमाला स्यात्, क्रियया तु परस्परम् ॥ ३४ ॥

Tadā kāraṇa-mālā is when a series of causes and effects are described. || 34 ||

दृष्टान्तो जननैद्योऽसौ श्लुतिमात्रात् ।

Dṛṣṭānta is when an example is given to illustrate a point.

प्रकृतस्याथ यत्र क्रियते, तत्र वा सति ॥ ३५ ॥

Prakrta is when something is described in relation to its context. || 35 ||

असकृद् यदसंभाव्यमुत्तरं स्यात् तदुत्तरम् ।

Asakṛd is when something is described in a way that is not expected.

खुत्तुबपि लक्षितः सूत्रमोडर्थोऽन्यस्ततोऽस्मै प्रकाइयते ॥ ३६ ॥

Khuttubapi lakṣitaḥ is when a meaning is conveyed through a hint. || 36 ||

धर्मेण केनचिद् यत्र तत् सूत्रं परिचक्षते ।

Dharmeṇa kenacid is when something is described in relation to a particular characteristic.

उत्तरोत्करमुक्त्र्यो भवेत् सारः परावधि ॥ ३७ ॥

Uttarotkar is when a description is given in a way that is considered to be the ultimate limit. || 37 ||

मिश्रदेशातयायन्तं कार्यकारणमूतयोः ।

Miśra-deśa is when a cause and effect are described together.

युगपद् धर्मयोर्यत्र स्याति सा स्यादसङ्कितः ॥ ३८ ॥

Yugapad is when two characteristics are described simultaneously. || 38 ||

सुमाधिः सुकर कार्य कारणान्तरयोगतः ।

Sumādhi is when a task is made easy by the presence of another factor.

सुमं योग्यतया योगो यदि संभावितः कवचिन् ॥ ३९ ॥

Sum is when something is considered suitable due to its inherent quality. || 39 ||

कचिद् यदतिवैधर्म्यात्र् ऋक्षेषो घटनाभिसात् ।

Kacid is when something is described in a way that is contrary to its expected nature.

कलुने क्रियाफलावासिनिवसानयेश्र यद् स्मृत ॥ ४० ॥

Kalpanā is when a description is given in a way that is considered to be a creative expression. || 40 ||

Page 565

गुणक्रियाभ्यां कार्यस्य कारणस्य गुणक्रिये ।

The qualities and actions of the effect are the qualities and actions of the cause.

क्रमेण च विरुद्धे यत् स एव विषमो मतः ॥ ४१ ॥

And when they are opposed in order, that is considered unequal.

महतोर्नमद्दीपारासावस्थिताश्रययोस्: क्रमात् ।

The order of the great and the small, the lamp and the reflected image, is determined by their respective bases.

आश्रयाश्रयिणौ स्यातां तनुत्वेऽप्यधिक तु तत् ॥ ४२ ॥

The base and the based are so, even if there is a difference in their extent.

अतिपक्वाशरोत्कर्षे प्रतिपत्तु तिरस्क्रिया ।

When the object is too ripe, it is obscured by the perceiver.

या तदोयस्य तत्सुतुयै प्रत्यनीक तदुच्यते ॥ ४३ ॥

That which is contrary to the nature of the thing is said to be opposed to it.

समेन लक्षणा वस्तु वस्तुना यत्रिगूह्यते ।

When a thing is hidden by another thing of equal characteristic.

निजेनापि तुन त्वापि तन्मीलितमिति स्मृतम् ॥ ४४ ॥

It is also remembered as being covered by its own.

स्थाप्यतेतडपोहान्ते वाडपि यथापूर्वं परं ।

At the end of the discussion, the previous view is again established.

विशेषणतया यच्च वस्तु सैक्कावली द्विधा ॥ ४५ ॥

And that which is a qualifier is a single sequence, twofold.

यथाहुःकभवमर्यस्य हस्त्रे तत्सदशो स्मृति: ।

As they say, the memory of a similar thing is in the hand.

स्मरण भ्रान्तिमातन्यासवितत् तुल्यदर्शनेऽने ॥ ४६ ॥

The remembrance is a mere delusion, due to the similarity of the perception.

आक्षेप उपमानस्य प्रतीपमुपमेयता ।

The implication of the standard is the reverse of the similarity.

तस्मैव यदि वा कल्प्या तिरस्कारनिबन्धनम् ॥ ४७ ॥

For that very reason, if it is assumed, it is the cause of the obscuration.

प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्येन गुणसाम्यचिवक्शया ।

When the presented thing is compared with another by means of a common quality.

एकात्म्ये बध्यते योगात्त तत् सामान्यमिति स्मृतम् ॥ ४८ ॥

Due to the connection, it is remembered as a universal.

विना प्रसिद्धमाधारमाधेयस्य व्यवस्थिति: ।

Without a well-known basis, the existence of the based is determined.

एकात्मा युगपद्रुतिरेकस्यनेकगोचरा ॥ ४९ ॥

The single self is the simultaneous perceiver of many objects.

अन्यत् प्रकुर्वत् कार्यमशक्यस्यान्यवस्तुन ।

Doing something else, the impossible thing is not an object.

तथैव करण चेति विरोषपरिविधि स्मृत ॥ ५० ॥

Similarly, the means is also remembered as being opposed to the various.

स्वमूलस्युज गुण योगादस्युज्चल गुणस्य यत् ।

Due to the connection of the quality with its own root, it is brilliant.

वस्तु तद्रुणतामेति भण्यते स तु तद्रुण ॥ ५१ ॥

The object becomes endowed with that quality, and it is said to be that quality.

तद्रूपानुहरार्द्रेsदस्य तत् तु स्यातद्रुण ।

That which is similar in form to it, is considered to be that quality.

यदू यथा साधितं केनाप्यपेरण तद्न्यत्या ॥ ५२ ॥

Whatever is proved by someone in a certain way, is considered to be that.

तथैव यद् विशिष्टं स ड्याग्यात इति स्मृतः ।

Similarly, that which is distinguished is remembered as being known.

सेग्रा संसृष्टिरेतेषा मेदेन यदिद स्थिति ॥ ५३ ॥

The combination of these is distinguished by its own existence.

अविश्रान्तिजुषामेलन्मन्येतेत्य तु सकृत ।

The uninterrupted series is considered to be a single entity.

एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावादनिश्रय ॥ ५४ ॥

And in the perception of one, there is no fault of reasoning, hence no doubt.

स्फुटमेकत्र विषय द्वयार्थालकृतिद्वयम ।

Clearly, in one subject, there are two meanings, and two figures of speech.

व्यवस्थित च तेनासो त्रिरूपः परिकीरितंत ॥ ५५ ॥

And it is said to be threefold, due to its being established.

पथां दोषा यथायोग समवन्तोऽपि केचन ।

Some of the faults are present, according to the context.

उत्केप्रनस्तरंभवस्तिति न पुथक्प्रतिपादिता ॥ ५६ ॥

The raising and the sinking are not separately presented.

Page 566

APPENDIX-B INDEX TO STANZAS

भअविहुल रुकुमं

अकुवल्येकण्ठया पुण

अक्खण्डमण्डल श्रीमानू

अण्ण लडहुअणअं

अतिरिअ नाम काकुस्थात

अत्यायत्थर्नियइमकारिअमि

अनयेचेव राजश्री

अनवरतकणक

अणुरणन्मणिमेखल

अन्वत्र यूयं कुअमा

अपाअत्तरलए दहइ

अव्वेरम्म सइगित

अभिनवअलिनिी

असुविहलवण्णिआसुअट

अयमेकट्ठे तया

अय पद्मासनासीन

अये मारिसड* कि

अयं वारामेक्को

अरातिविक्रममालोक

अरुचिनिस्सया विना

अलोकिकमहालोक

अवास प्रागल्भ्ये

अवितथमनोरथपथ

अविरलकलमलविकास

असितभुजगभीषणासि

असिमात्रसहायस्य

आसीमात्रसहायोगप

अस्या सर्गनिवीयो

अहमेव गुरु सुदारुणाना

अहो विशालं भूपाल

अहो हि मे बहुपराद्ध

आकुछकरवालोऽसौ

आते सीमन्तरतने

आदाय वारि परित

आनन्दममनन्दिमिमे

आलानं जयकुजरस्य

आसीदजनमत्रेति

आहुतेपु विहंगमेपु

इत्येष मार्गो विदुर्या

इन्दु किं क कलह

इयं च पह्वतातम्र

इयं जुनयना दासी

उक्ष निष्कुलणिपन्दा

उदयति विततौजोरस्मिम

उदयमयते दिवसालिन्ये

उद्धरोष्य सरस्य

उद्यौौ दीर्घींका

उत्थितं पदमाश्रय

उन्मेषं यो मम न

ए अहिं किंपि किएवि

ए अहि दाव सुन्दरी

एकस्सिआ वससीए

एकतॆ तस्मि गुह्योअत

एहुमेत्थअणिआ

ओणिहू दोव्बलं वन्ति

कमले भर्ज्जार पय

कमलमनम्भसि

कमलेन् मतीमतीरिव

करजुअगाहिअजसोअा

करवाल इवाचरात

कप्यूर इव दर्धोरपि

कल्खयं च तवाहिते

कस्त्वं मो क्थयामि

का विसमा देवन्तई

किमासेव्य पुर्सा

किं भूषणं सुहृद

किवणापर्ण घर्ण णआण

किसलयकरेलन्तारां

कुरझीवाॐन

कुल्म्ममलिन भ्रां

कुसुमितलत्तामिरहता

कौटिल्यं कचनिन्ये

कौश्वादिरुदामहोदद

क सूर्यप्रभवो बन्धः

क्षीणः क्षीणोपि शान्ती

गम्भीर प्रवहत

Page 567

गर्वेमसवाग्रमिमं

गाङ्गमम्बु सितमम्बु

गाम्भीर्येगरीमा तस्य

गिरयोड्यनुतृप्ति

गुणानामेव दुरागम्याद्

गुणेर्नद्यां प्रतिहतो

गुरुअणपरवस पिय

ग्रहिणी सचिवः सखी

प्रधोर्मि काव्यशशिन

ग्रामतरुण तरुण्यां

चकितहरिणलोचनालया

चक्री चकारपदिं

चण्डालैरिव युग्माभिः

चित्रमे चित्र बत बत

चिन्तारत्नमिव च्युतोदसि

जटाभिरम्भोम्भोभिः

जस्स रणन्तेउरए

जस्सेअ वणो तस्सेअ

जह गहिरो जह

जितेन्द्रियतया सम्यग्

जितेन्द्रियत्वं विनयस्य

ज्योत्स्नाभस्मच्छुरण

ज्योत्स्ना मोदकदाम

ज्योत्स्नेव नयनानन्द

डुष्टुण्डणन्तो मरिहसि

णोअल्खिअ अणहुअमणा

तइआ मह गडुअल

तत् कुसुमद्रनाथेन

तं ताण सिरिसहोअर

तथाभूता द्रष्ट्रा

तदिदमर्ण्यं यास्मिन्

तद् गेहं नतमित्ति

तद्वेषोऽसह्योऽन्याभिः

तरुणिमनि कृतावलोचना

तवाइव साहसकर्म

तेऽपि संगरसज्जसक्

स्वपि रष्ट एव तस्या

त्वं विनिजितमनोभव

दिवमणुपयातानां

दिवाकराद् रक्षति यो

दुर्वारा स्मरमार्गणा

देवेभ्यो गमिता

दोषेभ्यः तितीर्षिति

दहशा दग्ध मनसिज

द्वारोपनिगृह्हीते

धन्यस्यानन्यसामान्य

धवलोऽसि जह वि

धातु शिल्पातिशय

न केवलं भाति नितान्त

न तज्जल यत्

नवनवाश्रयस्थितिरियं

नयनानन्ददायीनन्दो

नानाविधप्रहरणैः

निजदोषाश्रितमनसा

मिल्योदितप्रतापेन

निद्रानिद्रितावुदिते

*निपेतरास्यादिव तस्य

निम्ननाभिकुहररेहु

निर्वधि च निराश्रय च

नि शेषच्युतचन्दनं

परिच्छेदततीत

परिपन्थिमनोराज्य

पक्षावदंश्रौ प्रसार्य

पाण्डु क्षाम वदनं

पातालमिव नामिस्ते

पादाम्बुज भवतु नो

पुराणि यस्मात् सवरा

पुस्तवादपि प्रविचलेः

पेशलमपि खल

पौर सुतीर्यति जन

प्रणयसखीवलील

प्रत्यभिज्ञानविशेष

वत सखि कियदेतत्

विम्बोष्ठ एव रागस्ते

भण तहुणि रमण

भक्तिभंवेऽन विभवे

भद्रात्मनो दुराधरोह

भस्मोद्दूलन भद्रमस्तु

भुजङ्गमस्येव मणि

मतिरिव मूर्तिमन्धुरा

Page 568

मधुरिमरचिर वच

Sweetness in speech

मलयजरसविलिस

Fragrant with the juice of the Malaya mountain

महौजसा मानधना

Great splendor, pride of wealth

माए घरोऽरणं

In the house, a forest

मानमस्या निराकृतं

Pride destroyed

मुक्ता केलिविसूत्र

Pearls, play threads

मुख विकसति स्मितं

Face blossoms with a smile

मृगलोचनया विना

Without the deer-eyed one

मृधे निदाघघर्मांशु

In the battle, the sun's rays

यत्रैता लहरीचलाचल

Where these waves are moving

यदि दहत्यकलोड्ट्र

If the fire burns the camel

यस्य किंचिदपकर्तुं

Whose something to be done

यं प्रक्ष्य चिरुड़ापि

Whom to see, even if old

यं कामयामहे

Whom we desire

याता किं न मिलन्ति

Those who do not meet

युगान्तकालप्रतिसहा

Enduring the time of the end of the yuga

ये कन्दरामु निवसन्ति

Those who live in caves

येनास्य स्म्युदितेन

By whom his smile was brought out

येषा कण्ठपरिमृशं

Those whose throat is touched

राकायामकलङ्क

On the full moon, a stain

राजति तटीयर्माभिहतं

Shining, struck by the shore

राजनागयण लक्ष्मी

The king's wealth, a sign

राजन् ग जमता न

O king, do not be angry

राज्ये सारं वमृथा

In the kingdom, the essence is being vomited

रत्नावभासो

The shine of jewels

लक्ष्मीहूण तुज्झ

Lakshmi, abandoned by you

लावण्याकुलस सप्रताप

Beauty, overwhelmed with pride

लिम्पन्तीव नमोड्डुगानि

As if anointing the clouds

वक्त्रम्यनिदम्नेद

The face, a mirror

वक्त्रन्दी नव सत्ययं

The face, new truth

वदनगाभलोभ

The face, a lotus

वगु प्रादुर्भावाद

The manifestation of the wave

वाङ्मयकुलदूष इव

As if the speech is spoiled

वाणि न ऽहर्निशद्ना

Speech, not day and night

विरदालितमकलङ्कारिकुल

The family of poets, a stain

विदग्नमानसहम

The heart, a sacrifice

विनिर्गत मानद

Gone out, pride

विपुलेन सागरगयस्य

With the great ocean

विभिन्नवर्णा गरुडाभ्रजेन

Different colors, like Garuda's wings

चेतत्रवचा तुल्यरुचा

Consciousness, equal in form

शशी दिवसघूसरो

The moon, covered by the day

श्रीपादपि मृदुकी

The feet, soft

शैलेंद्रप्रतिपाद्यमान

Being presented to the great mountain

श्रीपरिचयाज्जड अपि

Due to the acquaintance with Shri, even the dull

सअलंकरणपर

With ornaments

स एकटङ्काणि जयति

He conquers, alone

सक्त्वो भक्षितां

The strength, eaten

सकेतकालमनसस

With the mind, at the appointed time

संग्रामादणमागतेन

In the battle, with the arrival

सतत सुमनसक्का

Always, with a good mind

मद्य करस्पृगमवाप्य

Wine, obtained by the hand

स पीतवासा

He, wearing yellow clothes

समदमततं जमदग्निजल

The water of Jamadagni, equally delighted

स मुहुर्मीलितो

He, repeatedly closed the eyes

सविता विधावनि

The sun, running

सह दिअणिम्मार्हि

With the giving, worthy

सा वसइ तुझ्झ हिअए

She lives in your heart

साहेन्ती सहि सुद्अ

Enduring, with patience

सिंहिकासुनस्तस्त

The son of Simhika, a hero

सुव्वइ मगागमिस्सदि

The good path, to be followed

सुसितनेत्रनाले कराय

With eyes, like a lotus stalk

मुहुत्रयूबाप्पजल

The water, overflowing with joy

मजनि च जगदिदमवति

In the water, this world is protected

सो णट्थि एत्थ गामे

There is no one in this village

सोज्जुव्वं रसना

The tongue, straightforward

मौन्दयस्य तरकिणी

The river, with a slow current

सौभाग्य वितनोति

Good fortune, spreading

स्पष्टशोवलसतिकरण

Clearly, with a beautiful form

सृष्टाति तिमिरुचौ

Creation, with darkness

सुरददुत्तरूप

The form, difficult to give

स्वच्छन्दोच्चछलदन्चलङ्घ

Free, unrestrained, and moving

स्वच्छात्मतागुण

Pure, with the quality of self

स्वमेधपि समरेऽपु त्वा

Even in one's own sacrifice, you

स्विद्यति कूणति वेधसति

Sweating, trembling, and creating

हरवक्त्र विषमदृष्टि'

Hara's face, with a fierce glance

हसाण सरेहि' सिरि'

Laughing, with a happy face

हिल्वा त्वामुपरोध

Leaving you, an obstacle

हृदयमणिमच्छितमादौ

The heart, a jewel, desired

हे हेलाकितबोधिसत्त

O you, with a playful Bodhisattva

Page 569

APPENDIX C

INDEX TO ALAMKARAS TREATED BY MAMMATA IN ULLASA X

The figures refer to the pages of the Text and to those of the Notes

अतद्रगुणा १९९, ४६० | प्रत्नोक्तम् ९०६, ४३९

Atadruguna 199, 460 | Pratnotkam 906, 439

अतिशयोक्ति ६३, ३१९

Atishayokti 63, 319

अधिकप्रस् १०५, ४२९

Adhikpras 105, 429

अनन्वय ८४, २७३

Ananvaya 84, 273

अनुमानम् ९९, ३९४

Anumanam 99, 394

अन्योन्यम् ९९, ४९०

Anyonyam 99, 490

अपह्नुति ५३, २९८

Aphnutih 53, 298

अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा ५८, ३१०

Aprastutaprasamsa 58, 310

अर्थान्तरन्यास ७५, ३४९

Arthantaranyasa 75, 349

असंगति १०९, ४१८

Asangati 109, 418

आक्षेप ७२, ३४२

Aksepa 72, 342

उत्तरम् ९९, ४९०

Uttaram 99, 490

उद्रेकः ८५, ३७५

Udrekaḥ 85, 375

उदात्तम् ३४, २४४

Udattaṃ 34, 244

उपमा ३४, २४४

Upama 34, 244

उपमेयोपमा ८४, २७४

Upameyopama 84, 274

एकावली १०२, ४३५

Ekavali 102, 435

कारणमाला ९६, ४०६

Karanamala 96, 406

काव्यालिङ्गम् ८३, ३७०

Kavyalingam 83, 370

तद्गुण, १९६, ४५६

Tadguna, 196, 456

तुल्ययोगिता ६८, ३३१

Tulyayogita 68, 331

दीपकम् ६६, ३२७

Dipakam 66, 327

हृष्टान्त ६५, ३२५

Hṛṣṭanta 65, 325

निदर्शना ५६, ३०९

Nidarśana 56, 309

परिकर ९२, ३९७

Parikara 92, 397

परिसंख्या ९४, ४०२

Parisankhya 94, 402

पर्यायोक्तम् ८५, ३७३

Paryayoktam 85, 373

प्रतीपम् ६४, ३२३

Pratipam 64, 323

भाविकम् ८३, ३६९

Bhavikam 83, 369

प्रान्तिमान् ११०, ४८०

Prantiman 110, 480

मालादीपकम् ६७, ३३०

Maladipakam 67, 330

मीलितम् १०७, ४३३

Militam 107, 433

यथासङ्ख्यम् ९५, ३८८

Yathasanghyam 95, 388

रूपकम् ८७, २८४

Rupakam 87, 284

विनोक्ति ८९, ४६६

Vinokti 89, 466

विभावना ७३, ३४५

Vibhavana 73, 345

विरोध ८६, ३५२

Virodha 86, 352

विशेष १९४, ४८९

Vishesha 194, 489

विशेषोक्ति ७४, ३४६

Vishesokti 74, 346

विपम १०३, ४२४

Vipamam 103, 424

व्यतिरेक ६८, ३३४

Vyatireka 68, 334

व्याघात ११६, ४६३

Vyaghatam 116, 463

व्याजस्तुति ८०, ३६९

Vyajastuti 80, 369

व्याजोक्ति ९३, ३९९

Vyajokti 93, 399

श्लेष ५५, ३०९

Shlesha 55, 309

सृष्टि ११९, ४६५

Srishti 119, 465

संकर १२०, ४६८

Sankara 120, 468

समम् १०२, ४२३

Samam 102, 423

समाधि १०२, ४२२

Samadhi 102, 422

समासोक्ति ५५, ३०८

Samasokti 55, 308

समुच्चय ८७, ३८२

Samuchchaya 87, 382

ससन्देह ८६, ३८१

Sasandeha 86, 381

सहोक्ति ८९, ३८६

Sahoikti 89, 386

सामान्यम् ११२, ४५०

Samanyam 112, 450

सार १००, ४९५

Sara 100, 495

सूक्ष्मम् ९९, ४९६

Suksham 99, 496

स्मरणम् १०९, ४३८

Smaranam 109, 438

स्वभावोक्ति ९९, ३६०

Svabhavokti 99, 360