1. Kvayprakasa, Analysis Of The Contents The Kavyaprakasa

I

CHAPTER I

Invocation of the appropriate divinity—the poet's Muse (कविमातृ = the poet's inspiration). Superiority of the poet's creation to the creation of Brahmā. The utility of kāvya—it brings forth fame and riches, averts evils, teaches the ways of the world, gives pure and unmixed pleasure and contains useful instruction. The essential qualifications of the poet—poetic genius ( प्रतिमा ), facility in composition ( निपुणता ) arising from a careful observation of the world and the study of various kāvyas and śastras, and practice ( वश्यम् ) under experts. Definition of kāvya—it consists of word and sense without faults ( दोष ), with merits ( गुण ) and with rhetorical excellence ( अलंकार ) which may at times remain absent.

I

CHAPTER I

Three classes of kāvya—kāvya of the highest, of the middle and of the lowest kind.

I

CHAPTER I

When the suggested sense ( व्यंग्य ) dominates the expressed one ( वाच्यार्थ ) it is the best, when the suggested sense is dominant but is at a par with or inferior to the expressed sense, it is of the middle class, and when there is no suggested sense at all (but mere rhetoric etc.) the kāvya is of the lowest kind.

II

CHAPTER II

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

II

CHAPTER II

• For various definitions of kāvya see Sāhitya-darpana (Ch. I) and Rūgaṇgīdhara (Ch. 1).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

उपाधि

वस्तुप्रभं वक्तृद्वच्याश्रितसङ्केतितधर्मं

( i.e., संज्ञा )

सिद्ध साध्य (i.e., क्रिया)

प्राणप्रद (i.e., जाति) विशेषाधानहेतु (i.e., गुण)

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

• प्राणप्रदत्वं या जातौ व्यक्तौ सम्भितत्वम् ।

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

29

The following table shows the six kinds of लक्षणा .—

1. उपादानलक्षणा—कुन्ताः प्रविशन्ति (lances enter the battle field) Here in order to establish the logical connection of the lances with the act of entering, the soldiers armed with lances must be understood to be the meaning of the word कुन्ताः प्रविशन्ति—कुन्ता प्रविशति इत्यादौ स्वरय कुन्तादि. सिध्यये अर्थ-वसिद्धये परस्य कुन्तत्वपारिन. आक्रेप बोधनम् उपादानलक्षणेत्यच्यते The special purpose served by लक्षणा here is to dran pointed attention to the instruments of war

2 लक्षणगालक्षणा*—गङ्गाया घोप. Here the term Gangā gives up its current meaning for the sake of the figurative one परार्थे रससमर्पणम्—गङ्गाया घोप इत्यादौ परार्थे तयादित्युपार्धित्वेन रसस्य प्रवाहरूपार्धेन्य समर्पणं त्याग लक्षणगालक्षणेत्यच्यते

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

4. (शुद्धा) साध्यवसाना लक्षणा—आयुर्वेदम् or butter आयुरितम् Here the visayin (घृत) swallows as it were the visaya (आयुस्), the latter being

o साध्यपरितावितादैन परार्थनयकचवाघुदालानन् i e., t figurative use in which pal or current meaning is not given up i e., is t परार्थनयकचवना स्वाथ परितागोन पराथनचणम् use of t word in which the principal or the connected figurative meaning

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

† श्लाघ्य प्रतत्त्वस्यारोप्यविग्रहेऽपि न तु वाहीकस्येदन्त्योपस्थितिः। गौर्ज्यप्ति would be a less misleading example.

‡ 'अत्यन्तभानुगुणयोरगाद ग्रोसिष्ठ तु गोपसा'। 'अभिधेयार्थगुणयोगात' गौणी।

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

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

[ Some are of opinion that फल of लक्षणाशान is पावनत्वादिप्रतीति and not पावनत्वादि. They explain the काविका of Mammaṭa above referred to viz., ज्ञानस्य विषयो हन्यः फलं तु ज्ञानं फलंवद्विषयम्. ज्ञानस्य फलमपि ग्राह्यं विशिष्टं ज्ञानं फलकमपि चिषयम्. The फल of ज्ञान in this case being पावनत्वप्रतीति is not different from ज्ञान itself. ]

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

• See p. 28. F. N. 1.

† A simpler and apparent solution of this problem is as follows . Lakṣanī is based on अन्ययानुपपत्ति (incompatibility of the current meaning) and hence the लक्षणाभे will include of a word with the rest of the sentence) and hence the लक्षणाभे will include the अन्ययानुपपत्ति (incompatibility) and hence the लक्षणाभे is ग्राह्यतत् and not विग्रिहातत्. अन्ययानुपपत्या प्रथितनी नवधा यादवद्वयोचपादक शाब्देव विषयोचरोति ।

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

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

III

CHAPTER III

III

आर्थी व्यञ्जना (Suggestiveness of meaning)—Suggestiveness of meaning is that function of the meaning which gives rise to another meaning to be comprehended by persons endowed with appreciating genius, through the peculiarities of (1)-er, (2) the person spoken to, (3) intonation i. e., characteristics of dicating emotions, (4) the st- (5) the expressed the presence of another p- (6) neither वक्ता (speaker) on spoken to), (7) (8) ce and (9)

III

The suggests ject before the buting cau however, wl be suggestiv

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

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

विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य ध्वनि is one where though the expressed meaning is not barred yet it is subservient to the suggested meaning. This kind of ध्वनि is of two kinds, असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य and संलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य. In the former the sequence of the expressed meaning in regard to the suggested meaning is not perceptible while in the latter such a sequence is perceptible. The असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य is treated first as it

has fewer varieties than the संलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य. असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य has eight varieties—रस, भाव, रसाभास, भावाभास, भावशान्ति, भावोदय, भावसन्धि and भावशबलता.* When they appear as predominant factors they constitute ध्वनि and are to be embellished (अलङ्कार्य) but when the literal meaning (वाच्यार्थे) dominates over the suggested meaning i. e., when रस, भाव and others assume a secondary character then they become embellishments (अलङ्कार) known as रसादि, हि etc. Instances of th—

are to be found in chapter V.

The author now describes the nature of रस.

[ It is necessary to explain here ……………… etc. A व्यभिचारिभाव is a permanence =:— (nirith), शोक (sorrow), क्रोध (reentment) etc. =—=— etc. स्थायिभाव, विभाव etc. A स्थायिभाव is a permnanen ………………

(fe ur), शृङ्गार (loathing) and हसित (f—=— = = the mind of men but gene— ……………… It eac— ……………… developed into रस by fir— ……………… etc. are the causes of thee ……………… etc. शान्तरसस्य विभाव is the person ce …………………

• In this connection ……………… etc (to be continued).

KĀ-P—5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The theory of Śriśaṅkuka is as follows :-

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

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

Bhaṭṭa Nāyaka explains the sūtra in the following manner :-

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

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

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

The explanation propounded by Abhinavagupta is as follows :-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Erotic in privation in its turn is of five kinds—the feeling of (a) अभिलाष (longing), (b) विरह (separation), (c) ईर्ष्या (jealousy), (d) वर्ष (residence abroad) and (e) शाप (curse i.e., separation due to a curse of banishment etc.)—Examples.

Examples of the Comic and other rasas.

The basic feelings or sthāyībhāvas of these rasas:—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The व्यभिचारिभावs (subordinate emotions)—निवेद (self-disparagement), ग्लानि (apprehension), आलस्य (indolence) etc.

The शान्त (the Quietistic) is the ninth रस of which निवेद (self-disparagement) is the basic feeling.

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

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

रसाभास and भावाभास—when रसs and भावs (व्यभिचारिभावs such as चिन्ता etc.) are improperly manifested they constitute what are called रसाभास and भावाभास (semblance of रस and भाव).

[ Love of a man towards a woman who does not entertain any such feeling for him or the activities of a woman directed towards several men would be manifested as रसाभास. Rāvaṇa's चिन्ता for Sītā would be भावाभास. ]

Of subordinate emotions (भाव i.e., व्यभिचारिभाव) there are (a) allayment ( शान्ति ), (b) manifestation ( उदय ), (c) mixture ( सन्धि ) and (d) variegation ( शवलता ).

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

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

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

Here ends the description of the eight kinds of असल्‍लक्ष्यक्रमव्यंग्य (suggestion with imperceptible sequence)—they being रस, भाव, रसाभास, भावाभास, भावोदय, भावश्‍यान्ति, भावसंधि and भावश्‍वलना

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

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

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

Examples where figures are suggested

Examples where matter is suggested

The second division of सल्‍लक्ष्यक्रमव्यंग्य i e, अर्थलक्षणव्यंग्य (that in which the suggested meaning arises from the force of the sense) It is

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

Examples in due order of :—

1. स्वतः सम्भविना वस्तुना वस्तुनो ध्वनि:

[The suggestion of a fact by a self-existent fact].

2. स्वतः सम्भविना वस्तुना अलङ्कारस्य ध्वनि:

[The suggestion of a figure by a self-existent fact].

3. स्वतः सम्भविना अलङ्कारेण वस्तुनो ध्वनि:

[The suggestion of a fact by a self-existent figure].

4. स्वतः सम्भविना अलङ्कारेण अलङ्कारस्य ध्वनि:

[The suggestion of a figure by a self-existent figure].

5. कविप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धवस्तुना वस्तुनो ध्वनि:

[The suggestion of a fact by a fact, the creation of poet's fancy].

6. कविप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धवस्तुना अलङ्कारस्य ध्वनि:

[The suggestion of a figure by a fact, the creation of poet's fancy].

7. कविप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण वस्तुनो ध्वनि:

[The suggestion of a fact by a figure, the creation of poet's fancy].

8. कविप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण अलङ्कारस्य ध्वनि:

[The suggestion of a figure, by a figure, the creation of poet's fancy].

9. कविनिबद्धवक्रोक्तिप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धवस्तुना वस्तुनो ध्वनि:

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

10. कविनिबद्धवक्रोक्तिप्रौढोक्तिसिद्ध वस्तुना अलङ्कारस्य ध्वनि:

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

11. कविनिबद्धवक्रोक्तिप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण वस्तुनो ध्वनि:

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

12

कविविनिबद्धवत्कथप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

12. कविविनिबद्धवत्कथप्रौढोक्तिसिद्धालङ्कारेण खलु ध्वारस्य ध्वनिः

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

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

So there are eighteen varieties of व्यङ्ग्य.

[ The following table illustrates these varieties. ]

व्यङ्ग्य अविवक्षितवाच्य विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्य अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्य असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य संलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य ( 1 kind ) ( 1 kind ) ( 1 kind i.e., रस )
शब्दप्रकृत्युद्रव अर्थप्रकृत्युद्रव उभयप्रकृत्युद्रव (2 kinds) (12 kinds) (1 kind)

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

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

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

So असंलक्ष्यक्रमव्यङ्ग्य which is a subdivision of विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्य may be said to be of four kinds.

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

K—P—6

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

पदवद्वयम्. { 1-2. पद्यांतरमंकृमितद्वयम् ( पदगत and वाक्यगत )—2 varieties.

वाक्यवद्वयम् { 3-4. पद्यनांतरंकृकृतद्वयम् ( पदगत and वाक्यगत )—2 varieties.

पदवद्वयानुपरवान्त्य- { 5-10. पदंरुत्यंक्रमद्वयम् i. e., तम ( पदगत, वाक्यगत, पद्यांगत, अर्थांगत, रसांगत,

वदन (चमत्कृत्यंकम) वांगगत and प्रयत्नगत )—6 varieties.

वाक्यवद्वयानुपरवान्त्य-{ 11-14. पद्यगुणरूढत्व ( वाक्यध्वनि—पदगत, वाक्यध्वनि—वाक्यगत, अलंकारध्वनि—

वदन (चमत्कृत्यंकम) पदगत, अलंकारध्वनि—वाक्यगत )—4 varieties.

15-50. पद्यंगकृतत्व ( 12 varieties, each of them being again

वदन (चमत्कृत्यंकम) पदगत, वाक्यगत and प्रयत्नगत )—36 varieties.

51. अत्यंगकृतत्व. ]

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

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

V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

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

V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

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

V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

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

V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

2. अपराङ्ग (subservient to something else i. e., to another रस or to the direct meaning—वाच्यार्थ )—तस्माद् वाच्यस्य वाऽङ्गम्.

V

गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य ( Poetry of the middle kind ).

3. वाच्यसिद्धये (an essential factor for the understanding of the direct meaning—वाच्यार्थ )—वाच्यसिद्धये निदानं वाच्यस्य सिद्धयेव यदधीनां तदिति यावत्.

4

4. अरुचकृत् (abstruse i. e, grasped with difficulty even by the appreciative minds )—सहृदयैरपि डु:खसदृशम्

5

5. संदिग्धप्राधान्य (of doubtful prominence in comparison with the direct meaning in the matter of creating charm)—सन्दिग्ध चमत्कार-जनने वाच्यवययो: सनदेहपियैष्यत् प्राधान्य यत्र तत् तत्

6

6. तुल्यप्राधान्य (of equal prominence with the direct meaning in the matter of creating charm)—तुल्यमपेक्ष वाच्येन तुल्य प्राधान्य यत्र तत्

7

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

7

—काकुर्वचनेरौकार: तथा आभिम स्वरिति प्रकार्शितम, यत् काकाक्षि विना वाच्यार्थ एतत् नाम्नान उच्यते तथा प्रकारयमिति यावत् ; काकाहटेनोपसारथानिवृत्तिमिति वा, अतएव यत्र मुख्यार्थवाधापत्तिनियमन्थान-तिरल्म्यभाववात्त च्युगावसर:।

8

8. असंलन्न (less charming than the direct meaning)—स्वभावादेव वाच्य-वेश्याडनार.

Illustration of each of these varieties

Illustration of each of these varieties

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

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

—वाच्याद वचुनोऽप्यकारस्य काल्लनियमेन अगृदृश्वादिना व्यपगतलोभीनन्या गत्वापयनेरपि अलंकारत्वकथा अभ्याहहोति सर्वत्र वाच्यन्वयात्याकारस्य ध्वनिरवमे न गुणीभूतव्यग्यत्वमिति ।

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

यत् वच्यपथमहारडपच यम* तदा वाच्यवावनि विरलतां यचति ।

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

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

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

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

† श्रचार्य सम्मताय:—यदि लोके जातिगुणादि वस्तु तदेव कविकल्पितत्वेनचित्राममरत्वेनैव प्रतौत’ वस्तुमाच-मुख्यतया, वैचित्रयासम्भीचार्तिसया त्वलङ्कार इति.

25

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

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

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

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

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

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

• न लक्षणा शक्तिरेवेह रसादौ काचिदीक्ष्यते । मुख्यार्थबाधतद्योगाद्यैर्व्यङ्ग्यत्वं तस्य लक्षणम् ।

† पदार्थो नाम वाक्यार्थबोधे प्रतिभासते इति वाच्यम् ।

‡ पदार्थानां परस्परप्रतीतिजन्यसंबन्धविश्रितत्वमाकांक्षा। गौरवः: प्रयत्नो हि—these words do not constitute a sentence, because they lack one of the requisites of a sentence, viz., आकांक्षा ; these words have no expectancy as regards one another, i.e., when the word गौ: is uttered, desire is produced in the mind to know something about the cow, but this desire is not satisfied by the word रथ: योग्यता means the absence of absurdity in the mutual relation of the things denoted by the words. A sentence like पयः शिरसि विचिन्ति has योग्यता because water has the fitness which is necessary for sprinkling. वह्निना विचिन्ति has no योग्यता because वह्नि has no such fitness. सन्निधिः : चाक्षुषधानेन पदश्रवणाद्योर्यवसानम्,—the knowledge of the meanings of words resulting from the words (being heard) without any long pause. If we utter the two words गाम् and आनय at the interval of some hours no sense will be apprehended. See Sāhityadarpana by P. V. Kane (Ch. II).

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

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

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

So the meaning of आनय in गाम् आनय is पदार्थान्वितानयन (आनयन as related with other objects including the object गो) and of गो, इतरेपदार्थान्वित गो

• According to the dictum वृत्तिज्ञान हि भेदकृत्: (गो meaning 'earth' is not the same word as गो meaning 'cow', गामानय is not the same word as गाम् अन गवाऽऽनयन because they have different meanings—in the former case गाम् means गवाऽऽनयन and in the latter गवाऽऽनयन ) and as such there can be no प्रत्यभिज्ञा.

( गो as related to other objects including the object ज्ञानयत्न). In other words, in the sentence गाम् आनय, आनयन means not the particular आनयन of गो but आनयन in general and गो means not गो as the कर्मे of आनयन but गो in general, i.e., as merely related to other objects. Now the question is how from the sentence गाम् आनय does the meaning

गवानितानयन (the bringing of a cow) and not अश्वानितानयन (the bringing of a horse) come to be comprehended. The answer is when different words are correlated in a sentence they denote their specific character, implied by their generic one.*

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

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

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

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

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

as आपकनिमित्त of व्यञ्जनार्थ—if व्यञ्जना (process of suggestion) be denied,

because a word, though द्यापक, cannot, through the process of अभिधा,

make known a thing which has never been known as being its meaning. व्यक्‍त (what is suggested) is not known as the meaning

because it is not संकेलित i. e., no संकेत has been placed on it. It has been observed that संकेत is placed on the primary meanings of

words which are correlated in a sentence and not on any other meaning (such as व्यञ्जनार्थ) which is known afterwards*.

Others argue about the power of अभिधा in this way :—As an arrow discharged by a strong man becomes endowed with a single

power namely the संस्कार called वेग, and cuts through the enemy's armour, pierces his vitals and takes away his life, so a word

may, by the single power of अभिधा, bring home to us its ordinary or current 'meaning, its अन्वय and the sense it suggests. In other

words, according to the maxim यत्प्रः: शस्‍त्र स शस्‍त्रार्थ: ( यद्ये यत् राद्रस्य

तात्पर्यं स शस्‍त्रार्थ: ), whatever sense is apprehended as a consequence of the hearing of any words (i. e., तात्पर्य or import) is the primary

meaning of those words. Thus अभिधानक्ति is quite competent to express what is known as व्यञ्जनार्थ (suggested sense).

Those who argue in this way do not realise what तात्पर्य is.

The तात्पर्य of a sentence lies in what is intended to be conveyed (निप्रेय) and thus consists in the meaning directly meant by the words

actually used and not in anything and everything that may be implied. If anything that may be implied be included in तात्पर्य,

then पतियोगी याति (the latter man is running) might be a part of the तात्पर्य of पुं याति (the former man is running)—पतियोगिन् being implied by पुं (they being relative terms)

• The commentary named शाङ्करदिग्विजय refers to the माधवीय as :-“तर्हि' आपकलस्मयस वाह—चापकर्षण विना हि । यत् तु नियतस्मनाद्‌वाच्यं ज्ञात एव आपकलताम्‍नुते । शब्‍दो हि यस्माद् भिन्‍नाक्षिमन् firs‌‍ते

शाब्‍दते हति कथम् आपकलकम्. Smoke etc., रlidh ze आत्त cf Fire etc. are =‌ =‌ =

only when they are known to have a de:‌ =‌ =‌ rela‌‍tion with the =‌ =‌ =‌.

In the present case, the words are de: b=‌ =‌ to have such a,

( नियतस्‍मय or श्लाघ्य ) with वाच्य.

K-P—7

In the sentence 'रक्तं वयतु नः' (weave a red cloth)—the वाक्यार्थ (what is to be conveyed) i.e., the information sought to be conveyed) may involve one, two or three things according to circumstances. "(a) If the sentence is addressed to the weaver for the first time, it involves the क्रियार्थता (injunction) of three things, (1) the weaving—of (2) the cloth—which should be red; (b) If the man had been previously told to weave, the injunction (कार्य) applies to, (1) the cloth and (2) its red colour; (c) if the weaving of the cloth had been enjoined before, the sentence enjoins the red colour only." In 'घृतयुतं जुहुयात्' (one should perform the homa with curds) the injunction about the performance of homa having been obtained from another source i.e., from the injunction 'जुहुयात् स्वाहुतम्' what is enjoined (वाक्यार्थ) here is that the homa is to be with curds. Similarly in the sentence 'लोहितोष्णीषा व्रिजिनो व्रजन्ति' (red-turbaned priests move along) the moving of the priests having been enjoined elsewhere, ( 'व्रिजिनो व्रजन्ति' विधानत्वमना स्फुटतरः प्रचारणि ) the injunction of the sentence lies in that their turbans should be red. The तात्पर्य of the above sentences lies in their respective वाक्यार्थs i.e., (1) (a) weaving (b) of cloth (c) of red colour (all the three), (2) weaving (a) cloth (b) of red colour (two), and (3) weaving cloth of red colour (one); performance of homa with curds and wearing of the red turbans by the priests. All these वाक्यार्थs are गृहीतपरा (directly apprehended from the words actually used). व्यतिरेकपक्षे (suggested sense), on the other hand, is neither गृहीतपरा, nor always वाक्यार्थ.

'वाक्यार्थ वत् वाक्यार्थं मवान् तथैव तमिग्रेव वाक्यनि तात्पर्यमित्युपगतसैवोच्यतां गृहीतपरा समस्तस्मिन् पदार्थाभिधेयं तात्पर्यं पर्यवस्थानम्' । 'वाक्यान्तर्वर्तिपदार्थोपस्थिततेऽपि स्थितरुपाशा प्रतीयता विधेयत्वनयंकमिति मत्वा पदार्थपरे विधेयत्वं यथा तद्वाक्यस्थ तात्पर्यं यमिन्यं तात्पर्यं म एव वाक्यार्थः:' ।

'न हि प्रतिपत्तव्यतात्पर्यं तथा पूर्वोऽपि धावति प्रयोक्तुमनसि तद्वाक्यदृष्टान्तसंविदितया प्रतिपत्तिदशायां ध्वनिः' ।

'व्यञ्जकस्य गृहीतोपात्तवाक्यार्थत् सर्वत्र विधेयत्वलाभवात् न तत्र प्रागुक्तियामकं तात्पर्यं नामि शक्यरिति भावः' । ]

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

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

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

• शक्तिनिबन्धनप्रकृत्यादिप्रत्ययार्थानां समवायो वार्तादोषव्यभिचारिकल्पनाप्रसङ्गश्च । (मी०द० शा०१४) । पश्वादि शक्त्यादि पर्यन्तं परं तुण्य क्त वदव्यपदेश्यम् । शक्तितः स्वार्थेन रिनियोज्योऽपि भवति न तु शक्तितः कमविधिवा विनियोजक न स्वातोदोष । See माहाभाष्यप्रकाश and वदतत्त्व । परकीय पार माखे प्रमाणादिवाक्येष्वपि । सुक्तिनिबन्धनोऽपि समासादि एकच कमर्थस्थापि (एकचोपनिपाते) परतद्गुणसङ्ग्रहवृत्तिषु परत्व दोषत्वं हि वक्तव्यम् । शाब्दोऽर्थो मञ्जे वदपेक्षया यथा पर रादपेक्षया हि तुण्य भवति याथा । पुम्रवत् अर्थद्विविधोपपत्तिदर्शनेन । शाब्दे हि विनियोगे वि वक्ष्यते । दूषणं विनियोगज्ञ हि वाक्यादन्वयवाक्तारादिति याथ । (Jhālikarī's Kāvyaprakāśa, Ch. v.).

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

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

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

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

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

The difference between any two things is known from then having different properties and different causes The वाच्यार्थ and अर्थ not have different properties and then causes are also different So वाच्यार्थ is different fiom The following seven points explain then different nature and causes-

1 स्वरूप or character

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

2 काल or time--The expiesied me uning is comprehended first and then the suggested meaning

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

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

5 कार्य or effect--One who understands the expressed meaning is called वेत्ता (intelligent), while one who understands the suggested meaning is entitled to be called काव्य (cultured), further, the expressed meaning brings about a simple comprehension (प्रतिपत्ति), while the suggested meaning causes an exquisite charm (

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The answer to this question is as follows :-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As an illustration the following verse may be cited .—

भ्रम पामर ! विरश्रप्. स शुनकोटद्र मारिततर्जैन ।

गोदावरीकच्छतटवास्तिना तेनसिंतेन ॥

[Sanshrit enision of the Prakit Sloka]

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

• Thus is in accordance with the explanation of the expression व्याप्तत्वं नियतत्वं च धर्मिणि हेतुत्वेन. Another explanation is that व्याप्तत्व implies both पक्षसत्त्व and विपक्षव्यावृत्ति and नियतधर्मिनि हेतुत्वं implies विपक्षव्यावृत्ति, and नियतधर्मिनि हेतुत्वं धर्मों पक्षसन्निधानम्. तेन पक्षधर्मित्रम्.

The following instance of the inference of the व्यंग्यार्थ will make the argument clear. ‘तेन गोदावनितीरद्रुमभूभृतामवपोयते’ or ‘मोदावरीतीरे द्रुमस्तरुभि: पोयते’. Here गोदावरितीर is पक्ष, द्रुमस्तरुभि: is हेतु, मोद

भूतव्याप्ययोगिन is साध्य, द्रुमादिभिर्दर्शितदेवदत्तादिकं is व्यंग्य (निदर्शनाlङ्कार).

K-1—8

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI

CHAPTER VI

VI

Lowest kind of poetry (अवरवाच्य or चित्र)

Lowest kind of poetry (अवरवाच्य or चित्र) The lowest kind of poetry is of two kinds—शब्दचित्र and अर्थचित्र (called वान्चित्र also). In शब्दचित्र, चमत्कारs (i. e., वाग्देवतास—figures of speech depending for their charm on sounds, such as अनुप्रास and यमक) and in अर्थचित्र, अर्थs (i. e., अर्थालङ्कारs—figures of speech depending for their charm on meanings, such as उपमा, रूपक, व्यतिरेक etc.) are intended to produce charm. शब्द and अर्थ do

VI

Lowest kind of poetry (अवरवाच्य or चित्र)

• व्यंजनायां न व्याप्तिर्मांति पक्षपतंताया निदानोरकम् चलितम् । किन्तु सभावितादिपि एव निष्पाद एव- नित्योद्यते (प्रदोप.).

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

The advice to roam about in the house (on account of safety due to the death of the dog) leads to the inference of the danger of roaming on the bank of the Godāvarī by reason of the lion's presence there. The roaming of a coward is always preceded by a certainty as to the absence of all causes of fear. And hence the advice to roam about in the house. The knowledge of the lion's presence on the Godāvarī serves as a cause of fear.

[From this is inferred the advice not to go to the bower on the bank of the Godāvarī and this is suggested meaning.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI

Lowest kind of poetry (अवदकाव्य or चित्र)

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

• व्यञ्जनायां न व्याप्तिर्नैव पक्षधर्मताया निषिद्ध्यते कथम् । किन्तु सम्भाव्यतादवि एवविधाद् एव-निषेधः ( मदीप० ).

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

VII

दोष (Poetic defects)

मुख्यार्थहतिदोषो रसहृद् मुख्यस्तद्दाश्रयाद् वाच्यः ।। उमयोपयोगिनः स्थः शब्दराशीन्तेन तेऽपि सः ।।

VII

दोष (Poetic defects)

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

VII

दोष (Poetic defects)

• रस includes भाव, रसाभास, भावाभास etc. (रसत इति युतपच्या रसग्रहदेन भावादिरपाप-संघरयाते—संकेत० ).

VII

दोष (Poetic defects)

† तथ्य रसस्यार्थप्रयमभूयाल्वाद वाचोडप्यर्थोंडदिप मुख्यः । श्रविप्रतिबोध लुतो नेयः (सम्प्रदायप्रकाशिन्यै); वाच्यः शब्दवाच्योऽर्थों मुख्य इतन्वयः । (विवरण०). शब्दवाच्योऽपीह—एतद् वाच्यत्वव्यवस्थया संगृहीतमे (Jhalkikar).

VII

दोष (Poetic defects)

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

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

'उद्देश्यमतीतिरिविचातनवचनीयो$पकर्षी' इति रसादयः । 'उक्ताद्दया च प्रतोति; रसवल्यपि विनिवृत्ता धनपत्कृष्ट-रसत्वदया च, तौरसह्विनिवृत्ता' शृङ्गारादिसंवित्तम् । यतो हि उद्देषु कावितरससादपतीतिरिवेषु, हृदचित् प्रतोमानसादपकर्षी', कचिदपु विग्रहः। एवं शौरसे काविदंश्य सुव्यभूचमुपातोतिरीषु, कचिद् विनिमय प्रतोति; कचिद्चमत्कारगतीतेरिवानुभयच्छिद्म' । (प्रदीप०).

'दूषय हि काविद रसादपर्थी वा धमातोतिरीषु, कचिद् विनिमयने प्रतोति; कचिद् रसादप मोत्कुर्ष;, काविदंगप्रतोतिगात्रापि म धमात्कारिरिशः ; रसौकारणण्य तथातुमध्ये स च दोष एव' । (विवरल०).

'न केविन्द रसवाच्यो$पि, शद्दादीषु स दोषो वाच्यः । शद्दादौनो रसव वाच्ये चोपयोगमवावदधधिया: सारल्यं' । (सक्ते०).

'तद्‌दूष्यमप्यगालितान् पदपदवेदकदर्शनेरपि हृदृट्या मोदद्यः' । (समुदापककाज्ञिनो ).

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

रसदोषानाहातो$त्राइमे 'स्यभिचारिचमत्कृ-निरसन-न--निरसन-वि-वि-विरोष:-विसंवादादयः ।

'न तदित्थो$पय्य विनिदि-द्दहहेकदे'रे ननुचिन्मयम् । प्रतोयमाना: शृदृया:, तत्तु परं हिोोन्तरतया-रततत रसमा रसद्य:' । (उद्योत०).

'एवच शद्ददूषकत्वे तस्य वाचकत्वमेव हेतुः । परिदृश्यते । य शब्ददोष रस वा रस-प्रतौयानन्द इति' । (हृददयनन्द० ।

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

तत्र रसदोषाणां साचात् विषातकत्लम्, अर्थदोषाणां कचित् साचात्, कचिच् परम्परया, शब्ददोषाणन्तु परम्परयैव'। ( विवरण० ) । 'शब्दस्त विधा, पदं तदेकदेशो वाक्यं च, एवञ्च तदाश्रितः शब्ददोषोपि त्रिविधः' । ( प्रदीप० )।]

A. शब्ददोष*

A word is defective when it is—

1. श्रुतिकटु (unpleasant to the ear)—श्रोलिक्किः: से तन्वङ्गयाः कोतादृश्यो ( कृतार्थतां ) लभते कदा। Here the word कार्तार्थ्य is harsh and unpleasant to the ear. [ स्वायत्ते शब्दप्रयोगे करणोपपतापकशब्दप्रयोगेण श्रोतुद्देशो रसापकर्षीय ]।

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

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

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

• तत्र रसो वाक्यार्थप्रतीतिपुरःसरः, वाक्यार्थप्रतीतिवाच्यो वा वाक्यस्थ पददारस्थम्, पदैकदेशग्राद्योऽपि पदपदार्थिका इति प्रयमतः पददोषलचणमरभते—दुष्टं पदमिव्यादि । ( सम्मदायप्रकाशिनो ) ।

† नापि प्रसमथ हन्यात् द्वौ शक्त्यौति:, तेनासुरुतिपद्यतेऽद्यादौ प्रयोक्तुमत्या सामान्यसो निषिध्यभावात् ।

‡ 'घन हिंसागतो:'—इति गमनार्थे परिपठितोऽपि हनिस्लतप्र्यायोनी स्वरुपायोभ्यः । प्रभतोद्दष्टादिषूपसन्नानेन गते: प्रत्यायकलेन न तत्पाठवैय्यर्थ्यम् । एवञ्च 'डुः श्वध्यायने'—इत्यध्ययने परिपठितस्वापीड—

5

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

6

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

7

7. निरर्थक (useless or redundant)—उदपुहरमालोकेतरपरागमौर्यते ! मम हि गोति. Here the word हि has no meaning and therefore redundant.

8

8. अतिवाचक (not expressive of the meaning in which it is used). धामप्रदीप्तेन जनस्य जत्थुना, न जातहार्देन न विद्विदादरः: The word जन्तु means 'animal' but here it is used in the sense of 'not generous' a sense which the word never expresses †.

9

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

पातोपरि विना लब्ध प्रयोक्तुमगम्यमपि मेवति शोणं (Jhalikikar). समयन्सेवाश्माच्चे विरहमति घन—म । यशस्कृदन्वितगोकुलविलसत्सख्य—रथा हृदयतो पतिव्रताप्रतिपद्यमानान्तरहितमपि शयोत्कर्षं मयि शंसति । समदन्वित या गती साप्रयं, न पुराविघटिते (मदोप ।) उभयसम्मतान् युगपदिकृतुं शक्करमू । पादार्पणा यतते गत्यते इति पहिलिनिमित्तम् । अनयोः किन्तु प्रयोः: वाक् हि अन्या गच्छतोति जगन्मू । जघन्ययोः कुटिलं गच्छतोति जह्रा (Jhalkikar). वत ह्नः: पङ्कदशनेनैपि प्रकृतिगतान् पद्मदोषान् बोध्या । (उचोत).

• गुरुदेव्यं काचि(न्) प्रयोक्तुमगम्युक्तरः: (मदीप०). काचिदिति—ध्वयमकादित्यादितिरिक्कष्यंमि काचिद्येषु । चमत्कृतुं जन त्वयमकार्षीदाय एप यत्न ततो भेद: (Jhalkikar).

† वत पुराऽऽदर्ादित्प्रतिपत्तातत्कया दाव्हैर् विस्मितवित्ति दितोयादै तैरपरोपद्रयांक जनुपदमदार्त* प्रपुमन् (मदोप०). An वचनद् word though generally incapable of expressing the intended meaning does so in certain cases (e. g., the root इ to can express the meaning 'to go' when used with an उपसर्ग or सपद्वद), while an वाचक word can never express the meaning intended to be expressed by it. वाच्यार्थ विस्मितविश्वत्परिहृतः: कार्पिन् न वाचक यत्निष्पत्तेः। वाचा परममर्यादः: ताम् कविकुछलः-शोभाराम् । (मदोप०).

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

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

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

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

11. अप्रतीत (not easily intelligible being used in a sense known only in a technical literature). The word आशय in the sense of वासना is a technical expression known only to the Yogāśāstra, and as such, if used in a kāvya would be अप्रतीत.*

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

13. नेयार्थ (used in a secondary or figurative sense which is not admissible).—तव मुखं चन्द्रं चपेटापातनातिरोेधि (recipient of a slap) करोति. Here चपेटापातनातिरोेधि by लक्षणा means निर्जितम् (surpassed). Here लक्षणा is not based upon रूढ or upon any special purpose to be served ( प्रयोजन ).

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

• नलोऽलङ्कार्यतया श्रुतानुरासनगतिरिक्कारास्त्वमा तप्रशिञ्जुमित्यर्थः। श्रतएव श्रप्रयुक्ताद् वेदः, तस्यान्यत्रापि प्रसिद्धः । (प्रदीप०).

65

luminary born of the eyes of Ati ( तव चक्षुतं चरित्र यत्ra इष्यते; अतिलोचनाल-

सम्भृत यत् ज्योतिषचन्द्रशकृतयौषधीम उदयेन भासिमिरभांशनीलैः। कुसुमैरितरैः., सदाराम्)

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

ध्वनिमागम्य —चपलीकृतबहुतैल्यान्तः सामग्रयोन्यायैरपावृत्यैषा कलविदग्धसभृत्यैस्तेन विनिश्चतविप्रकाश

चन्द्रस्य न दृगुपर्य्यतिं, चजुगुप्सितयौपे तया आलोच्य ध्वनितम्याभिलषितं कुसुमैरपामि न दृगुपर्य्यति। चन्द्र

विलासिकानां मनोरथानामुदाहरणम्—Jhalakīr).*

15

अविवक्षितविपेयार्ध (of unemphasised predicate).

[Every sentence is made up of two parts उच्येय or प्रतिपाद्य and विपेय. उच्येय or प्रतिपाद्य is the subordinate and विपेय the principal factor in the sentence. उच्येय is a thing already known and विपेय is a thing with which we want to establish a previously unknown connection of the उच्येय by means of the sentence. उच्येय is the subject and विपेय is what is said of the subject i e., predicate. In the sentence मद्राणां पेयम् the उच्येय is मद्राणाम् and the विपेय is its पेयता (drinkableness). When the विपेय is so put that it is not known as the predominant element of the sentence, i, e., when due emphasis is not put on the विपेय, the fault that arises is known as अविवक्षितविपेयार्ध.—प्रतिपाद्यस्य विपदोतीक्रियता ( प्रदीप० ).

इदं तु यत्र विप्रेयमार्ताविवक्षावशेन वाक्यार्थन्यासम्—याक्षेपद्विप्रेयसहितेन प्रतिपाद्यमानप्रतिपाद्यावयवायेह्यम, तत्रादित्-

मद्रान्तिपण्यगुणैरेकवाक्यविपयौ। श्रपौषधशब्दविपयौभूत् तदेयं, यथा 'य क्रियावान् स परिज्ञा' इत्यादि

क्रियावचनशब्दैरमिधानं पौरुषेये पथिकेति सङ्केतः। मद्रपानकस्येन पथिकेति वा विधियते, येयाम यथेच्छन्दी सर्वत्र न प्रयुज्यते

तथापि गम्यतेऽर्थाति (Jhālkhar)].

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

• नित्यान्तदीप्तोपय- (नित्यं च शावृत्यविरेयेन विरहमतिकृत्य च) पद्यारमर्गाह्यनेन सभाजनित ।

तथा च यदि तस्मै, पदयोर्यमाश्रित्य सहादेनकपयालं पददोषता। यशमादृशामाश्रयी न पदरदोषतां, रसोपद्रवनेन रेवेयैच ननलादित ( प्रदीप० ).

एते च नित्यादप्तु यमाश्रिता एव पदरदोषा ( मम्मटदर्श० ).

K-P—9

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

विरुद्धमतिकृत् (of repugnant signification)—अकार्यमित्रमेकोडसौ अकायंमित्र is विरुद्धमतिकृत inasmuch as it may give rise to another idea also, viz., a friend in अकायँ or evil deeds. The words भवान्ीपतिअनुकारमण etc., are equally विरुद्धमतिकृत. The former means the husband of भवानी (the wife of भव i. e., of शिव) and thereby gives rise to the signification that the goddess has a husband other than भव ; the latter also gives rise to a signification which is repugnant, its literal meaning being 'one who delights in the company of अन्विका (mother).'

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

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

• मिथ्यामहिमत्वं 'महिमा मिथ्या' इति रैल्या महिम्नो मिथ्यात्वम्, अनुवाद्यम् उद्देइयम्, प्राप्तस्य धर्मान्तरप्राप्तये कथनमुत्तेइ; ; विधेयं साध्यम्, अप्राप्तस्य प्राप्तये कथनं विधानम्। उद्देइयविधेययोः पृथड्-निर्देश एवोदेइयविधेयभावप्रतीति: ( विवरणख० ).

यथैवंविधानाम् एतत्कथमसुचितमियतो महिमा मिथ्येति मिथ्यात्वं विधेयत्वं विरुचितम्, तच्च न प्रतौयते, उद्देइयविधेयोः पृथड्-निर्देश एवोदेइयविधेयभावप्रतीतेः; समासे चैककार्यीभावाद्वैककार्यीभूतस्यैतरपदार्थान्वित-तयैव शाब्दोपस्थित्या गुष्णीभावेन विधेयत्वस्यैव निरोहादविमृष्टविधेयांशलं दोष: (Jhalkikar)

† Ibid. p. 45 (notes).

'सकङ्कनानुप्रासदृष्टिसृष्टिसौ' वाक्यदोषः । शृङ्खलानुप्रासदृष्टियाशा सभावादेवानन्वयीशेषदूषयोम्या-

नामन्‍वमौढ्ये पदालङ्कारविरसप्रयुक्तविरलदर्शना साकाङ्क्षालङ्कारवदात काव्यदोषत्वमिति तेषा वच्‍नम्‍' (सर्पदूधिनी)।

'चमू ग्रत पदालङ्कारमदोयिते' पदालङ्कार इव दूषितल्‍ स वाक्यदोषः । विविधतर्थमिंप्रल्यकगर्भहस्तिले सति

नामापदहस्तिसेवार्थ वाक्यगिलसन्निपेतम्‍' (मदीप० )।

Examples of श्रुतिदुष्ट etc., occuring in काव्यड.

Examples of श्रुतिदुष्ट etc., occuring in पदावयड.

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

That वाक्य (sentence) is defective which is :-

1. प्रतिकूलवर्ण (full of discordant letters).

[It will be seen in Ch. VIII that certain letters help the suggestion of certain रसs and retard that of others. The letters which are in consonance with the suggestion of a रस are said to be चतुष्टल (helpful) in respect of that particular रस and the letters which are not so, that is, which instead of helping retard the suggestion of that रस are said to be प्रतिकूल (hostile) in respect of the same. I'or instance, टवर्ग and other harsh letters of the kind र, ष, etc., would be प्रतिकूल (hostile) to शृङ्गार and soft letters like ल, न, etc, to रौद्र.—तथ प्रतिलोमवय्चे विवादविषयादि। प्रतिकूला कानुगुणा वर्णा यस तनु, टवर्गो मदनप्रतिघातकुन्‍

'कटुता'—ह्यादिना प्रतिकूला। रौद्रे मृदवो वर्णा प्रतिकूला, घोरस्वरनि रसेऽपि विकटवचतल्स

दोषे समासलत् शानुगुणदलात् ( प्रदीप० ) ].

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

भीरुो विनीतो निपुणो वरकारो न भूदिति स. ।

यरय भूर्या मोलवत्किका भत्ता भुदिवभाविता ।

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

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

प्रतिहयवदनं तादृक् साक्षो एव न नु पदादिव्यतति भाति । यदापि सककपोल पदे -पच - मुखे

दत्तिक्‍कन्दन प्रहसति, साध्वपि शरारतवनेन ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• विरूप: सन्धि: सन्धिकृद्यत । वैरूप्यं च त्रिधा—विशेषपदाश्रयलं कष्टलक्ष्य । विशेषपदं प्राप्तस्य काव्यस्य संहिताकाङ्क्ष्यभाव:। स च रौकिक: श्राम्नुषासनिकय । श्राम्नुषासनिकत्वं च सकृदपि वक्तव्यो दोषाय, इष्यते- निवस्मनेवाशक्तिमूलकतया प्रयत्नं प्रति सहृदयैरपेक्ष्यतेतत् । श्राम्नुषासनिकलानाश्रकत्वेननुपायकराया वाक्यपार- घेखेत हि दोषत्वम्, तज्ज अशकृतप्रयोग एव ( प्रदीप० ).

12

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

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

13

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

14

14. अन्यायनस्यपद (of misplaced words).

[When words are misplaced in a sentence, they may convey an idea quite different from the intended one. कचिद् गतः means 'some one did go'. In order to express this meaning we should not say न कचिद् गतः which may by वाक् (intonation), for example, mean 'not some one ( but all ) did go'.]

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

18. प्रसिद्धिविरुद्धकल्पना (opposed to usage).

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

• There is no difficulty in understanding the अर्थ (logical connection) in a sentence having व्यक्तिवाच्यविपयत्व but in a sentence in which व्यक्तिवाच्यविपर्य occurs, अर्थ is not understood at all.—ग्रन्थ कविकल्पकामत मत हृयो योमे हरः । यथास्वपदिविषयामर्थसामान्य; उपजीव्यतेन मतुन्-श्रुतिस्मृतिपुराणादिप्रतिपाद्येऽर्थे यत्नः क्रियते कविमिः । न तु संश्रिततत्वेन तद्वदेव काव्यवार्त्तयि महान् हृदि: ( हृदये ).

† पाकादपानविधानादौ व्युत्पन्नस्य नृपस्य च । do not possess any meaning as their case =चने अन्वितुं न काव्ये ननु तत्पदयोः सम-=चनम् । काव्यार्थपरिपन्थिना वृत्त्या ननु तत्पदयोः सम-=चये ।

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

[The mention of a word for the first time is known as the निर्देश of the same. Its repetition with a purpose in view is प्रतिनिर्देश ( उदाहरणस्योक्तौ तस्मैव पुनःकथनं ). When such a repetition becomes necessary, it should be done in the same form in which it was originally used. The use of its synonym will not do, because in that case the comprehension will be delayed owing to the delay in its recognition. The दोष that would arise from the use of its synonym when the word itself is to be repeated, is a kind of भ्रप्रक्रमता. उद्‌द्रेति रविणा तामत्राम् एवास्तुति च —here the use of the expression रस एवमस्तुति च would give rise to this defect. There is a rule propounded by Vāmana to the effect that generally a word should not be repeated twice in the same sentence ( नैको पदं हि: प्रयोज्यं प्रायेण ).

प्रक्रम (uniformity) is to be maintained not only in regard to प्रकृति (noun and verbal root) but in regard to सर्वनाम (pronoun), पर्याय (synonym), वचन (number), क्रम (order), कारक (case) etc.

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

21. अमतपरार्थ (of undesirable second meaning or suggestion i.e., in which a रस repugnant to one under delineation is suggested by the words used.—अमतपरार्थम् अमत: परार्था द्वितीयार्था यस्य तव् । अमतत्वं च—भीर्या श्रृङ्गारवीभत्सौ तथा वीरभयारकौ । रौद्राद्भुतौ तथा हास्यकरुणौ वैरिणौ मिथ: ॥ इत्यादियुक्तदिशा प्रकटतरसविरुद्धरसव्यअकत्वम् ( प्रदीप० ).

B. अर्थदोष.

A meaning ( अर्थ ) is defective when it is :-

• उद्‌द्रेश्यप्रतिनिदेश्य स्थिरिकं नैको पदं हि:प्रयोगनिवेशविषय: ( प्रदीप० ). उद्‌देश्य: प्रत्यायित: एवं प्रतिनिदेश्य; पुन: प्रयायो यत् तत्तत्परिकरभियियं: । तदनिदेश्यापनार्थे पुनरुक्तिरेवोत्कार्षिकौति भाव: । उद्‌द्रेश्याभिप्राय विस्मरणेन प्राय: स्थिरीकृतम् ( उद्धृत० ).

† यत्पददानंतरं यत्पदोपादानमुचितं ततोडन्यत् तदुपादानं हि वैयर्थ्य: ( प्रदीप० ). क्रम: पौर्वापर्य-व्यवस्थानम्, स न विधते यत् ( सद्देत० ).

पदसन्निवेशरूपप्रचनायाः: प्रस्तुतार्थस्याप्रत्यायकले ऽक्षमत्वम्, प्रत्यायकाले डप्यनौचित्येऽस्यानपत्ता), अर्थक्रमस्थानीचिये तु दुष्कृ मत्सर:, उपक्रमोपसङ्‌ग्रहयोषसंहारे भव्ने प्रक्रमभेद इत्यते षां मेदः ( विवरण० ). न्यायापदेश्य-पदादक्ष तौ मेदः । तच्च प्रतीप्यन्नरमत्र चैव प्रतीति: किन्तु विरस्मितेति केचित् । तन्न । कयं तु ब्रूम:—व्यर्थवधानैनैव यताभिमतप्रतीतिजननसामर्थ्ये तदेतस्य विषय: । अन्य: पुनरितरस् । चादीनां चाव्यवहित-पदाश्रये व समुच्चयादियौक्तता ( प्रदीप० ).

1 अगुप्त (not assıstıng or feedıng the sen e, ı e, ırrelev nt)

अतिवितततगगनसरसरणनिप्रसरणपरिसरुक्कुटविश्रमाननद् —Here the djective अतिवितत (ve y wide-spıe d) used ın respect of गगन (sky) ıs superfluous ı s the word गगन ıtself ımplıes the ıde ı of vastness whıch ıs desired to be conveyed

[ In both ऋतिवृत्तदल and पुनरुक्त there ıs a redundant word, but the dıfference between the two ıs that ın the former the me nıng of the redundant word ıs not ıntended to be conveyed, whıle ın the latter ıt ıs ıntended to be conveyed, but beıng obt uned from nother source, vız, from the ımplıcation of some 'other word used ın the sentence, ıts expressıon by ı separate word ıs unbcomıng —तथा च यतदिवक्षितोऽप्यर्थः शब्देन विनतिपतितया नोपभिद्यते, तत्राधिकपदं, तदुपपदेन विनाsपि सन्निधौ। यत् तु शेषत्वं विवक्षितं च परं लम्प्रयोजकलक्षणलसद्धर्मी गद्गदं होपगुरु मितरस्वपुषम्। 'अतिवितत'—इत्यादि वतिवृत्ततलवृत्तिका वकु वृ वचिन्तितैः, पर लघ्यनध्यायादिना गोवादानामिलमुपपुषम् (प्रदीप°).

In पुनरुक्तता the principal me ning ( मुख्य ) of a word ıs repeated by ıts synony m but ın अभुक्तता what ıs repeated ıs the me ning obt ined from ıts ımplıcation —अभक्तनाद् न वृत्तले गम्यम्। पद्येऽर्थस्य च न पुनरुक्तता। यदृक् भोजराजेन 'काव्येतिहासादौ प्रयुक्ता यः स्याद् वाच्यार्थभणनपीनकत्वात्' इहैव। पुनरुक्त शब्देन प्रतिपाद्ये स्वाति पुनरुक्तैनैव प्रतिपादित । (प्रदी° ) ]

2 कष्ट (obsceıne or ve y dıffıcult to be understood)

3 व्याहत (Inconsıstent)

[ The ınconsıstency may rıse ın thıs w y ı thıng ıs descrıbed s excellent or ınsıgnıfıcant ın the fırst h lf of ı slokı, but the descrıption ın the second h lf le dıs to the ımplıcation of just ıts reverse In the verse शशित

असितमने etc, —moon lıght ıs descrıbed s ınsıgnıfıcant ın the fırst h lf In the second h lf, howe er, ıt ıs regırded s ımp tıng excellence Hence the ınconsıstency †]

4 पुनरुक्त (repeated).

[ When the me ning ıs ref e ted through the s me word, ıt ıs ऋतिवृत्तदल but when there ıs such ı repetıtıon through ıts sy nony m ıt ıs पुनरुक्तता‡]

• य था मदनकामरपीव केनोक्ते मतोयेन इत्य एव इच्यते । हिट्ट्यादिक तु मद्देश । † घनान्नारे पारदाने सुवेन मतोत । यथाकपोतितिरश्च द्रुतकाचतुष्कम् य थी हिन्दीप्य दोष ( प्रदीप° ).

घटसूत्रैः वाचकप्यो वा म ग्राम यद्यपि दूष्यते । तद्वि्याय मदयेद् याच्चतीरितद्वारा मणु ।।

‡ पुनरुक्त शब्देन प्रतिपाद्ये धति पुनरुक्तैनैव भण्यते । पदमपि हरते न य हलिन्ददूष्यम्। परिहिन्द्रियवृत्तिदोषैः

(Jhalkıh r)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

such an expression will not mend the defect by changing the way of narration. Further, the repetition occurring in one and the same sentence constitutes कवितापदत्व, while वाक्यैकत्व anises when the repetition occurs in different sentences.—ध्वन्यालोकेऽप्यनर्थविकल्पितौ चेत् वाक्। प्रयोक्तुर्नात्ररोचेऽपि भवद्विरेकव्रततायां वचसां ( प्रदीप० ). भामतीरत्नैः निर्देश्यं वदिष्यामः। 'प्रातः' श्रिया इति श्रुति रौके ' किं समात्' इत्यादि प्रदीपे वचनव्यतिकरनिदर्शनैरुत्कर्षाधंकारभावात् कथंवैकत्वतन्म इति कवितापदत्वं मेदः ( विशरण० ). वाक् वाक्यमेदात्र कवितापदत्वेनाम्यासवशेनैककार्यनिर्वाहात् ( कुलार्क० ).

अर्थानियमपरिदृष्ट (too unrestricted i. e., when owing to the. omission of an expression there is lack of restriction of meaning, although such a restriction is necessary).

[ In वाक्यपदत्व and पुनरुक्तिव्याक्षेप the word, the meaning of which is intended to be conveyed, is omitted, while in अर्थानियमपरिदृष्ट the meaning of the word omitted is not intended to be conveyed by the poet and the omission of the word does not cause any difficulty in understanding the अर्थ.—न च मुख्यपदलेपेsर्थमिहिरवाच्यते । तात्पर्याद् द्विवचने तयोः संबन्धात् । द्विवचने हि लिङ्गतन् प्रसजति ( प्रदीप० ). मुख्यपदत्यागोऽन्यस्यापकपदार्थोपादान एवं मुख्यपदलाभिति भावः । ( 'यथाहिहविषा हरि:' इति श्रुति ) 'एतत्' त्रिनायनद्योपकण्ठे त्यागाद् व्यङ्ग्यानेपेक्षरणादनभिहितार्थलम्वितो भावः ( उद्द्योत० ).

अर्थानियमपरिदृष्ट (unnecessarily restricted i.e., when the meaning though required to be unrestricted is restricted by the use of an additional word).

[ The additional word causing restriction does not give rise to अधिकपदत्व, because in अधिकपदत्व the meaning of the redundant word is not desired to be conveyed, while, if such a meaning is desired to be conveyed by the poet, it will constitute अर्थानियमपरिदृष्ट.—यथाऽन्यत्र क्रिययोः क्रियापंचिका न विवक्षित-मतोऽधिकपदत्वम् । पदार्थे हि दुरकारः कचिद् विस विचित अर्थ म सं दोष इति मावः । ( 'वज्रपाणीन्' इति द्विर्वचने चम्यानुपपत्तितः मोज्यम् ( उद्द्योत० ).

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

अविशेषपरिदृष्ट (endowed with an unnecessary particularization). मकरालय, अमुने रलानि मातृमंस्रः, fi मधुमेवन मदनो न काम् (O, abode of

यत्र कौमुदीचन्दनिकया रत्नोष्मपिशारिकया—पथि मणियार्चिषि ( आलोक० ).

K-P—10

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

16

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

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

—चकारद्वयेष तद्वाक्यामेकक्रियान्वयित्वमेव वाक्यवृचित्रभिति स्त्रीरत्नस्यामपन्नय्य एव वाक्यार्थवचित् । तत्संयापयितुं जाते पर्योलो वनायां रत्नस्यासंरक्षयोर्‌ग्यवलेन् प्रतोतानुपपत्तिपरिहताराग्रोपेतिल्यपेक्षयैन तर्साकाङ्‌क्षत्वमिति भावः । यदसद्‌ग्रहः । यत् एव न सुपदत्तनेति । विचितार्थान्यौधानानुपपादान एवं तदर्थीमार्त्तु ( उद्दोत० ). नतु परस्य स्त्रीरत्नं द्वेष्यमेव तथा च सदपेक्ष्यार्थकचेल्याह——न हि श्वः स्वात्‍‌मन इत्यनेन स्वधनानादिति भावः ( महेश्वर० ) ].†

• हैदकायां निर्दशेस्‍‌व सिच्चोः किं वर्षयामसहे——अस्‍‌व रत्नानां निर्देश्यविशेष एव वाच्यः; ( साहिल्यदर्पण० ).

† The example of साकाङ्‌क्ष given in the Sāhityadarpana is :—— ऐश्वर्ये धनुषी भट्टे चलस्य च सुतस्ततिम् । स्त्रीरत्न कथम् नाम रप्स्ये भार्गवोढधुना ॥ यत्र स्वरत्न- सुपेक्षितंमिल्याकाङ्‌क्षिति.

17. अर्थदूषक (inserted in a wrong place). This defect is caused when the insertion of a sentence gives rise to a sense quite different from one intended to be conveyed.—आपदे अन्यस्थाने युक्तः। यद् तद्‌गम्यमानं विवक्षितप्रतीतिविरुद्धं तादृशेऽर्थेऽनुपयुक्ते स्थाने तद्‌भिधानमपद्युक्ता—विवरण०।

[ The insertion of the words giving rise to the contrary sense does not constitute अर्थदूषकदोष, because in a sentence with अपद्युक्तत्व there may be अर्थः of the meaning of the आर्थदूषक (redundant word) though it is not desired to be conveyed, while the meaning conveyed by the words which cause the defect आपद्युक्तत्व cannot have any अर्थः, for such अर्थः would mar the purpose of the sentence.—नायं दोषः पद्युक्तत्वं, तद्‌अर्थस्याविलातुं (सिद्धत्व०)। In विरुद्धमतिकृत्‌व a knowledge of the context is not necessary. It is necessary in आपद्युक्तत्व 1].

18. सहचरभ्रष्ट (mismatched i. e., of different nature from the meanings with which it is associated.—सहचरभ्रष्टः समभिग्याह्यार्थतत्‌विजातीयः। पैजावत्यं चोद्‌दृश्यत्प्रकटार्थत्वाभ्याग ).

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

[ आपद्युक्तत्व is caused when in a sentence there is insertion of another sentence which produces an idea different from that intended to be conveyed, the insertion being in some particular position in the sentence ; thus the insertion of the sentence क न पुनः etc., after स्वादेवन न राघव in the verse श्वा च मेधाविनी...etc. is faulty. प्रकादितविरुद्ध is also caused by an insertion but the insertion in this case may be anywhere in the sentence.—न च आपद्युक्तत्वं प्रकादितविरुद्धस्यात्‌मभौः, स्वानुभवेन गम्यमानेन तद्‌वच्‌मत्तेः—प्रदीप०। In विरुद्धमतिकृत्‌व (and in आपद्युक्तत्व) it arises through the force of a word, while in प्रकादितविरुद्ध it arises through the force of a meaning—विरुद्धमतिकृत्‌वति शब्द-गत्या विवक्षितार्थप्रतीतिः, भातु न च अर्थदूषकः, निविभावनेनैव इंगितं।—सरस्वती०य० ]।

20. विधेयदूषक (of improper predication i. e., when the predicate is improperly stated). This defect may manifest itself in two ways : (1) when what is not the predicate ( विधेय ) is stated as such and (2) when several predicates are stated in an improper order.—विधेयदूषकः। अनुक्तस्य च विधेयत्वेन विर्देशेनायुक्तक्रमत्व वा—प्रदीप०। विप्रेन्द्रकत्वं वाश्रित्येदं विप्रेन्द्रतोऽनुक्तमन्यदा चेत् तत्र हि दृश्यं (Jhalālikar).

76

In अविसंष्टविधेयोक्तम्, the विधेय is not wrongly stated; though due emphasis is not put on it.—अविसंष्टविधयोरपि तु युक्तस्यैव विधिः, परं तु अविसंष्टेनावसः। In दुष्टप्रक्रम there is merely a bad order of stating things ; in विषययुक्तत्व such a bad order vitiates the विधेय.—दुष्टक्रमस्य दूषत्वम्, श्रव तु क्रमस्थ दूषत्वेन विधेयस्युक्तत्वमिति भावः (Jhallikar).

21

अयुक्तोदनुवादः (of improper अनुवाद). This defect is caused when something stated as an adjunct of the अनुवाद्य (subject) becomes incongruous to विधेय (predicate).—अयुक्ततोडनुवादः। अयुक्तत्ववशाद्वा अन्विधेयानुरूपणत्वम् (प्रदीप०).

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

22

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

[ In समासेऽपुनरुक्तता also a clause is introduced after the sentence is complete but it is merely a qualifying adjective to the already stated कारक.—समासेऽपुनरुक्तत्वे तु पूर्वोक्तस्यैव कारकस्य विशेषप्रपञ्चनमिति भेदः ( विवरण० )].

23

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

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

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

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

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

The words अवतंस (ear-ornament), कुण्डल (ear-ring) and भूषर

(head-ornament) are enough and the words कर्ण, श्रवण and शिरः,

respectively pre-fixed to them, are superfluous. They are, however,

used to denote the fact of the ornaments being actually worn on

their respective places.

(d). धनुज्या (bow-string of the bow). Here the word ज्या itself

means bow-string and the word धनु is used to indicate that the

string has been properly attached to the bow.

(e). मुक्तावलि (necklace made of pearls). The term मुक्ता itself

signifies that it is made of pearls (मुक्ता). The use of the term मुक्ता

indicates that other gems are not mixed with the pearls in the

necklace.

(f). सुपुष्पमाल्य (garland of flowers). The word माल्य denotes a

garland made of flowers and the word सुप has been prefixed to it

to indicate that the flowers are of excellent quality.

It is to be noted that modern writers should not invent

expressions on the analogy of the instances cited. The use of the

expressions like कर्णावतंस, श्रवणकुण्डल etc., has been justified on the

ground that they are found in the works of standard authors. The

expression जपनकाञ्ची (waist-girdle of the waist) is not found in

any standard work and as such it is a faulty expression.

[Vāmana's view as to when सुपुष्पावलि may further be ignored—criticism

of this view].

समुदितं मधुरं वाक् निःसृतादर्शरनप्रभम् (He uttered a speech sweet and full

of clear words).—Here the use of the word वाक् (speech) is super-

fluous because समुदित (uttered) denotes the uttering of speech. Thus

there is the defect अकान्तता in this sentence. Vāmana has sought

to justify such uses by saying that though a word is superfluous or

irrelevant (अकान्त), being implied by another word in the sentence,

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

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

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

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

79

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

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

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

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

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

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

जुगुप्सागीलत्व (indecorousness implying disgust) is a गुण in discourses about quietistic sentiment (शान्ति). L'अप्रेयत्वादनादरः शान्ते. पोषस्वादिनि भावः.—The sentiment of disgust causes non-attachment which in its turn causes non-excitement ].

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

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

• व्यंग्यं तत् रसभावप्रकारम्.

† ध्वनिनि रौद्रादिरिति शब्ने न तु रसे ( रै० ).

‡ यथा—मत्वर्थे रक्षति रक्षितव्यं च तत्त्वं यथावत्, कृतिनः कुलगुरोः कुलकान्तः कुलं च काव्यं किमपि स्फुटतरं ( रै० ). स्तवः सुप्ताश्वशकटारः कवि—('शक्ताश्वशकटारातम्' इत्यादि काव्यं) इत्यादि; तथा हि—सतान् इक्ष्वाकुसरादिदृशा यशोभाजः कलिङ्गा दण्डकनिपीडिता यशोमतिः ( मातङ्ग इक्ष्वाकुकुलोद्भवा कुमुद्वतीया ).

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

अप्रतीतत्व is a गुण also in soliloquy.

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

न्यूनपदत्व is a गुण when it serves to intensify the feelings depicted, such as of joy, confusion, sorrow etc. In some cases it is neither a गुण nor a दोष.—न्यूनेपदेऽपि कचित् गुणो यत्न न्यूनतयैवाभिमतविशेषसिद्धिः । न दोषः प्रतीते: रकुटत्वात्, प्रत्युत गुणः, रसातिरेकव्यभ्जकत्वात् ( प्रदीप० ) ; रसातिरेकेति—हर्षसंमोहातिहेतुत्वप्रसाद-करत्वेनैति भावः । एवं शोकादावपि गुणत्वं बोध्यम् (उद्योत०).

अधिकपदत्व is a गुण when it serves the purpose of singling out, or particularizing something or when the speaker is overpowered with joy, sorrow etc.—अधिकपदं कचित् गुणो यत्न विशेषप्रतिपत्तिः । यदुक्तम्— विस्मये च विपादे च दैन्ये कोपेऽथ सारणो । प्रसादे च तथा हर्षे वाक्यमेकं द्विरुच्यते ॥ इति । एवं हर्ष-शोकादिहेतुत्वा हर्षादिभावस्यैकत्वात् ( प्रदीप० ).

कथितपदत्व (repetition of the same word or words) serves to produce लाटानुप्रास, is a cause of suggestion in अर्थांतरसंक्रमितवाच्यलक्षणा (the लक्षणा in which the principal meaning is transformed into another meaning) and is necessary when what has been spoken of requires to be referred to in the same form. In these three instances, therefore, कथितपदत्व is a गुण.—लाटानुप्रासे तत्रिवाहकतया अर्थांतर-संक्रमितवाच्ये विशेषण्यज्ञानाद् विहितस्व यत्रानुवाद्यं तत्र च तादृशाभिमतनिरवधकतया गुणत्वम् ( प्रदीप० ).

पुनरुक्तत्व is in some cases a गुण.

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

अपदस्समासत्व is a गुण in certain cases.

अकिचित्करत्वात् राजवर्णनस्य नैतन्मात्रगोक्तालाचिति तन्महदिह नियतो नियमितोऽर्थो राजानुरूपोक्तिकं च पदस्य मत्वोति'. नियंयं 'कलैव' स्याज्ज्ञप्तिपर्यवसायविलम्बाद् गृहम्तां प्राप्ता हति. श्रेयम् (Jhalkikar).

वाक्यतत्व is a गुण when the sentence inserted is for the purpose of emphasis etc.—कान्ति गुः; इदमप्यादिहेतुत्वात् ( प्रदीप० ).

C. रसदोष.

Delineation of रस becomes defective by :-

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

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

2. कष्टकल्पनाव्यक्ति i. e., when a विभाव or an अनुभाव is comprehended with difficulty.—रटत्कल्पनया पुष्टिकुशलतावन्वेष्ट्यमाणप्रतीतयालोचनया ( अनुभाव-विभावोः ) विलम्बेन व्यक्तिः: ( प्रदीप० ).

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

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

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

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

K-P—11

प्रमः परन्तरिफि. The case is quite different with the Mahābhārata. Here the main रम is the मुख्यरस and though it is developed times without number and in diverse ways, there is no defect in that.—सुनः पुनर्दीसंकिरणरसादिविपया दोषः। यथिनद् मा महाभारतादौौ यत्नादरिव न वैरस्यमावस्ति । उद्धारोऽयं कुमारसम्भवे—‘अथ मौहपरायणाः’ —(iv. 1) अन्यादिना द्वेषिमनोलौडपि ककमा: ‘अथ सा पुनर्नवे’—(iv. 4) डल्यादिना पुनः पुनर्दींति’ नीतिः । उपभोगो हि पुनः पुनमभूजमानः परिस्खानमवकवद् वैरस्याव कल्पने ( प्रदीप० ). पुनः पुनर्दीसिरिति वैरस्यनिगेः विक्षिप्तं विच्छिद्य यथ्नमित्यं:। तत्र प्रवन्ध एवैल्याद्—कुमारादौति ( उद्योत० ). परिपाकं गतवापि पौनःपुन्येन दीपनं परम् [ रसस्थ ] स्वाद् विरोधाय (वैरसाय)— यनिकार० ].

अकाण्डप्रथन (untimely delineation)

Venīsamhāra, while several heroes are dying in the battle field the dalliance of Duryodhana with Bhānumatī is described. Thus the introduction of शृङ्गार, while वीर or करुण is at its height, constitutes the defect अकाण्डप्रथन.—तत्र करुणस्य वीरस्य वाडवसरो न शृङ्गारादेः । न हि शोकोत्कसाद्वासनानिलुङ्गे प्रतिपतृचेतसि शृङ्गारादिः पदमपि लभते सुतरामस्वाद इति भावः ( उद्योत० ).

अकाण्डच्छेद (untimely interruption)

Mahāviracarita contains this defect. When the heroic sentiment has reached its climax, Rāma, all on a sudden, says 'I am now going to unfasten my nuptial bracelet'. [ These words of Rāma give rise to the idea that he is leaving on a pretext and thus of the lack of heroism in him.—शृङ्गारो हि तथा वचनं व्याजेन निर्गमं प्रतिपादयद् वीरत्वभावं पर्यवस्तोति ( प्रदीप० ). तथाडचरणमशोभिसन्धानं पौर्वकल्पद्विोचितप्रतिपेधविरोधीति भावः ( उद्योत० )].

अङ्गातिविस्तृति (excessive dilatation of a subordinate factor)

In the Hayagrīvavadha Viṣṇu is the hero. He is described not so much as Hayagrīva, the प्रतिनायक (an adversary of the hero). This may lead to the idea that Hayagrīva and not Viṣṇu is the real hero.—तत्र हि हयग्रीवस्य जलवनविदारादिना नायकापेक्षया विस्तरेण वर्णनं तस्यैव नायकत्वं प्रतिपादयति ( उद्योत० ).

अङ्गतनुसन्धान (ignoring the principal factor--the hero or the heroine)

In the fourth act of the Ratnāvalī, on the approach of Bābhravya, Sāgarikā the heroine, is entirely forgotten.

प्रकृतिविपर्यय (प्रकृतिनां विपर्ययः = wrong delineation of characters)

प्रकृति means the heroes of a kāvya. Heroes are of three kinds

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

'महामहोत्सवोतरैःर स्वामिनिर्fवसत्‌न । मित्रे नित्यार्थकारो हि पोषेदानो हि तत्कृतः ॥' 'ददन्मानयतेयंभृत्यो मावाच्छेदपयाय । पोष्येष्टसतरेकारो हि सभायन्नी विचालयन् ॥' 'नित्यं वो पौरवत्कृत्यकृतामर्क मुह्यति ॥' 'मारानुग्नतपुत्रस्य पोषणे निश्र्चितः ॥' (Dā'rṇīkṛ, II)

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

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

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

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

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

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

with Malayavatu ie, when he is brought under the influence of व्याधार, a third रस (अद्भुत) is made to intervene between the two (ie, शान्त and शृङ्गार).—रसाना विरोधयोर्द्वेषा-निमानाधिकरणतया नैरन्तर्येण चेति । तन्न बीभत्साधनकस्मोरेवाधि-करण्येन विरोध इति प्रतिप्रकाशिततद्वैन भयानको वर्ण्यते; तथासति दूरें तस्य दोषत्व प्रकृत वीररसपि-रोप: । रसस्य च रसेँन नैरन्तर्येण विरोध: सङ्कीरोषेण रसान्तरेणान्तरितो निबध्यते: ( प्रदीप० )

Two incompatible रसs do not mar each other also when (1) one is merely remembered (to develop the other)—एकस्मिं रसेऽनुभूयमाने तद्रिङ्गद्रष्टदुपवृणाय चेतनुसयाने तत्र न दोष· ( समप्रदायप्रकाशिनी ), (2) when both of them we intend to be equal in importance—उभय विरोधी सन्ध्येन विवक्षिते तदाऽपि न दोष: ( समप्रदायप्रकाशिनी ) and (3) when both of them become subservient to a third रस—अथ च विरुद्धावपि सन्तोऽपि न तृतीये रसगत्नरेकशूनो भाव: ‘गुणानात्न प्रतिपत्तिमेदादि’ति न्यायेनाऽपि हि ( समप्रदायप्रकाशिनी ).

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

न तु विरागादिनिमित्तान्तरत्वेन प्रतीयमाने रसेऽपि विरोधी तीव्रनयकारा इति वो विरोध: यो वाड्नाटकादिष्वस्ति आङ्ग ( समप्रदायप्रकाशिनी ).

VIII

गुण and दोष—Di-tinction between the two

Definition of गुण.—गुण, are the properties of रस (i.e, they directly reside in रस—रस्य संश्रय: मुख्य: सततस्थितो रस्म्.), the principal futor or soul of राम्य, they invariably co-exist with it and cause its excellence [ by causing a melting of the heart etc.—मोद-

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

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

रचना ).—नतु ग्रन्थोऽन्तरारामहिचिवसादृभतलादौौमा रसत्वसिद्धयवस्थितार्थं श्रुतम् । मैत्र सङ्घिठा, विनिगम-

कामवादिति चेन्न वयम् । भवतुच्यपि विनिगमकाऽभावो यदि तया वाक्यतात्पर्या गुणा श्रीकाऽपि शक्यन्ते । न लेनम्,

चाक्रिकेयेन रचताया मपि तद्रुपसम्मात् । तथा च रसमहाकाव्यतिलकं माधवम्, वर्णरत्नाकरेऽपि तु

गीयते । यथाैव हि— माधुर्योज्ज्वलयो रसस्य । समुचितवैशद्यादिमिर्यज्यत इत्येव सत्कॄ ( प्रदीपो )।

Definition of अलङ्कार—are properties which cause excellence to रस, when it exists, [there are cases, however, where an

अलङ्कार does not cause any excellence to an existing रस] by causing excellence to its component factor ( धर्म and अर्थ—रस्वालङ्कारs such as

अनुप्रास, यमक etc , causing excellence to रसद्रव्य and अभेलङ्कारs, like उपमा,

उपमेयिक etc, causing excellence to अर्थ ); they are just like necklace

and the like causing excellence to the soul through the body.

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

author of the Pradīp —

गुणs are the properties of रस and as such directly reside in it, they

invariably cause excellence to रस and invariably co exist with it. अलङ्कारs

cause excellence to रस, but not being its properties do not directly reside in

it, they do not invariably cause its excellence and do not invariably

co exist with it.—‘एवं रसस्यौचित्यसुतवे हि चिति रसद्रव्यं [ वाच्यत्वं तदधीनत्वं ], तथाे [ रसौ-

कार्यत्वे ] हि रसव्यमिश्रितत्वितलम्, चयोग्यत्वप्रकर्षो हि रसवत्यय गुणानां दृश्यताम् ।

‘तथा च य ( चन्द्रदास ) रसनाऽविग्रह कैवल्येनोचयते । एतच्चैव रसाऽविचारितिलं चर्वस्थितिलव्ध दार्ङ्गितम् ।

तथा च रसोपकारकत्वं हि तदङ्गित्वं, तथा च [ रसोपकारकत्वे ] हि रसव्यमिश्रितिलं ध्वनियमान् रसोप

कारकत्वं चेति सामान्यलक्ष्यपयायसामनलङ्कारालाम्’ ( प्रदीपो ) ।

Bhatta Udbhata in his Bhāmahavṛtti has said that there is,

of course, difference between गुण and अलङ्कार so far as they relate to

the human body, the former subsisting by inherence ( समवाय ) and the

latter being present only by conjunction (सयोग ). But in the case of रस

both गुण and अलङ्कार subsist by inherence ( समवाय ) and thus they are

not different from each other. Hence any distinction drawn between

गुण and अलङ्कार, so far as they relate to रस i, based only on old

tradition. This view is not correct The real distinction between

गुण and अलङ्कार is that गुण is रसधर्म and अलङ्कार is not so ; गुण does and

अलङ्कार does not co-exist with रस.

Vāmana's idea of the distinction between गुण and अलङ्कार i

that the former produces beauty—the beauty that entitles a parti-

cular composition to be called काव्य—and the latter only heighten

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

ग्रन्थो महिमभट्टेनोद्ध तटाटा रति फ़ै ( मम्मट० )।

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

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

[ A kāvya must have one or more गुयस. The verse just referred to has also गुयस and they are ओज: and प्रसाद, but they do not produce any beauty here, as the रस suggested is प्रज्नार in which the गुण that is conducive to beauty is माधुर्य.—गुणाजन्यानां शोभासंप्राप्तये हेतुत्वालङ्काराणां शोभासंपत्तिरिति तात्पर्यम् (प्रदीप०). एवं चाव माधुर्य-व्यञ्जकवर्णोभवेनौजसः प्रकृतिविरुद्धत्वेन गुणाधितशोभाया अभावे गुणाधितशोभातिशयकारित्वलुपालङ्कारलक्षणस्य निरुक्तालङ्कारद्वयेड्यामिति भावः । वस्तुतोऽपि प्रज्ञारे माधुर्यंमेव शोभाधायकं न विव्यमानमप्योजः; श्रोत्रोऽनुविद्यतेवात् प्रसादोऽपि न तच्छोभारहितः ( उद्योत० ) ].

• According to Vāmana रीति is the soul of poetry. रीतिस are styles or dictions and they are three in number—वैदर्भी, गौडोया and पाञ्चाली ( सा च पदसंघटनानिम्नका विविधा—उद्योत० ). In वैदर्भी style all the गुयस, such as sweetness ( माधुर्य ), clearness (प्रसाद) etc., are present. In गौडीया and पाञ्चाली styles all the गुयस are not present.

See Kavyalamkara-sutra-vritti, I. 2.

† काव्यशोभा काव्यव्यवहारनिमित्त' काव्यदर्शितविषयः । तद्धेतवो गुणासददतिशयहेतवस्तलङ्काराः इति तयोर्भेद इति । तदपयुक्तं, यतः शोभाहेतवो गुणा इत्युक्तम् । तर्हि किं सङ्ग्रहणीयं यैः काव्ये शोभोत्त-पत्तिरुत न कापि ? स्वाधये, पाञ्चाली गौडीया च रीतिः कथम् काव्यस्यात्मा, माधुर्याद्यभावेन समस्तगुणाभाव-च्योभानुत्पत्तेः ( प्रदीप० ). शोभाहीनं च न काव्यलमिति भावः ( उद्योत० ).

‡ काव्यव्यवहारापचि:-शोभाधारोति श्रेष्ठः । गुणेपु सत्सु शोभादारा काव्यव्यवहारापत्तिरित्यर्थः; यथासूते गुणानां शोभाकृतत्वं वामनसूत्रको न संगृहलोति ख्यात् ।

89

गुएड are three in number :-

1. माधुर्य ( sweetness ).—It delights the heart and softens it

[ दृतीयारणमाहादकरत्वं माधुर्यम् ]. The softening power of माधुर्य succes-

sively increases in संयोगस्थकार, करुण, विप्रलम्भशृङ्गार and शान्त.

[ दृतीयेऽहो मानिततन्मित्रे देवाज्जिनैककाटिन्यभाषः । तथा च यदरुचीनां श्रोषुमिंहनेकृतेषु सम्पयाते तदार्ढाद-

कथासु तं साधुयसिलयसि (मदीप० ).

Bhāmaha ( Bhāmaha ? ) holds that माधुर्य ( melodiousness ) is the character-

istic of माधुर्य. ( मधुरं नातिव्यमसादृशं मधुरस्यास्ति.—म्यवतं श्रवणानन्दकलम् ). This view

is not correct, as माधुर्य is found in शृङ्गार and प्रसाद also ].

2. ओजः (floridity).—It brings about the expansion of the

heart ; by it the heart is fired up, as it were. The expanding power

of ओजः succesively increases in वीर, वीभत्स and रौद्र.

[ दौष्करस्य या मन्त्री विकुनिज्ज्वलनितलन्मिव । तथा च यद्माकान्वितमिव मनो जायते तदीय इत्यर्थः;

(मदीप० )].

3. प्रसाद ( lucidity or clearness ).—It quickly pervades the

mind just as fire pervades dry fuel. The pervading power of

प्रसाद is found in all the रसs.

Though गुएडs are the properties of रस, they are often said to be-

long to शब्द and अर्थ and this is done only figuratively just as

bravery and such other qualities which really belong to the soul

are attributed to the body.

According to Vāmana there are ten वाङ्गुएडs and ten अर्थगुएडs.

वाङ्गुएडs are :-

1. ओजः (splendour). It consists in the compactness of style.—

मारकषत्वमोजः । एकपद्यं गाढत्वं वस्तुतोऽतः.

2. प्रसाद ( lucidity ). It consists in the slackness of composi-

tion. It is a गुएड being mixed with ओजः.—एकपदस्य दौर्बल्यं विधिलत्वं प्रसादः;

( सर्वदैविलास दोष्लादिति भावः ).

3. समता ( smoothness ). It consists in the several words looking

like one on account of the peculiarity of sandhi and use of letters

having the same organ of utterance ( उच्चारणप्रकान ).—सकृत्प्रयुक्तं यत्पः, यस्मिन् मति बद्धचनी पतति एकपदं भासते.

K-P-12

4

4. समता (uniformity). It consists in the sameness of style throughout a composition.—मार्गमेद्र: समता । येन मार्गेणोपरमत्तस्य अर्थस्य:

5

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

6

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

7

7. सौकुमार्य (tenderness). It consists in the absence of harshness.—अजरठत्वं सौकुमार्यम् । वन्धस्य अजरठत्वं परार्थं यत्तत् सौकुमार्यम्.

8

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

9

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

10

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

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

See Vāmanālaṃkārasūtravṛtti, iii. 1 & 2. * वमनायुक्तस्य ओजस् इत एषाम् ( रेपादीनाम् ) श्रपि ग्राह्यत्वेन ओजोगुणेऽप्य झकवशात् सादृश्यात् श्रोजोगुणेडन्तर्भाव: ( विवरणं ). ओज: of Vāmana comes under ओज: of Mammata.

91

Thus धर्मगुणs are really three and not ten in number.

अर्थगुणs (according to Vāmana) are :-

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

औद्यि consists in :-

(a)

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

(b)

वाक्यार्थे पदाभिधान i. e., the use of a single word for explaining the meaning of a phrase. [ तृणान्तरपीडया सक्कुत्पत्तिम् पश्येमहि वाक्यश्लेषम् अर्थविशारिका—विवरण०].

(c)

व्यास i. e., expansion i. e., when a single sentence is elaborated into many sentences. [ परस्य नापहार्यग्यम्, परवाक्यापहारोडसुचितः, पराभिप्रायगणं इहास्माभिरनित्करमियादिना नानावाक्येन प्रतिपादनं व्यासः—विवरण० ].

(d)

समास i. e., brevity i. e., when many sentences are abbreviated into a single sentence. [ ये हिमालयमामन्त्र्य पुनः श्रेयो व्र धीमताम् । सिञ्चन् वारिम् निवेधार्य तदिष्यते: वसुव्रत:—अथ ते हिमालयमामन्त्र्येवादितः पकेनैव वाक्येन नानावाक्यार्थाभूतस्यामननादेरुचति: । पृथिवाव्याप्योभुतरस्यामननादेरुचति: । पत्किवाक्ये च वाक्यार्थप्रतिनिवेशभूत समास इति भाव:—Jhalkikar].

(e)

सामप्रासत् i. e., significance of epithets. [ कुव्यां हरस्यापि विनाकवाने-वृत्तस्य के वयम् वामनोडस्मे || अथे विनायकपदार्शिते विवक्ष्यस्य सामान्यप्रतिपत्तौ साम्प्रासत्—मल्लिनाथ० ].

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

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

प्रसाद (clearness of meaning). It consists in the use of absolutely necessary words.—माधुर्यादीनां प्रसादः, अप्रयेर वेमलं प्रयोजकमात्रपीठ: प्रसादः । प्रयोजकत्वे प्रयोजितव्यपे: (उद्भट० ).

Thus प्रसाद is a negation of the defect अप्रयुक्तता.

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

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

See Vāmanālankārasūtravṛtti, iii. 1 & 2.

• वामनायुक्तस्य शोजस्व इव एषाम् ( श्रेषादीनाम् ) अपि ग्राह्यत्वेन शोजोगुणपद्यजकवर्णसादृशेन श्रोजोगुणपोडनभूत्: ( विवरए ० ).

श्रोज; of Vāmana comes under श्रोज; of Mammata.

91

Thus गुणs are really three and not ten in number.

Thus रसगुणs are really three and not ten in number.

अर्थगुणs (according to Vāmana) are :-

1. ओजः (splendidnes of meaning). Vāmana's definition is

अर्थस्य प्रौढिरोजः. प्रौढि means प्रतिपादनचातुर्य. Thus ओजः is nothing but a

clever way of expressing meanings. प्रौढि consists in :-

(a) पदयोः वाक्यरचना i. e., the use of a phrase for expressing

the meaning of a single word. [चन्द्रे वसन्ते ऽमृत्लोहितनसम्भृत् ज्योति:—विवरण०].

(b) वाक्यार्थे पदाभिधान i. e., the use of a single word for explain-

ing the meaning of a phrase. ( कुलस्त्रीणां सद्यःरुत्पन्नं गृहमृतीति वाक्योये

धमिसारिका—विवरण०].

(c) व्यास i. e., expansion i. e., when a single sentence is e-

elaborated into many sentences. [ परस्व नापहार्टव्यमिति एकरिमन् वाक्यार्थे वक्तव्ये

परातः नापहार्टव्यम्, परवश्वापहारोडनुचितः, परामरणाहेतुम् इहामुत्रविफलकरमेलादिना नानावाश्येन

प्रतिपादनं व्यासः—विवरण० ].

(d) समास i. e., brevity i. e., when many sentences are

abbreviated into a single sentence. [ ये हिमालयमामनन्त्र पुनः प्रक्ष्य च शिलिनम् ।

सिद्ध वारमै निनेयार्थ तद्वितस्थः: समासयः: 11—अथ ते हिमालयस्यामननेप्सलादिगा एकैकं वाक्येन

नानावाश्यार्थीभूतसामाननादेकृतिः । एकञ्ज्ञाये बद्ध्वा वाक्यार्थी निवन्धः समास इति भावः—

Jhalkikar].

(e) सामप्रायत्व i. e., significance of epithets. [ कुर्या हरस्यापि विनाकपाणे-

पींश्चक्यै कृत निन्दोनिःयम् 11 अनेन पितृकुलपार्वाति निन्द्यगणेश सोयकृतनिन्दा—विवरण०. इहः

विनाकी चेयलतादिहरण इति भावः—महितनाथ० ].

The first four kinds of प्रौढि serve only to beautify a composi-

tion. There is no गुणत्व in them because a composition may be

called kāvya even in their absence.

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

2. प्रसाद (clearness of meaning). It consists in the use of

ab-olutely neccssary words.—अप्रसादमतः प्रसादः, अप्रसद वैमल्यं प्रयोजकमस्मपरिनिष्ठ

प्रसादः । प्रयोजकेति अयेच्छितसयधे: ( उद्धृत० ).

Thus प्रसाद is a negation of the defect अप्रसदत्व.

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

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

Thus माधुर्य is a negation of the defect नीरसता or नवीकृतत्व.

सौकुमार्य (tenderness of meaning)

सौकुमार्य (tenderness of meaning). It consists in the use of words which are not inauspicious.—अर्थस्य सौकुमार्यम् । परुषोऽमर्षणः: ( उद्धृत० ).

Thus सौकुमार्य is a negation of the defect अमर्षशीलत्व.

उदारता (greatness of meaning)

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

Thus उदारता is a negation of the defect ग्राम्यत्व.

अर्थव्यक्ति (expressiveness of meaning)

अर्थव्यक्ति (expressiveness of meaning). It consists in clearly delineating the character of things.—वस्तुस्वभावस्फुटत्वमरथव्यक्ति: । वस्तुनो वर्णनीयस्य डिम्भादौ: स्वभावस्य प्रकाशादौ: स्फुटत्वेन वर्णनमिल्यर्थ: ( उद्धृत० ).

Thus अर्थव्यक्ति is not different from the figure named स्वभावोक्ति.

कान्ति (brightness of meaning)

कान्ति (brightness of meaning). It consists in making the रस clearly realized.—दीप्तरसतयं कान्तिः । दीप्तरसतवं स्फुटप्रतीतिमानरसतन्म् ( उद्धृत० ).

Thus कान्ति comes under रससंव्यानि or गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यत्व.

[ रसवत् प्राधानये धनिलयम्‌ । गुणवते तु रसवद्गुणरहुपगुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यत्वाद्वसिल्यं:—उद्धृत० ].

श्लेष (cohesion of meaning)

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

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

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

समता (uniformity of meaning)

समता (uniformity of meaning). It consists in maintaining

the uniformity of expressions —अर्थैकर्य समता। स च क्रमवेदरः इति क्रमवेदे रुपो दोषभाव एव (तदीप०) चैष्म्यते अर्थैकर्य क्रमवेदयथ । क्रमवेदति प्रकारवेदयर्थः ।

यथा उद्भेति सविता तामः इलादौ (उद्भोत०)

Thus samata is a negation of the defect भिन्नप्रकमता

10

समाधि (observation of meaning) The meaning is either original or borrowed from some other source [The comparison between the chin of a Hün and an orange is original because it is not current among poets; whereas the comparison between the eye and the blue lotus is not so, because poets are quite familiar with it] —अर्थदृष्टि समाधि । अर्थेर दर्शं द्रष्टि । अथो द्विधा, अयोनिरन्यच्छायायोनिरिवा ।

अथोति केनाप्यनुहरितपूर्व । यथा—‘सचोशिर्ठतमा लताहचिवकप्रस्फुटिताननारक्तस्य वर्णन नाय्येन क्रतुमिलयोत्पत्तिं बोधयम् । अन्यच्छायायोनी अनेह-

शिरिन्मुखकोडपि निन्द्योडपि रति यातः । यथा—‘निजन प्रतिभिम्बैर्मनु बहुधा’ प्रतिभिता कापि । नीरोलुपलेपि वियदति करम्पवितु कुसुमलावैः ॥—इति । अत्र नयननोलोत्पलयोः प्रसिद्ध-

मेपामामलस्य उद्भावित इलनयच्छायायोनिरिति बोधयम् (Jhukikāi) अर्थदर्शनमिति ! अवशिष्टपुण्डोडस्मादः, पूर्ववत्पिण्डलछायो वेति काव्यालोचननिमित्तये (उद्भोत०)

The proficiency resulting from the observation of the world, of kävya The proficiency resulting from the observation of the world, of kävya and śästras is essential for the production of kävya Thus समाधि is an essential condition of the production of kävya and therefore cannot be a गुण —लोकशास्त्रकाव्यविदर्शनजन्यनिपुणतया

मार्थदृष्टुतया ऋषभदर्शनामात्रे काव्यदर्शीरमेव न तिप्रदधते इत्यपंडिते काव्यदर्शीरनिवाहकत्वमेव

न तु गुणवत्तमिति (विवृ०)। समाधिः पुनरर्थदर्शनम् । न चासी गुणः, काव्यदर्शीरत्वाव

(वाम्पदर्शीकारल्लट)। स च शब्द अर्थ अनयोर्दर्शनं यद्य न दर्शं कथम तर्हि

काव्यदर्शीरनिष्पत्ति । अगाधारण्योद्भासक हि गुण उच्यते, न च काव्यदर्शीरनिवर्तकस्मिति

(तदीप०)

Thus भदगुणाः are not really गुणs and should not be given a separate treatment

The गुण in reality put in to रम, they pertain to रस only indirectly They are suggested by letters, padais etc and diction

The रम letters (letters beginning from क to म) except the letters

ḱ, ṭh, ṣ, śh, combined with the last letter of their respective group (saṃyogānta) (ṅ, ñ, ṇ, n, m etc.), the consonants ḍ and ḍh with short vowels, simple words, compounds of medium length and harmonious diction (the diction in which the words are so arranged as to make it soft) —these are the suggesters of mādhurya (sweetness).

The first and third letters of a group (varṇa) combined with the second and fourth letters respectively of that group (kh, gh, th, dh, etc.), conjuncts having ṛ as their first or the second member (kṛ, mṛ, ḍṛ, ṭṛ, ṣṛ etc.), any reduplicated consonant (kḱ, cch, ḍḍ, nn, ḷḷ etc.), the entire repha* with the exception of ṛ, the consonants ṣ and ś, long compounds and bombastic diction—these are the suggesters of ojas (floridity).

Such rasas, samāsas and racanās (dictions), as lead to the meaning being comprehended immediately after words are heard, are the suggesters of prasāda. This is in accordance with Maheśvara's explanation. According to him rasa is not only an āśraya (receptacle) of guṇa but its nyaṣṭaka (suggester) as well. (See the commentary, p. 431). According to the Pradīpakāra, the word, the samāsa and the diction by which the meaning is comprehended just after words are heard are the suggesters of prasāda.—येन शब्देन ( वा ? ) समासेन वा यया रचनया वा श्रुतिमात्रेण शब्दार्थप्रत्यय: स प्रसादव्यञ्जक इत्यर्थ:.

The author of the Uddyota puts the whole thing in a simpler form—‘the words the meanings of which are well-known and of which the mutual connection is easily comprehended on account of close proximity etc., are the suggesters of prasād’.—एकत्र प्रसिद्धार्थकत्वमासन्नत्वादिकेन तत्र प्रसादव्यञ्जकत्वमित्युच्यते.*

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

• मूलग्रन्थाभिप्रायनोधका: श्रुतिमात्रतः ( ह्यङ्गप० ).

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

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

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

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

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

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

अनुप्रास is primarily of two kinds—वर्णानुप्रास and श्रुत्यानुप्रास. वर्णानुप्रास is again of two kinds—छेकानुप्रास and वृत्त्यानुप्रास.

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

छेकानुप्रास is the repetition of several con-onants only once. In the verse अनदरह० etc, द and त are each repeated only once.

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

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

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

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

IX

शब्दालङ्कार (Word figures).

[ वृत्ति means संचारणालङ्कार्यवार i. e., style. वृत्त्यनुप्रास is so called because by beautifying the style it helps the suggestion of a रस.—अर्थान्तरन्यास इव या कृतिः | तेनोपस्क्रियते यस्मात् वृत्त्यनुप्रासः (पतोप०). वृत्तिः सारल्योक्तिर्द्वयस्यैवात्र कुत्रचित् |

मपणनालः कविर् नापारविशेषः (विवरणम्)। वृत्तिः रसविपर्ययो व्यापारः। श्रच तु तदतो वर्णरचना वृत्तिः

(रसाद्‌वृत्तिर्‌अस्मिन्‌)*. वृत्तयः are three in number. (1) उपनागरिकां, (polished)—charac­terised by consonants suggestive of sweetness (माधुर्य), (2) परुषा (harsh)—

characterised by consonants suggestive of florridity (ओजः) and (3) कोमला (soft)—characterised by consonants neither suggestive of sweetness nor of florridity

but of प्रसाद (lucidity). कोमला वृत्ति is by some called ग्राम्या वृत्ति on account of its having no exquisitc charm and thus having a resemblance to village women.

—शपररोज्ज्वलमाधुर्यैक्वतिरिक्तः: प्रमादवदिरचऱः। एनामेव कचिद्‌वदतिशयितकान्तिराहित्येन ग्राम्यस्लौषाम्यां

ग्राम्यां वदन्ति (प्रदीप०). These three वृत्तयः are respectively called by Vāmana and his followers वैदर्भी, गौडी and पांचाली ].

शब्दानुप्रास consists in the repetition of शब्दs. The शब्दs repeated are the same in form and meaning but there is difference only in

their तात्पर्य (अन्वय i. e., the syntactical relation). This अनुप्रास is called लाटानुप्रास on account of its being popular among the people of

the लाट country. Now शब्दs are either पदs (complete words i. e., verbal forms complete with terminations) or नामन्s (simple basic

substantives). In the alliteration of पदs there is repetition either of several words or of a single word and in the alliteration of नामन्s the

repetition of the नामन्s may occur (1) in the same compound, (2) in different compounds and (3) once in a compound and once in a

non-compound. In the verse यस्य न सर्विथे दधिता etc., several words such as दददहन and तुहिनदीधिति have been repeated. In the first half

तुहिनदीधिति is उद्देश्य (subject) and दददहन is विधेय (predicate), while in the second half दददहन is उद्देश्य and तुहिनदीधिति is विधेय and this constitutes

the difference in their तात्पर्य or अन्वय.—पूर्वार्द्धे तुहिनदीधितितौ दददहनत्वं विधेयम्।

उत्तरार्द्धे तु विपरीतम्। उद्देश्यविधेयभावविपर्य्यायेन शब्दबोधरुपान्वयमेदात्तात्पर्यमेदोदोऽलति बोधयम्

;उद्योत०). In the verse बदनं वरवरिण्या: etc., there is repetition of the single word सुधाकर. In the first half it is विधेय, while in the second

half it is उद्देश्य and thus the difference in तात्पर्य.—उद्देश्यविधेयभावमेदाच्च

तात्पर्यमेद इति वोध्यम् (उद्योत०). In the verse सितकरकरुचिर विभा etc, we have the substantive कर repeated in the same compound, the subs-

tantire.विभा in two different compounds and the substantive कमला in a compound and in a non-compound. Thus लाटानुप्रास is of five

varieties.

• वृत्तिर् मधुरादिरसनिग्रहणनियदस्मृणाख्यादिवर्गंगतो रसविपर्ययो व्यापारो व्यज्जनाख्यः (प्रदीप०).

According to Maheśvara वृत्ति means व्यञ्जना and वृत्तिगत means 'related to व्यञ्जना being its generator'—वृत्तिः रसनिष्ठगुणव्यञ्जना, (वृत्तिगतः) व्यञ्जनकतया तत्स्वस्स्वधील्यर्थः.

97

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

Varieties of यमक—their examples.

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

समासोय is of two kinds, समह्लेप and अभह्लेप. In समह्लेप there is coalescence of words having different forms and thus necessitating breaking up for an understanding of their meanings. समासोय is of eight kinds as it is based upon :-

(a) वर्ण (letters).—द्विपो वने मृग्ये रिसतवति वद के। पुनरपि। Here the वर्ण lies in the word द्विपी which is a locative singular form of both द्विपि and द्विप. The समास of द्विपि and वने has been transformed into द्विपीवने, though they are different वर्ण and hence it is an instance

K-P—13

of वर्णश्रेप [ अन्र विधाविलयत्र विधिविधुशब्दसोरिकारोकारतां प्राप्योमेदाद् वर्णश्रेप:

(b) पद (words).—पृथुकान्तस्वरपातं etc. In one case the compound means पृथुकानां वाचानामार्तस्वरस्य ( स्वरस्य ) पात्रम्, and in another case it means पृथु यत्नं कार्तस्वरस्य ( स्वरस्य ) पालं यत्न. Here the words being different,

it is an instance of पदश्रेप [ पदमेदात् पदश्रेपोडयम् ( प्रदीप० )].

(c) & (d) लिङ्ग and वचन (gender and number).—In the verse भक्तिप्रहविलोकनप्रणयिनी etc., there is श्रेप of both लिङ्ग and वचन, the neuter

dual forms and the feminine singular forms being identical [ अन्र

प्रणयिनी इति स्त्रियाम् प्रथनैकवचनं नपुंसके तद्वदिवचनं चेति लिख्यवचनसो: श्रेप: ( प्रदीप० )].

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

(f) प्रकृति (crude forms).—In the verse भयं सर्वाणि शाखाणि etc., the word वक्ष्यति is the singular future ( लृट् ) form of both वच् and वहू,

and the word सामर्थ्य क्र means both सामर्थ्य क्रोति and सामर्थ्य कुन्ततीति. Hence we have here an instance of प्रकृतिश्रेप i. e., the श्रेप of two crude

forms. [ अन्र वक्ष्यतीति वहिवच्योलृटि क्रुदिति कुन्ततिकरत्यो: द्वयमे तुल्यं रूपमिति प्रकृतिश्रेपौ

( प्रदीप० )].

(g) प्रत्यय (suffix).—In the verse रजनिर्मणमौले: etc., the word नन्दिता is a form of the root नन्द्. It may mean नन्दक ( नन्द् + णच् ) or the con-

dition of नन्दिन् ( नन्दिन् + तल् ). It should be noted here that the root in both the cases is नन्द् but the प्रत्ययs are different. Hence it is an instance of प्रत्ययश्रेप.

[ नन्दिता when meaning 'the position of Nandin' is to be taken as नन्द् +

क्तिनि + तल्. Thus in the case of णच् it is directly added to the root and in the case of तल् another प्रत्यय intervenes. नन्दितेत्यव नन्दशातुरेक्ज्ञ: श्रव्यवहितात्तस्मृचप्रत्ययस्य हेत-

प्रत्ययस्य श्रहिदाततस्मृद्दितप्रत्ययस्य मेदः; रूपवचैकत्वम् ( सहृदय० )].

(h) विभक्ति (declensional and conjugational terminations).—

सर्वस्वं हर सर्वस्य त्वम् [when addressed by a devotee to Siva it means—

O Hara, you are all in all to everybody ; when addressed by a thief to his son it means—you take away all the property of all

men ]. Here the root is हृ and the विभक्तिस only are different. Hence it is an instance of विभक्तिश्रेप.

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

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

In this verse the expressions परमोष्णाम् and पशुपतेः शरासम् in order to yield two meanings are not to be split up differently but in the same way ( पर+मोष्णाम्, and पशुपते+शर+असम् ). [ The case is, however, different with the expression दातकोविदाम्. It is to be split up in different ways for the two meanings to be obtained ]. There is thus समाहार्य ( more precisely प्रत्ययाहार्य and प्रकृत्याहार्य ) in this expression.

It should be noted here that some words in this verse have two meanings but there being no determining factor like प्रत्यय, सदृश, विदग्ध etc., to restrict them to a particular meaning, both the meanings of the verse are possible. Thus both the king and Indra become the objects of description and it is why there is द्वयर्थक in this verse [ पञ्च सुगतदनेतॄन् प्रतरणायवतारे हरेप, यत् पशोः तनुं न्यपनेति चोचम् ( उदाहृतो ). ].

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

of वर्णश्लेष [ सन्न विधावित्यन्न विविधविधुशब्दश्शोरिकारोकार्योकारतां प्रास्योभेदाद् वर्णश्लेषः ( प्रदीप० )].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In this verse the expressions परयोगिभि: and पक्षच्छेदकक्षमा: in order to yield two meanings are not to be split up differently but in the same way (पर+योगिभि:, and पक्ष+च्छेद+कक्षमा:). [ The case is, however, different with the expression योत्स्यत इति धीर: It is to be split up in different ways for the two meanings to be obtained ]. There is thus समाहार्य ( more precisely वाक्यार्थ and पदाथि ) in this expression.

It should be noted here that some words in this verse like धीर: have two meanings but there being no determining factor like अर्थ, व्यय etc., to restrict them to a particular meaning both the meanings of the verse are possible. Thus both the king and Indra become the objects of description and it is why there is अत्यन्त तिरस्कृत वाच्य ( अत्यन्त युगपदनेकप्रकारणाप्रवतारे इत्यर्थ:, यत्न वाच्य र्त्र वद्योत: ).

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

According to Udbhaṭa both समञ्जश्लेप and शभञ्जश्लेप which he calls वचत्रलेश and अर्थालेश respectively, are regarded as अर्थालङ्कार and not शब्दालङ्कार.

His view regarding the figure श्लेष is that it consists of a coalescence either of words that are pronounciable by different efforts ( प्रयत्न ) on account of their accent or स्वर ( उदात्त, अनुदात्त or स्वरित ) being different, or of words pronounciable by same efforts on account of their accent being the same. In the former case the श्लेष is शब्दश्लेष because different words coalesce like lac and wood. [ तत्राद्य: शब्दश्लेष: । स्वरितादिगुणभेदाद् भिन्नप्रथोलोभायंतया भिन्नानां शब्दानां वच्ये जतुकाष्ठन्यायात् शब्दयोरपि स्थितत्वात ( प्र०दी० ) ]. It is called also समञ्जश्लेष because in order to obtain two meanings splitting up in different ways becomes necessary.

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

[ It should be noted that the essential factor for the figure श्लेष is the apprehension of different meanings. This is the reason why Udbhaṭa calls it an अर्थालङ्कार only. अर्थाभयप्रतीतौवैव शलङ्कारलोपगमादर्थालङ्कारतयैव द्विविध-वचत्रलङ्कारस्यवस्कारादिभिरङ्गीकृतमध्यै पठित; तत् कथम् शत्रालङ्कारमध्ये पचते ? ( प्रदीप० and उद्द्योत० ) ].

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

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

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

In the verse स्वं च पहवानात्म—etc., there are both शब्दालंकार and अर्थालंकार. In the first half of the verse (which contains शब्दालंकार) the word भास्वत् and in the second half (which contains अर्थालंकार ) the word स्वत्प are not changeable by their synonyms. Thus both शब्दालंकार and अर्थालंकार pertain to words and hence they are वाच्यार्थ.—[ स्वं द्विपदपद्यस्य: भास्वत्पदत्रासापदयो: परिकल्प्यसहत्वया ह्योभयम् शब्दालंकारमेवोचिन्त्त, न त्वर्थालंकारत्वम् । ( पृ०९० ) ].

The verse स्तोकेनोन्नतिमयानि etc., furnishes an instance of अर्थालंकार. Here the स्व will be retained even if the words स्तोकेन, उन्नति etc., are substituted by their synonyms. [ नन्वर्थालंकार: हि नास्त्येव ? न भवति ? करणादि तस्य विषय: ? यत्र पदपरिच्छेदेनेष्ट न हेतुः: यथा नोन्नतिम् । (पृ०९० ) ].

According to Udbhata the predominant figure in the verse स्वं च पहवानात्म—etc., is स्व and it generates the idea of यत्न. यत्न cannot be the predominant figure here because the सामान्यन (the common property between the दानान and यत्न—पराक्रम्य and निहिति ) consists merely of words (same adjective)—viz., पराक्रमत and निहितवत्कृत्यहेतुहेतुमत् having different meanings—when construed with the उपमान and उपमेय ( निहित and पराक्रम ). Mammata refutes this contention by saying that सामान्यन con-sisting of word—may con-stitute यत्न just as that consisting of गुण (attribute), क्रिया (action) or both गुण and क्रिया. [ सामान्यनादिनोभयनिबन्धनो हि यत्न: पराक्रम्यादिसामान्यसम्भावात् ( पृ०९० ) ]. He quotes the authority of Rudrata who says that यत्न and पराक्रम are undoubtedly अलंकार. But they are possible in passages like पराक्रम्यैव निहितं on the basis of the sameness of word only.

It is not also correct to maintain that when the word यत्न—पराक्रम and when it is used ( e.g., पराक्रम्य गतम् ), we have यत्न and when it is used ( e.g., यत्न गतम् ) we have पराक्रम, for

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

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

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

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

[ किं वा, येन ध्वस्तमनोभवेन ह्लादौ नास्त्येव किञ्चिदलङ्कारान्तरमेत्युपमालङ्कयोरिभक्तोदाहरणसम्भवाद् वाध्यवाधकभावाभ्युपगमे दृश्योऽपि सङ्कर एवति वरम् अश्लाघ्युपगतनियमम् ( प्रदीप० ) ].

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

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

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

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

[ An अभिधानकूट rests not on the use of particular words but on meanings. किं च ‘प्रतिभास्ययैव’—इत्यादि शब्दश्लेषस्यालंकारत्वमिति वचने भवता विरुद्धम्, शब्दतात्वितले तेन व्यपदेशेन भण्यते (प्रदीप० ) ].

It should further be noted that it is beauty which constitutes अलंकार and beauty exists in that, be it a word ( शब्द ) or a meaning ( अर्थे ), to which the poet directs his attention and skill. [ प्रतिभा रकिन्तिनिर्मिततेन वा । संरम्मो यथा: । पंक विनापि परस्यार्थविदग्धरसलोचनसुपादतम् । तथा च कविप्रतिभालगोचरत्वं यत्न तदेव विचित्रता (उद्योत० ) ]. So the substratum of beauty is either शब्द or अर्थे. When it is शब्द there is शब्दालंकार and when अर्थे, there is अर्थालंकार. It is not an argument to say that without a comprehension of the two meanings श्लेष is not comprehended and as such the words that form श्लेष ultimatedly depend on their meanings to give rise to the idea of this figure and therefore it should be regarded as an अर्थालंकार. For then,

अतुप्रास and वक्रोक्ति also will have to be regarded as -अर्थालंकारs on the ground that they are also dependent upon meanings that suggest रस. [ रसादिर्यस्यैकस्वरूपं यद् वाच्यं तत्तापेक्षतेनेयर्थः । शब्दालंकारनिवन्धे तदनुगुणवैदग्ध्याल्यनुरस्यनुच्यते । एवं वीरादौ गौणीवृत्तिरिति तदनुगुण इत्यर्थः । वृत्ति द्वैदश्यादिरिति: ( प्रभा० ) ]. Moreover, शब्दगुण is a गुण and शब्ददोष is a दोष from a consideration of अर्थ (meaning) and not merely on account of their dependence on शब्द. [ When the meaning is gorgeous, ओज: is a गुण and when the meaning is delicate श्रुतिकटु is a दोष* ]. On the other hand गुण, दोष and अलंकार that pertain to अर्थ ( such as माधुर्य, अपुष्टता and उपमा ) have to primarily depend on शब्द because there is no comprehension of meaning without शब्द. [ So it is clear that mere dependence on शब्द or अर्थ does not determine whether a गुण, दोष or अलंकार pertains to शब्द or to अर्थ ].

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

चित्रालंकार and some of its varieties such as खड्गवन्ध, मुरजबन्ध, पद्मवन्ध and सर्वतोभद्र.

पुनरुक्तवदाभास (semblance of repetition)—When one and the same meaning appears to be expressed by words in diverse forms (with or without meaning), the figure is पुनरुक्तवदाभास. [ एकार्थतेति एकार्थत्वाद्‌भावासयोग्यशब्दतेयर्थः: ( प्रदीप० )। वस्तुतो नैकार्थत्वं किन्तु तत्स्वेन प्रतिबिम्बमात्रमिति भावः ( उद्द्योत० ) ]. It subsists only in words (broken or unbroken) and also in words and meanings. The figure is said to subsist in words when the words cannot be replaced by their synonyms and in meanings where such replacement is possible without spoiling the effect.

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

CHAPTER X

अथोल्लासः (Figures of Sense)

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

CHAPTER X

अथोल्लासः (Figures of Sense)

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

CHAPTER X

अथोल्लासः (Figures of Sense)

• The two rules of Pāṇini referred to are तत् समान and तेन तुल्यं क्रिया चेद् वतिः. By the former rule वति is prescribed in the sense of तत् तस्य and तत् तस्य (e. g., मधुरायणं यथा प्राकार: meaning मधुरायणसदृशः प्राकार: and पचता भेत्स्य भूत: meaning भेत्स्य इव मेघस्य भूत:) and by the latter, in the sense of तत् तस्य if the similarity consists in action (e. g. प्राप्तव्य पचती meaning प्राप्तव्यम् इव पचति).

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

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

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

107

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

Examples of :-

1. वाच्यगा श्रीती—स्वेधडि समरेपु etc. Here the उपमान ( स्वाधीनपतिका ), उपमेय (विजयश्री), साधारणधर्मे ( अपराजिताग implied by न सुचति etc. ) and उपमा-

प्रतिपादकपद ( यथा—the word expressing the relation of उपमान and उपमेय with साधारालधर्मे ) are all mentioned but there is no समास between any two of them. Hence the उपमा is वाच्यगा श्रौती.

2. समासगा श्रीती—अव्यायतोनियमकरिणीद्धतानां etc. Here युज् is उपमान and इत् is उपमाप्रतिपादकपद्र and they have been compounded together

in accordance with Vārttika on Pāṇini, II. 4. 71. [The compound with स्व as sanctioned by this Vārttika is optional and therefore

Mammaṭa's reading स्वेन नित्यसमासो वि भक्त्यलोप: etc. appears to be wrong. It is noted by the author of उद्योत. He says—व्याकरने

वैकल्पिकत्वाहकाराद्दर्शिके तथा अपठाच निपातप्रदर्शेऽपि स्वामानिन: ].

3. तद्धितगा श्रीती—गारम्भीयेनारिमा तस्य etc. Here in the expression

गराम्भीरत्व, साधर्म्य is expressed by the तद्धित affix वति which has been added in the sense of पृथिवीरक्ति by the rule तम तस्येन to the word

गराम्भीरज which is उपमान.

Examples of :-

1. वाच्यगा आर्थी—चक्रितहरिणपोलोल्लोचनाया: etc. Here the word सम which is उपमाप्रतिपादक being not in a compound with उपमान is to be

regarded as occurring in a वाक्य and hence the उपमा is वाच्यगा आर्थी.

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

the उपमा is समासगा आर्थी.

3. तद्धितगा आर्थी—दुरालोक: स समान etc. Here the तद्धिन affix वत् has been added to the उपमान निद्रापरतल by the rule 'तेन तुसं किर

वेद वनि:' and hence the उपमा is तद्धितगा आर्थी.

Now, though an अलङ्कार is nothing more than beauty and there is no beauty without a suggested sense, yet a kāvya having

अलङ्कार is not to be regarded either as शब्दालङ्क्य or अर्थालङ्कार्य (on account of its having a sugggested sen-e) for the simple na:on

that beauty in kāvyas having अलङ्कार is recognized purely from

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

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

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

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

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

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

When the उपमाप्रतिपादकपद and साधारणधर्मे are both omitted, the

द्रुता is twofold, being possible in a समास and in the affix वतिप्.

When the साधारणधर्मे and उपमान are omitted, then also it is of two

kinds as occurring in a समास and in a वत्यय. When the उपमाप्रतिपादकपद

and उपमेय are omitted, it is of one kind only being possible in the

affix वतच्.

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

When three factors, viz., the उपमाप्रतिपादकपद, साधारणधर्मे and उपमान

are omitted, the दृश्टा is of one kind only and occurs in समास

Some hold the view that दृशोपमा is possible also when only

the उपमान remains i e, when other three factors are omitted They

cite the term आय दारुणिक as an example It means 'one who

behaves like आय दाल्ह (speal)' Here the उपमेय (the cruel person),

साधारणधर्मो ( cruelty ) and the उपमाप्रतिपादकपद ( द्रु ) are all omitted

and only the उपमान ( which is आय दाल्ह ) is mentioned According to

Mammata this is not a correct view. He says that the term means

not 'one who behaves like an आय दाल्ह' but 'one who acts with

in आय दाल्ह' the term आय दाल्ह meaning क्रूर आचार ( cruel behavour ) by

रूपक.‡ So क्रूर आचार has been spoken of as or completely identified

with आय दाल्ह and thus the figure involved here is अतिशयोक्ति and not

उपमा

Ancient rhetoricians like Rudrata and others have spoken

of other varieties such as मालोपमा and रसनोपमा When one उपमेय has

वतिरूपा उपमा is possible only when वतिरूपा like मति etc., are added to

the उपमान So when उपमान is absent ततिरूपा उपमानलुप्ता is not possible.

-उपमागमवाचकपदेन उपमाप्रतिपादकस्य वतिप्रकृतिततस्य विधानाात् उपमानानुप्रादाने रूपकवैदग्ध्य न तर्हितता सम्भवति.

उपमानलुप्ता गौणी also is not possible because this kind of तृप्ति requires the

use of words तृप्ति, यथा etc They are to be used with उपमान.‡ So when

उपमान is absent there is no chance for उपमानलुप्ता गौणी.-तथा हि, यथा

मालोपमा†तद्वै शब्दोऽकल्तनियमेन उपमानानुप्रादाने तृप्तिमुपादाने सङ्क्रमः.

• The suffix वतुँ cannot be added to the word वत्सलः in its secondary sense-चय गुणवदनित्यत्वादेव सीतोपसर्पणपरभर्त्स्योः† चय गुणवदनित्यत्वादेव सीतोपसर्पणपरभर्त्स्योः‡ चरमविभावनं ( तत्त्वनिर्णयो )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. ससंदेह—when an object under description (प्रकृत or उपमेय ) is doubted to be something else ( अप्रकृत or उपमान ) and the property differentiating them is either stated or not stated, the figure is ससंदेह.

[The doubt must be based upon similarity and poetical. हृता गता सा क गता न जाने मोहं गता मे हृदयं गता वा—here there is a doubt but it is not based upod similarity. अन्य स्थानेऽपि रूपेण वा—here the doubt is based upon similarity but not set up by poetic genius]. The differentiating properties may either exist in उपमेय or उपमान, and as has been said, may either be expressly stated or not stated. In the verse अन्य मार्जारः किं etc. the quality of being carried by seven horses does not exist in the king ( उपमेय ) but in the sun ( उपमान ).

In 'रलिन सविभ्रास' etc. the quality of sweet and elegant speech exists in मुख (उपमेय ) but not in हंस or सरसिज ( उपमान ). In the former example, the मेद or वैशद्य or वाक्चातुर्य (differentiating property) is उपमाननिष्ठ and in the latter, उपमेयनिष्ठ. It should be noted that when the मेद is उपमाननिष्ठ, the doubt is निःशयान्तर ( having निश्चय or certainty in the middle ) and when it is उपमेयनिष्ठ, the doubt is निश्चयान्त (having certainty at the end).

[ In the verse अन्य मार्जालः किं etc. there is at first a doubt that the bright figure is the sun. Then there is a certainty that he is not the sun on account of his being carried by a single horse. What he is, is not certain, only what is certain is that he is not the sun. Then the doubt arises that he is the fire. This doubt also is removed and the certainty is that he is not the fire. Then arises another doubt. So here in the process of cognitions there is doubt in the beginning, doubt at the end but a sort of negative certainty (caused by the व्यावर्तकधर्म or वेधकधर्म existing in the उपमान ) in the middle. Thus the सदेह is निश्चयान्तरहेत. In the verse इन्दुः किं का स्वदृक्: etc. at first there is doubt whether the thing seen is the moon or anything else. The doubt is set at rest and a certainty arises by some peculiar property ( व्यावर्तकधर्म ) of the उपमेय. Hence the सदेह is निश्चयान्तरहेत. Bhaṭṭa Udbhata ignores निश्चयान्तरहेत on account of the fact that in this variety of सदेह, निश्चय is not suggested as in निश्चयान्त but directly expressed by some such word as निश्चिन, प्रसिद्धाति etc. and thus there is no charm.—वाचाम संशय यत्रोपमेये निश्चयाद्यन्तवृत्तिनिमित्ति निश्चयान्तं न तत्रास्ति निश्चयप्रत्ययम्, तत्र साध्यावलेपक्रम्, तस्य साध्यावलेपकत्वम्—दिङ्वार० .]

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

6

रूपक

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

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

[ Though the compound expressions रात्रिकल्पलतिका भसज्ज्योतस्ना etc. may be construed as expressive of उपमा, yet the property अन्तर्धाननयसनरसिकत्व (delight-

ing in vanishing from view) being peculiar to उपमान (which is आरोपित (super-imposed) the figure is रूपक. Similarly in instances like तुदतद् मन्य महाति the property मन्य being peculiar to मन्थ, there is रूपक. In instances like तुदतद् सीद्यं पराति, however, सीद्य being· possible to be found both in हस्त and तृण, there is संकर of उपमा and रूपक ].

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

(2) निरूपक—when there is super-imposition only of the principal उपमान, the accessories or subordinate elements being not referred to at all, the figure is निरूपक. [ निरूपकम् वाच्यतीपम्, तच्चोभयवैवलसंः ( प्रतिप० ). वाच्यतीपम् अन्योऽन्यवाचीनमित्यर्थः; केवलस्यैव रूपणादित्यर्थः ( उद्योत० ) ]. It is either मुख्य or मालोपम. In the verse कुरकवाकिणि etc., रूपक is superimposed on गम and there is no superimposition of any of the accessories ( धर्म ) of the former on those of the latter. Hence there is रूप निरूपक. When several उपमानs are super-imposed upon a single उपमेय the figure is मालोपम निरूपक. In the verse चौंदेस वज्जइँ etc., several उपमानs, such as तहिंहिँ etc., are super-imposed upon a single उपमेय i. e., व्वात. It should further be noted that there is no superimposition of any of the accessories ( धर्म ) of any of the सेञ्जल on those of the उपमेय.

(3) परम्परित—when one superimposition becomes the cause of another superimposition desired to be described, the figure is परम्परितरूपक. परम्परितरूपक is thus made up of two रूपकs, one being the cause of the other. In the verse मन्त म which is the cause, the उपमेय may either be coalesced into a single word ( रूपक ), or both may be distinctly mentioned ( संकर ). In the example जस्स मण्णम (the lake) ण वि (the mind, is the cause of superimposition of मानत (the king living in the mind lake). Here the words ण वि (the mind) have been coalesced into one with

K-P-15

is rūpaka. In the example ālapan jayādhārayya the superimposition

of jaya on jaya is the cause of the superimposition of ālapan on yuddha.

The words jaya and yuddha being distinct from each other, the rūpaka

is paryāvrtta. Each of these again has two varieties viz., kevala and

malāyap. Thus paryāvrtta is of four kinds.

Though it is true that in rūpaparvarta the words on which the

rūp rests (such as mānas in the above example) cannot be replaced by

its synonym and other words (such as hrada) can be so replaced, and

thus this mānas being both a śabdālankāra and an arthālankāra should have been

mentioned along with śabdālayakāras such as punaruktavadābhāsa in chap. IX, yet

it has been mentioned here along with arthālankāras in accordance with

usage established by earlier writers on poetics.

7. apahnuti—when the upameya is denied i. e., represented as

unreal and in its stead the upamāna is affirmed i. e., represented as

real, the figure is apahnuti. apahnuti is either śābdī or ārthī. In śābdī apahnuti

the denial of the upameya is distinctly expressed by words, while in

ārthī the denial is implied, the implication being caused by the use

of words synonymous with kapat or parinama. In the verse avāptaḥ prāgalbhyam—

etc., kalpan which is upameya is denied distinctly by the words naivāryam

kalpan:. Thus the figure here is śābdī apahnuti. In the verses vata sakhi

etc. and asubhiriddhāvanyyamrattasarasi etc., ṛtu and romāvali which are upameyas

are denied, the denial being implied by the word chāyā in the

former case and parinmati in the latter. Thus the figure in these

verses is ārthī apahnuti.

8. śleṣa—when in a single sentence there are several meanings

the figure is śleṣa. [The distinction between śabdśleṣa and arthśleṣa is that

in the former the śliṣṭa word is not capable of being replaced by a

synonym and in the latter it can be so replaced].

9. samāsokti—when owing to some properties common to

both prakrta (the object meant to be described) and aprkrta (the object

not meant to be described), aprkrta is suggested from prakrta, the figure

is samāsokti. In the verse lahiṇa etc., the word jayalakkhī itself cannot

mean kāntā (lady-love), but this meaning is suggested from the

properties such as vāhasprśīlābha etc., which are common to both.

10. निदर्शन—when the non-existence of any relation between two things (whether two वाच्यार्थ's or two तात्पर्य's) implies similarity, the figure is निदर्शना. In the verse क सन्देहेन हत: etc. there is no relation between two वाच्यार्थ's viz. the describing of the solar dynasty and the crossing of an ocean by a raft. This non-relation leads us to the meaning 'the describing of the solar dynasty by my limited intelligence is as difficult as the crossing of an ocean by a raft'. Thus the figure in this verse is निदर्शना. In the sentence नीरै: मलिनीकृतदृशि वधति (this mountain bears the beauty of an airy mountain) occurring in the verse कृतापराधो—there is no relation here between तृणै: (the beauty of a mountain and the beauty which is just like the beauty of an elyryijum—शील्यन् रत्नानि रचयति. Thus is नीदृशी मलिनीकृतदृशि etc. is an instance of it.

There is another kind of निदर्शना when an action and its cause is implied. In the verse श्वेतं पतन्तं etc., the cause of thing's falling is its whiteness by itself and its cause viz. the act of a worthless man. { अन निदर्शनस्योदाहरणमाह—प्रतिपाद्यते इति । This kind of निन्दा is called अर्थान्तरन्यास by rhetoricians.

11. अर्थान्तरन्यास—when from an object not intended to be described) is implied, the figure is अर्थान्तरन्यास [ वाच्यवाचकभावेन सम्बन्धादिति शेष: ]. This figure is thus the 'vyatireki'. There must be some relation between the वस्तुगत which implies it, otherwise it is signifying anything. The relation between the वस्तुगत and the वस्तुगत which implies it, otherwise it is signifying anything. The relation between the वस्तुगत and the वस्तुगत which implies it may be of general and particular and of cause and effect, etc.

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

(a) In the verse यात्रां किं न मिलन्ति सुन्दरी etc., what is प्रस्तुत is the question ‘do you postpone your journey ?’ The answer to this question is implied from the narration of the cause of postpone­ment. (b) In the verse राजन् राजसुता etc., what is प्रस्तुत is the fact of the king's enemies having fled away from their houses on hearing of his projected march against them and this is implied from the effects of their fleeing away. (c) In the verse एतत्तस्य सुखाद् कियद् etc., what is प्रस्तुत is the general fact that foolish people mistake an insignificant thing for a valuable thing and feel aggrieved at its loss and this is implied from a particular instance cited. (d) In the verse सुहृदयन्-वारय etc., what is प्रस्तुत is the importunity to kill a particular enemy and this is implied from the statement of a general fact. (e) The im­plication of प्रस्तुत from अप्रस्तुत on the ground of similarity may be founded on श्लेष, समासोक्ति and साङ्ग्यमात्र (mere resemblance). It is found­ed on श्लेष when the words signifying both the विशेष्य and विशेषणs are all श्लिष्ट i. e., possess two meanings and on समासोक्ति when the words signifying the विशेषणs alone are श्लिष्ट.—तुल्ये प्रस्तुते तुल्याभिधाने त्रय: प्रकार:-

विशेषणविशेष्यवाचिनां सदेश्यामेव श्लिष्टत्वस्य, विशेषणमात्रवाचिनो वा श्लिष्टत्वस्य, श्लेषाभिवेदि­सादृश्यमात्रस्यैव वा प्रकृताक्षेपहेतुत्वात् ( प्रदीप० ).

(i) In the verse पुस्तवादपि प्रविचलेत् etc., the विशेष्य (पुरुषोत्तम) and the विशेषणs ( पुस्तवादपि etc. ) are all श्लिष्ट. Here from the विशेष्य पुरुषोत्तम is first understood Viṣṇu, because this is the usual meaning of the word. But Viṣṇu being अप्रस्तुत what is प्रस्तुत, namely, the noblest of men is implied through श्लेष. [ अत्र पुस्त्वादित्यादिविशेषणानां पुरुषोत्तमे­ति विशेष्यस्य च श्लेषोऽवगन्तव्यम् ( प्रदीप० ). ] The figure in this verse is not श्लेष, pure and simple, on account of the two meanings not being understood simultaneously—Viṣṇu, the conventional meaning of the word पुरुषोत्तम being understood first and then being understood the etymological meaning ‘the noblest of men,’ through the force of —-न च श्लेष एवायम्, ‘अवयवशक्त्या समुदायशक्तिवलीयसी’ इति न्यायाद् प्रामुख्येनोपस्थितो म

पुलपरसादृपैशपैरोपसिलते: इनेपससृचैवडि जाप्रसुततस्य प्रभाप्रोंपसिलैयैवाप्रंसुतुप्रदृशासांलावात (प्रदीप॰ )].

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

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

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

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

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

अतिशयोक्ति

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

The first variety consists in the description of things different from each other as non-different ( मेदेड्यमेद: ) and the second variety in the description of things not different from each other as different ( अमेदेऽपि मेद: ). In the verse कमलमनम्भसि etc., कमल, कवलय and कनकलतिका, though different from मुख, नेत्र and कान्ता respectively, have been spoken of as identical with i. e., non-different from them. In the verse अपण्ण लडहतणआं etc., the loveliness of the young girl and the brightness of her body, though not respectively different from ordinary loveliness and ordinary brightness of body, have been spoken of as different from them.

The third variety* stands for both असम्वन्धेऽपि सम्वन्धोक्ति: (assumption of connection between two objects though there is no connection between them) and सम्वन्धेऽप्यसम्वन्धोक्ति: (assumption of non-connection between two objects though there is a connection between them). In the verse रकायामकलङ्क——etc., in the first half, a connection is conceived between the moon and the absence of stain though there is no connection between them and in the second half, absence of connection between the face and the moon is

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

brought in by the use of the word परामव though there is a connection of similarity between the two. [ राकायां नकलधूमिलस पूवादे पूज्यन्द्री कन्दू-

मात्रसामग्र्ये समुच्यते हि विपतः, उत्तरार्द्धे साम्यस्यान्यसमग्र्युपदेशेऽपि तद्गमनस्य: परामवपदेन

अर्थिनः । यथोक्तोऽविच्युपलक्षणमू उत्तमप्रकारद्रयस्य ( उद्धृतो० )]. The fourth variety

occurs when in order to show the efficacy of the cause, the effect is described as preceding the cause or appearing simultaneously with it. In the verse हृदयमधितमादौ etc, the effect,

viz., the falling in love with the नायक precedes the cause, viz, the fact of seeing him. [ अन कारणस्य कान्तापि धनस्य श्रीधिकारितयैव वचु वायंग्य कन्द्वा-

विप्रलम्भस्य प्रथमसूच्यरिति कारयकारणयोः पैरविपर्ययुरूपा आतीयोक्तिरियम् (उद्धृतो०)]. In the

verse समवेप समाकान्त हृदय हिरदयामिना । तेन हि स्थानं विधाय मण्डलस्य महोदयस्ताम् ॥—the

cause, viz., the ascending the throne and the effect, viz, the attacking of the kingdoms of other kings occur simultaneou-ly. [ अन

निहितमन्यस्य कारणं, महोदयमन्यस्य मण्डलाक्रमण कारयम् । अन समवेप न तु पूर्वापरभावेन प्रतीयते:

पैरविपर्ययस्यैवातिद्योतिः: ( उद्धृतो० )].

प्रतिवस्तूपमा—

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

[ The common property is to be expressed in the उपमेयवाच्य and

उपमानवाच्य in different words, since the repetition of the same word

would give rise to the fault कवितावदलव ]. In the verse देवीमव मनिना

etc., by the first half is expressed the impropriety of reverting to the position of an attendant and by the second half that of enjoy-

ing a jewel marked with the figure of a god. The sense of the first half constitutes उपमेय and that of the second half उपमान. Impropriety

(अनौचित्य ) which is the common property is mentioned in both the

halves but in different words. The figure is found in a series

( माला ) also and the verse, यदि ददयलनेलितं etc., is an example of it.

• The figure is significantly so called because there is वस्तु (common property) expressed in प्रतिवस्तु (each sentence)—प्रतिवस्तु प्रतिवस्तूपमार्थं

इति—अत्र गुण उपपदे: (कुवचनादीन० ). Mammṭha, in explination of the name of the

figure, says—वस्तुनो वाच्यादेशे उपमानवाच्यादतु प्रतिवस्तूपमा भवति । On this उदयन remark—वस्तु

चिन्यते—ति मुनुपदेः: (कुवचनाद्यान्त० ). The उपमेयवाच्यार are more than one in मालादीपक

चिन्यते—ति मुनुपदेः: (कुवचनाद्यान्त० ). The उपमेयवाच्यार are more than one in मालादीपक

and so the words चि and हृ in the definition are explained as 'signifying

'more than one' i. e., two or more—चि 'हृ' हृदनेकावस्थ, मम'द्वयोत्

(तदेव० ).

The figure differs from उपमा in that in उपमा the resemblance is between the senses of two words and it is expressed, while in प्रतिवस्तूपमा the resemblance is between the senses of sentences (which may be two or more than two) and that too is implied. ( उपमायां तु पदार्थयोः साम्यं, तत्र वाच्यं, शत्र तु वाक्यार्थयोः तद्वत्त्-

रमेत्यादि तत्रैव भवः ( विररमो ). The difference between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त is that in the former the attribute ( साधारण्यं ) of the उपमेय and उपमान is one and the same but is expressed in different words in the उपमेयवाक्ये and उपमानवाक्ये and establishes similarity between their senses, while in the latter the attributes of the उपमेय and उपमेय are different but being similar to each other serve to establish similarity between the senses of the उपमेयवाक्ये and उपमानवाक्ये. In other words, there is वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभाव between the attributes in प्रतिवस्तूपमा but in दृष्टान्त there is धर्मप्रतिधर्मभाव between them. वाक्यार्थयोः पदार्थानां वा उपमानोपमेयतैकत्वं नास्ति तद्वत्प्रतिवस्तूपमा ( विररमो ). प्रतिवाक्यं विमृदृश्येऽपि साधारण्यं तुल्यत्व-

नया वाक्यार्थयोः पदार्थैरमप्यधत्ते दृष्टान्तादहारः ( विररमो ). यत्र तु साधारण्यस्य वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुमाने दृष्टान्त तु धर्मप्रतिधर्मभावे ! एकस्यैव धर्मस्य प्रधानस्यामुपादानं वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुभावः ( रुयोत ). वाक्यार्थयोर्न पदार्थानां चोपमानोपमेयत्वेन परस्परश्लेषाद् धर्मप्रतिधर्मभावः ( प्रदीप ). वस्तुनोऽप्यधर्मस्योपमानोपमेयत्वेन दृष्टान्त ( सुधासागर ). The difference between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and दृष्टान्त is that in the former, the साधारण्य is mentioned and the senses of the sentences are independent of each other, while in दृष्टान्त, the साधारण्य is not mentioned and the senses of the sentences are independent of each other.—

निदर्शनायाः साधारण्यस्याप्युपन्यस्य वस्तुप्रतिवस्तुमावेन निर्देशः । वाक्यार्थयोः निरपेक्षत्वं (Jhalkikar). The difference between प्रतिवस्तूपमा and निदर्शना is that in the former, there is the relation of उपमान and उपमेय between the sentences, while in the latter, the relation is one of समर्थ्य (supporter) and समर्थक (supported).—

यत्र धर्मस्यास्य तु सत्वसमर्थ्यसमर्थकभावो विवक्षितः, यत्र ( प्रतिवस्तूपमायां ) पुनरुपमानोपमेयभावः ].

दृष्टान्त—When there is धर्मप्रतिधर्मभाव between the उपमेय and उपमान, between their accessories and attributes, the figure is दृष्टान्त. [ प्रकृतवाक्यार्थघटकानाम् उपमानार्त्तानां साधारण्यं न च धर्मप्रतिधर्मभावे दृष्टान्तः ( रत्नाकर-

भव० ). तत्र उपमेयस्य उपमानेन सह धर्मप्रतिधर्मभावः, तद्वस्तुनिर्धिष्टं साधारण्यं नस्य तु साधारण्यमेव गम्यते विना दृष्टान्तः ]. When two ideas are represented as extremely similar to each other, so much so that one seems to be the reflection of another, धर्मप्रतिधर्मभावः (the relation of the image and its reflection) is said to exist between them. We ordinarily use the expression ‘this is my face’ in reference to the reflection of the face in the mirror though actually the face and the reflection are different from each other. [ लोके हि दर्पणदृशौ धर्मप्रतिधर्मत्वं नैवेष्टव्य सदृशानैवत्र

वदनं संक्रान्तमित्यमेतेनाभिमन्यते ! सन्यथा हि प्रतिबिम्बदर्शनेऽचोद्यं स्थूलोऽहंनित्यादिसंमानो नोदेीयाद्, भूषणविन्यासादौ च नायिका नाद्रियेत ( उद्धवोत० )]. The relation of

उपमेय and उपमान is established by the figure between the senses of

the two sentences and the उपमानवाक्य illustrates the उपमेयवाक्य. The

उपमानवाक्य may be called the दृष्टान्तवाक्य (the sentence containing the

illustration) and the उपमेयवाक्य the दार्षान्तिकवाक्य (the sentence for which

illustration is given). The figure is significantly named दृष्टान्त because

it serves to help the ascertainment of the meaning of the दार्षान्तिकवाक्य

by the दृष्टान्तवाक्य. [ दृष्टान्तवाक्ये रूढितसहचरिते दार्षान्तिकस्यैव प्रमाणविषयात् ( उद्घोत० ).

दार्षान्तिकतेन सनिदर्शनस्याप्यस्यां निश्रयदृढीनादय इष्टान्तः (Mallināth.1). निश्चय प्रसज्यप्रतिषेध

निःसंदेह प्रतीतःः सौराहारण्यवयेन प्रतिपसमनोऽनु प्राश्नः. तद्वाक्याहुनिनिर्देश्या असदृशयोरपि प्रतीपते ।

तदिय सदृशा योगकृद्. ( वृरणा० 1). दृष्टान्त is of two kinds—the illustration

is either based on साधर्म्य (similarity) or on वैधर्म्य (contrast). The

verse तत्रि दृष्ट एव तस्याः etc. is an example of the former and the

verse तवाधने साधकसामग्रीण etc., etc. of the latter kind.

[ दृष्टान्त not is उपमा on account of the absence of the use of words like यथा,

etc. etc. दृष्टान्त differs from अर्थान्तरन्यास because in अर्थान्तरन्यास, सामान्य ( a general

proposition) is supported by विशेष ( a particular proposition) and विशेष by सामान्य

while in दृष्टान्त, सामान्य is supported by सामान्य and विशेष by विशेष. It differs from

निदर्शना because in निदर्शना there is no mention of साहारण्यवर्मन्, while in दृष्टान्त

साहारण्यवर्मन् is mentioned. Moreover, in दृष्टान्त the two sentences are independ-

ent of each other but in निदर्शना one is dependent on the other.—न ज्ञातोपमा,

वध्यादिष्वस्यादृश्यमान्. नाप्यधोऽन्वयवास, यद्यप्यधिगृहीतभातादृशान् : यत् एकोऽपि टोकाकारैः, यत् सामान्ये

सामान्येन विशेषो वा समर्थ्यते, विशेषेण वा सामान्ये समर्यते इति

यदो मते (Jh.l.k.lar). ( नापि निदर्शना ) तत् ( निदर्शनाद्रव्योः ) साधारण्यादुपनयपक्षे, यत्

सामान्ये: विशेषनिर्देशवात्. तदपि चेह्वकाशम् ( उद्घोत० ).]

15

दीपक—When an object under description ( वर्ण्य ) and an

15

object not under description ( अवर्ण्य ) are connected with the same

15

property in the shape of an action ( क्रिया ) or an attribute ( गुण ) men-

15

tioned only once, the figure is दीपक. The figure is significantly

15

called दीपक hecause the word expressive of the common property

15

though ocnurring in connection with one word (e. g., that signifying

15

महा1 ), illumines i. e., shows its connection with another word al-o

15

(e g., that signifying अमग्र2), just as a lamp which though meant to

15

illuminate one particular object, throws its light upon other objects

15

also [ यत्रनिरूपकविशयोमध्यैकदेवी निदिष्टा मन्त्रानो धर्मः. मग्नेरकादिव्यपदेशोऽपि तादृशो दीपकः.

15

नदीप्तिहेतुत्वेन दीपकत्वादन्यपरोपकारकः ( सम्यदार्मगवृत्त० ). दीन हर इति दीपकम्. संत्रलत

15

सकृदुक्ते हि धर्मे तमनिदर्शयत्नादुपलक्षणं दीपकं ( रत्नाकरपरो )]

K-P-16

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

In the verse etc. there is as the same one hand and and on the other. In the verse there is as which is a word connects both and ( and ).

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

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

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

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

to reach the earth and so on.

A

In कारणमाला each preceding object is represented as the cause

of each succeeding object, while in मालदीपक the relation between

them is that of the helper and the helped.

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

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

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

that उपमा must be implied in it as in दीपक. —औपम्येन गम्यतां पदैरहेतुगतैरैन

प्रस्तुतानाम् अप्रस्तुताना वा समानधर्मोभिमर्शनस्यै तुल्ययोगिता ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्व० ). औपम्य चात्र

गम्यम्, तथैवोयकर्मानामनधर्मोभूयस्त्वात्, वाच्येनाप्यौपम्येन ( उद्घोत० ); प्रकृततत्त्व तथा नेया केषर

तुल्यभमे: । औपम्य गम्यते यत् सा मता तुल्ययोगिता ( प्रताप० ). The figure is

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

with several things.—तुल्यमपेक्ष यत्रो जायते धर्मसाम्येति अन्यर्पननाम तुल्ययोगिता

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

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

are all meant to be descibed.—अत्र मृकुताया विरहिणीवेदनादैनामेव परंतेन-

वेदनालयो धर्म उपपातः, न तु उपमान (= अप्रकृतन )—लोगर्मेतया ( मम्मट० ). Similairty

is implied between these प्रकृत objects on account of having a

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

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

नीलनीललत are अप्रधान and they are all connected by the common

property अविलेप (censure) implied by the word हत्. This common

property implies a similairty between them. In the secout half

दन is मुखत ; अमृत, अत्यतर्दिव and अनुजन्म are all अमृत and they are

connected by the common property प्रह्लादन (aljngation) which

implies a similairty between them.

17. अत्युक्ति—When the उपमेय is descibed as dissimil ir i. e.,

superior to the उपमान, the figure is अत्युक्ति. Accoiding to Rujjink t

Ruyyaka (author of the अलङ्कारसर्वस्व ) superiority of the उपमान over

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

rer-e ग्लौम्. शीर्णोदरि etc. as an illustration of superiority of the उपमान

( तनु ) over the उपमेय ( योवन ) Mammata refutes this vi w viz.,

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

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

Examples of these twenty-four varieties.

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

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

• नह्हात चन्द्रयौवनयो: सार्धस्ये किन्तु तत्‌चयग्यो:। तत्र चन्द्रोपयस्य हृदिवार्ध्यतया नूनत्वं, यौवनचञ्चलतयाऽऽध्यतया श्राधिक्यम् ( उद्योत० ) For a detailed discussion of the verse, see Darpana, ch. x (under the figure व्यतिरेक ).

(मुप्त्वे) hās been spohken of अमृत etc. and दरशच्ũदr separately, though by different words, औपम्य between them being implied thereby.—दशोपमानमूतेवेऽग्युतादिवु उपमेयेऽधरे चातिमुग्वत् वयुपपत्त्तर्, नियादानाच्छादनचय्र यत् स्वाड स्वादिति मज्ञा तस्यातिरवादुतवप्रलय्यात ( प्रभा० )

18

आह्लेप—

When what is intended to be said is denied or suppressed for the purpose of conveyıng विेष ( a special idea), the figure is आह्लेप (suppression). The suppre-ion must not be real but only apparent. When the suppres-sion is real there is no आह्लेप. The आह्लेप is of two kinds, as it pertains to what is about to be said or what has already been said The विेष that is conveyed by the apparent suppression consists in what is about to be said being incapable of being described or in what has already been said being too well known The विेष is not to be expressed in words but to be implied—निपेध इत् निपेधाभाम इति यावद्, दाघंलया निपेधेऽपि अझेपन्या निपेरेव प्रतिपत्त्र (प्रदीप०) इह प्रकारणिमोद्धते प्रकारणिरत्नादेव वचुनीप्यते, तयाsतिपय्य विधानाह्दय निपेध कच्ु न युज्यते । स ऋतु वोsपितस्स्वल्पत्वान्निपेधायैव इति निपेधाभाम सम्प्रतः ( अलंकारसर्व०) यत्र तु निपेधस्य स्वार्थे च वि्राश्रिति न तत्र आह्लेप इति (तरल०). विेषस्य वाच्य दाघ्घादुपपत्त्त्वाद् यत्र न विेषेऽर्थे स्वार्थे व विश्रान्ति न तत्र आह्लेप इति ( सरलोधिनी ) In the verse पृथि किंपि etc , what is intended to be said is the extreme ping of separation borne by the gul It is about to be mentioned but suppressed in oder to indicate the idea thıt it is simply indescribable—अत्र विरहादिविच्छेदाइशाविद्यो वच्माणो निपिद्ध (प्रदीप०). अत्र विरहादूराद्याशयो वच्माणो कुमारस्सावतथया निपिद्ध हेत्याह्लाद्वार (उदाहलचन्द्रिका० ). In the vre-e ज्योत्स्या मौक्तिकदाम etc, what is intended to be said is that cool appli ances serve only to incerese the pung of sepuration and in oder to indicate the idea that the fact is too well-known, theit delimeıtion is suppressed but after they huve been mentioned.—अत्र न म्हदे रयुते मेघे सो रुढे धोतलाना दाहलहरस्स्यातिम्रसिद्धत्व ञ्जगप्ति ( सारसोदिनी० ) अत्र दिवसोत्पन्नां ज्योत्स्नादीनुस्सवा तरङ्घन प्रतिहिदिन्दा सेनानुरागडणम् (Jhalkıkai)

विर्वन—

When an effect is stuted as lıppening in the absence of its cause, the figure is विमावन Now an effect without a cause is an impossible ideu So what is clone in विमावना is thıt by

a striking mode of speech the effect is represented to have no cause.

Really speaking, there is a cause though it is not the well-known

one and as such only to be guessed by the cultured.—वस्तुतस्तु कारण-

प्रतिपेधे कार्यंकरथनं विभावन। न च विरोध: स्वभावविकत्वस्य कारणान्तरस्य वा विभावनात् (प्रदीप०).

कारणमिति प्रसिद्धकारणेत्यर्थ:। सूत्रे क्रियते इत्यनेनेति व्युत्पत्त्या क्रियाशब्द: कारणपर: इति भाव:

(उद्योत०). अप्रसिद्धकारणं विदग्धमैत्रीप्रेमादिवैचित्र्य कारणम्, एवं प्रसिद्धकारणनिपेधेऽपि तत्कार्यारूपस्य

वक्त्र: (प्रकाशनम्—कथनम्) विभावनालङ्कार इत्यर्थ: (Jhalkikar). The name विभावना

is significant, for it means ‘that in which something (a cause other

than the well-known one) has to be surmised.’—विभाव्यते कारणान्तरं यस्मात्

( अलङ्कारचन्द्रिका० ). सिद्धकारणाभावे सूक्ष्मकारणवशात् कार्योत्पत्तिरिति विशिष्टतया कार्यभावनाद्

विभावना ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्व० ). Jn the verse कुसुमितलतामिर्—etc., feeling pain,

turning aside and swerving round are represented as taking place in

the absence of their respective causes. There is, however, a cause,

not of course well-known, which produces these effects and it is the

separation from the beloved.

20. विशेषोक्ति—When inspite of the presence of some or even

all the well-known causes, the effect is represented as non-appearing,

the figure is विशेषोक्ति.—कारणेपु सत्सु फलानवत् कार्याभावकथनं विशेषोक्तिः। कारणेपु

प्रसिद्धहेतुषु। अन्र बहुत्वमविशक्षितम् ‘सूत्रे लिङ्गवचनम्तनम्’ इति न्यायात्. The nonproduc-

tion of the effect serves the purpose of manifesting some speciality.

The उद्योत explains the name विशेषोक्ति as ‘a statement meant to bring

home something special’—विशेपं कश्चित् क्रथित् प्रतिबन्धाद्यितुमुक्तिरित्यर्थ:. विशेषोक्ति is of

three kinds—अनुक्तनिमित्ता (when the reason of the non-appearance of

the effect is not mentioned), उक्तनिमित्ता (when the reason is mentioned)

and अचिन्त्यानिमित्ता (when the reason is inconceivable).

(a) In the verse निद्रानिरुद्धावुदिते etc., though the causes viz.,

sation from sleep, rising of the sun etc., are there, yet the effect

viz., moving away from embrace does not follow. The reason of

the effect not following viz., the depth of the woman’s feelings is

not mentioned.

(b) In the verse कर्पूर इव दगधोडपि etc., though the cause viz.,

burning of the body is there, yet the effect viz., being incapacitated

does not follow. The reason of the effect not following viz., the

irrepressibleness of prowess is mentioned.

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

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

विरुद्धमपि हि यत्र तयोः परस्परमिति हृदयङ्गमः । इति हृदयङ्गमो हृदयङ्गमः ( दृश्यते ) ]

21

यथासंख्यम्

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

[ It should be noted that in yathāsankhyam there is not the least play of poetic genius and it is nothing more than the absence of the fault called व्यधिकरण which arises when the order in which things should have been mentioned is violated, e. g., कोऽपि ग्रामं प्राप्नोति नृपो नष्टसामग्रिकः; नष्टसामग्रीकः etc. This is why some rhetoricians object to its being called a figure. Vāmana has, however, said that there is some strikingness when things mentioned in a particular order are referred to symmetrically with that order in the same sentence and it is this strikingness which creates a charm. न यथासंख्यमित्युक्ते यथासंख्यमवर्णितम् । विसदृशानां सदृशानां संख्यानुक्रमयोजितम् । वामनः । मत्वा च यत्र यदन्येषां लक्षणं तत्तथोच्यते । यथासंख्यं तु तत्साम्याद्यथासंख्यमिति स्मृतम् । ( अलंकार० ) ].

22

अर्थान्तरन्यासः

22. अर्थान्तरन्यासः—When either through similarity ( sā- drśya ) a general proposition is supported by a particular proposition or a particular proposition is supported by a general proposition, the figure is अर्थान्तरन्यासः.

a striking mode of speech the effect is represented to have no cause. Really speaking, there is a cause though it is not the well-known one and as such only to be guessed by the cultured.—वस्तुतस्तु कारणप्रतीतेपि कार्यस्यतं विभावनात। न च विरोधः स्वाभाविकत्वस्य कारणान्तरस्य वा विभावनात् (प्रदीप०). कारणेति प्रसिद्धकारणेतरर्थः (उद्घोत०). अप्रसिद्धकारणं हि तद्भावप्रतीतिव्यच कारणं, एवं च प्रसिद्धकारणनिपीडेऽपि तथ्वकार्यंरुपपत्तव्यसक्तिः (प्रकाशानम्—कथनान्) विभावनालङ्कार इत्यथः (Jhalkikar). The name विभावना is significant, for it means ‘that in which something (a cause other than the well-known one) has to be surmised.’—विभाव्यते कारणान्तरं यस्याम् (अलङ्कारचन्द्रिका०). सिद्धकारणाभावे सद्भूकारणवशात् कार्योपरतत्वविशिष्टतया कार्यभावनाद् विभावना (अलङ्कारसर्वस्व०). In the verse कुषुमितलत्तामिर—etc., feeling pain, turning aside and swerving round are represented as taking place in the absence of their respective causes. There is, however, a cause, not of course well-known, which produces these effects and it is the separation from the beloved.

20

विशेषोक्ति

20. विशेषोक्ति—When inspite of the presence of some or even all the well-known causes, the effect is represented as non-appearing, the figure is विशेषोक्ति.—कारणेपु सत्सु फलावचनं कार्याभावकथनं विशेषोक्तिः। कारणेपु , प्रसिद्धहेतुपु । अग्न वदुस्त्वमविक्शितम् ‘सद्भिर्लिङ्गवचनमतन्नत्रम्’ इति न्यायात्. The nonproduction of the effect serves the purpose of manifesting some speciality. The उद्घोत explains the name विशेषोक्ति as ‘a statement meant to bring home something special’—विशेषं कतिविधं प्रतिपादयितुमुचिरित्यर्थः। विशेषोक्ति is of three kinds—अनुक्तनिमित्ता (when the reason of the non-appearance of the effect is not mentioned), उक्तनिमित्ता (when the reason is mentioned) and अचिन्त्यानिमित्ता (when the reason is inconceivable).

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

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

(c) In the rene a वियोजिनि tate, though the cano vir, destruction of the body is ther, yet the chet vir, destuntion of power does not follor. The rison of the chet not follownp is not conceirable but to be known from the festrax.

[It is clear that there is contridiction (fap), though apparent, in both विमावना and वियोजिनि caused by the volation of the law of causation. Then how can they be disting,ushcd from fapyun in which it o thio la apparent contradıction betwcen two objects ? Now what o curs in fapuni and वियोजिनि is this in the former कारणता (theence cf cuue) is rllue in it is a matter of fact and काय (effect) is only poctically fund i in f this unreal. So in विमावना, कारणभाव is stronger and विय is weaker, or in other words, कारयभाव is साधक and काय is साध्य The ciri in jut the rever, in वियोजिनि i e, here काय is साधक and कारणभाव is साध्य But in fapyun both the objects are equally powerfal and cach of them becomcs bath साध्य and साधन-विमाननया कारयभावेद्वैतोपन्यास समारोपात कारणं वा यत्नेन पतेत् । fapyunıy or कारयण wa,eym । इदं तुयोगी हरवीरिद वात्स्यर्मति गेदा (दण्डक ०)]

21

यथासंख्या

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

[It should be noted that in nyasat there is not the lea 'l of a genus and it is notlung more tha the the ... of the fa st.oll ? yao which arises i hen the order in lhi lhin, ! itha rhari is violated, e g, alankrti and an ft. It iscerd, it liso or the nor is to sy,menaliz, -ith th'ir ir in thi the or., dith : ceein a difcrn ce betrcn vya and vya, xxxx, xx seefuex xxxx, fapyun vy xxxx seot 'a fuctres o vya xxxx wrothex (seeabove), to .thex es ooures f xxxx,

thins 'd . 1 - i (this . , 1 1 - i , 1 1 by 4 j 1 1 , 1 1 1 lb 1 y + j , y j j

[ In दृष्टान्त and प्रतिवस्तूपमा a particular proposition is supported by another particular proposition. Moreover, in प्रतिवस्तूपमा the relation between the two sentences is one of उपमान and उपमेय ; while in अर्थान्तरन्यास the relation is that of समथ्यं and समथकं. In काव्यलिङ्ग the relation of general and particular does not exist—दृष्टान्तप्रतिवस्तूपमयोस्तु विशेषेण विशेष्यस्य समर्थनमिति तत् तु (अर्थान्तरन्यासः) मेत्त्। काव्यलिङ्गे तु न सामान्यविशेषभावः (प्रभु०). प्रतिवस्तूपमायामुपमानोपमेयभावो विवक्षितः, इदं तु समथ्यसमथकत्वं विवक्षितमिति तदोऽस्य मेत्तः (सारचोधिनी०).]

विरोध—

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

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

So the figure विरोध has ten varieties.

Examples in order.

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

[ The example of the first variety of विरोध is मधुरं चन्द्र: and it is evident that अभेद (non-difference) appears to exist between मधुरं and चन्द्र in the example मधुरं चन्द्र: and so it may be said that मधुरवदनविदधदचन्द्रतामगि: is rather an example of दृपक and not of विरोध. The author of the उक्तौ notes it and makes the following remark—मधुरवदनरोपमानलंक दृपकर्मिव हि विरोधः। पदवाक्यं 'मधुरं चन्द्र:' हृदयङ्गमोऽपि विरोध एव चमत्कारिको म तु समासोऽपि म विरोधः; रसविषयतायां गुणत्वात्—शति दपकमिव। म तु विरोधोऽलङ्कारः। The sum and substance of this remark is that in दृपक (strikingness) lies in non-difference and in विरोध in contradiction. ]

स्वभावोक्ति—

When the action, form and other characteristics of a child, a young lady, an afflicted person, an animal, a lower class man and the like are described, the figure is स्वभावोक्ति। The description etc., should be such as are peculiar to the object under description and not common to it and other objects, and as are apprehended by poetic genius and not by ordinary understanding. The description should also be charming, as in the case of other अलङ्कारs.—एवं यत्सय कस्यचिद्रसुनोनोद्भावनपरत्वेन स्वभावोक्तिस्वदात हृदि फलितं भवति चमत्कृतित इवतु मलङ्कारसागण्यलक्षणं प्रायममयवे। तेन 'मेघस्य कृत्स्नं पातमक्षि मुज्झति शिरोन अपानैर च गोमयम् ।' इत्यादौ निन्द्रत:। साधारण-रमभावगुणेनास फुटत्वात्तल्लक्षणम्। असाधारणत्व लोष्टसिद्धेऽपि प्रतिभामात्र्यो रेचकत्व अतोऽधिकं वद् मतिपयलड्कार: ( उद्भट० )।

व्याजस्तुति—

When apparent censure ends in praise or when apparent praise ends in censure, that is, when from censure is implied praise or when from praise is implied censure, the figure is व्याजस्तुति। The name व्याजस्तुति is significant. It means वृदृन स्तुति: (praise by artifice) or व्याजेन स्तुति: (praise which is nothing but artifice i. e., false praise)—यत्र स्तुतिनिबन्धनायडि प्रमाग्नारतर वचनीयमानादि प्रमाग्नारतर स्तुतिकृतिः। हृदानी निन्दामि पर्यवस्यति तत्रास्तुत्याद व्याजस्तुतिः, व्याजेन निन्दा मवति म तुस्तुतिः निन्दामेदने प्रतिपत्तिमाला पूर्वोदाहृतावितरथा म गुणो 'त्र वेदितव्यो म दितीया व्याजस्तुतिः शोभेत निन्दामुखेन स्तुतिकृतिः मृवा ( अनूद्यमत्तर० )। प्रमाणान्तर means 'other proofs' and 'by other proofs' in this pa-sage is to be under-stood—'प्रमाग्नार:' हृदय वादिवदेन मुखतिशयश्राव्यतारतम्यात् ( रु०टी० )।

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

व्याजस्तुतिर्यस्यैव वस्तुन: स्तुतिनिन्दे प्रथममुपक्रन्येते तस्यैव चेदिन्द्रादखुल्यो: पर्यवसानं भवेत् तदा वैयधिकरण्ये तु न हि तत्र प्रावामलङ्कारशास्त्रप्रवर्तकानां समय: (रसगङ्गाधर.). व्याजस्तुति is distinguished from अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्यध्वनि (the ध्वनि in which the expressed sense is entirely rejected e. g., उपकरणं बहु तत्र किमुच्यते etc.), in that in अत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्यध्वनि the expressed sense is not barred, it only suggests another sense when the context, the nature of the speaker etc., are taken into consideration; while in व्याजस्तुति the expressed sense is impossible because from context etc., is understood praise where it is censure and censure where it is praise.—

अत एव नास्या ध्वनित्वम्। तत्र हि निर्वोधेन वाच्येन व्यङ्ग्यनयार्थान्तरावगति:। न चैवं प्रकृते 'उपकरणं बहु तत्र किमुच्यते' इत्यादिवदिति बोधयम् (उद्योत.). अत एव नास्या ध्वनित्वम्। ध्वनौ हि निर्वोधेन वाच्येनागूरणमहिमा अन्तर्न्तरमवगम्यते (रसगङ्गाधर.). अत एवास्या ध्वननेहंद:। स हि विश्रान्ते वाच्यार्थे वक्तृवाच्यौचित्यपर्यालोचनवलादवगम्यते। इह पुन: प्रमाणान्तराद् वाधित: सन् चकार्थ: स्वयमनुपपद्यमानत्वात् परत्र निन्दादौ स्वं सम्प्रयति। तदैव प्रकृतवाक्यार्थस्य विश्रान्ते: (.विमर्शिनी).

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

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

प्रख्यात and अप्रख्यात as in अप्रसृतप्रकारा।—न जातिप्रसृतप्रकारसेवारस्थिति वाच्यं, रूपति-

निन्दारमणया विशिष्टविचित्रप्रपेयौ, कार्यवार्णनमवादिसम्भावादावाच ( उद्योत० )।

सहोक्ति—When one word signifies two things through the

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

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

सारूप्य etc, conveys two meanings connected with two things

though it principally conveys one meaning having connection

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

सहागत पिताः, the meaning of आगत is principally connected with

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

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

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

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

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

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

essential factor of सहोक्ति.—पुत्रेण सहागतः पिताऽऽलिङ्गित इति पदसुभयान्-

स्थागमनबोधकम्। पुत्रप्रतियोगिकसादृश्यादिना पिता आगत इति शास्त्रबोध। ननु तृतीयान्तस्य

वृत्त्यभावतया गुणभावं, प्रधानत्वेन विशिष्टद्योतया प्रभातलत्म् । तथा च व प्रभान्ते आगमनस्य

शास्त्रोदयः, तृतीयायाः तु साहाय्येसामर्थ्यादापे । यथा यम् गुणप्रधानभावावष्टम्भयोः। शास्त्रार्थ

मदायं एकशक्तिसमन्वयायामूलद्वारः ( उद्योत० )। Between the प्रधान and अप्रधान

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

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

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

ending is उपमान.—सहोक्तेः द्वयोक्तिः प्रकारयोर्मूलतयोदोच्योदा प्रभानाव कल्पनिकोपपद्यम्, तत्र

तृतीयान्तस्य गुणभावादुपमानात्त्वमपि तद्वत् ( माघीश्चन्द्र० ) उपमानोपमेयत्व

चात्र वैकृतत्वम् । द्वयोक्तिः प्रकारणिह्नतायात्रकृतित्वैकवता । सहार्थेसामर्थ्यादि तयोः सुतरां सहत्वम् ।

ननु तृतीयान्तस्य नियमेन गुणभावदुपमानत्वम्, अभिषा परिकल्पितस्य प्रधानत्वादुपमेयत्वम् ( भट्टनार्-

यणव० )। In पुत्रेण सहागतः पिता there is no सहोक्ति, because there is no

cl irim अभिधानि यस्ल हेतदृश्व मालद्वारममाणसदृशे, वेन 'पुत्र सहागतः पिता'

रासीद न सहोक्तिः (उद्योत०)। The cl imn in सहोक्तिः consists in its being

based upon भतिदयोक्तिः in which there is भेदैकप्रतिपाय (identification

pure and simple or grounded on दृष्टान्त ) or कारकतारोपितसादृश्यपरिपोषण (in-

terion of the sequence of cause and effect. हेतुत्व प्रकारः स्नेहरूपिका

संसृष्टदर्शनमात्रयोनि वेलस्मोदृष्टान्तवत्स्तानारमकेचन । श्लक्ष्णेन दृष्टान्तेनाद्याने मदृत्ती बोधयम् । तथा

मोक्तुमयुक्ते:-‘पुत्रेण सह पित्ता गच्छति’ इत्यादौ अलङ्काराभावाद् अतिशयोक्तिमूलिकैव चमत्कारजनिका सहोक्तिरलङ्कारः इति (Jhalakikar). तत्र नियमेनातिशयोक्तिमूलत्वमस्या: । सा च वा ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्व० ). In the verse सह दिअहणिसाहिं etc., दीर्घत्व etc., are directly connected with श्वास etc., and indirectly with दिवसनिशा etc., through the word सह. The दीर्घत्व of श्वास is not the same as the दीर्घत्व of दिवसनिशा and they have been coalesced into one word through similarity and not through श्लेष.—अत्र दीर्घत्वादीनां श्वासादिभिरन्वय: साक्षादेव सहाधरदलेनास्त्या यौवने रागभाक्‌क्रिय: is an example of सहोक्ति based upon अतिशयोक्ति in which there is श्लेष. Here there is identity between राग meaning ‘redness’ and राग meaning ‘love.’

27

विनोक्ति

विनोक्ति—When without a certain thing another thing is represented as disagreeable or not disagreeable, the figure is विनोक्ति. In the example अरुचिनिर्निशाया ‘विना ऋतुश्री etc., ऋतुश्री etc., are represented as disagreeable without निशा etc. न इतर: in the kārikā means न अशोभन: (not disagreeable) i. e., शोभन: (agreeable). The utility of the two negatives ( न अशोभन:= न न शोभन: ) is to express the idea that the thing under description is naturally agreeable and its disagreeableness is due to the fault of proximity of another thing without which it is quite agreeable. In the example नृगलोचनया विना etc., the prince is represented as an agreeable person without damsels. Here the sense intended to be conveyed is that the prince is naturally an agreeable person and his disagreeableness was due to the presence of damsels. एवं च यदपि शोभनत्व एव पर्यवसानं तथाप्यशोभनत्वभावसूचकैव शोभनत्ववचनस्यायमिप्रायो यत् कस्यचिद् वर्णनीयस्य शोभनत्वं तत् परसन्निधौ एव दोष: । तस्य पुन: स्वभावत: शोभनत्वमेवेति ( दर्पण० ). अत्र ‘शोभन:' इति वक्तव्येऽपि ‘अशोभनो न’—इत्यभावसूचकेनाभिधानस्यायमभिप्राय:-—यत् वर्णनीयवस्तुनोऽशोभनत्वं तत्परसन्निधौ एव दोष:, यदौपचारिकमेव शोभनत्वमिति प्रतिपाद्यते तत्परसन्निधौ एव विपरीतमतेन, यौपचारिकस्य वस्तुत: पतन: स्वभावविकमेव शोभनत्वमिति दर्पणोऽभिप्राय: ( विवरण० ).

Not only the word विना but all its synonyms also may

• For an example of सहोक्ति based upon अतिशयोक्ति in which there is कार्यकारणपौर्वापर्यविपर्यय, see Ekāvalī, ch. vii ( बड़नायकामूव्वास्य etc. ), and दङ्गुष, ch. x ( समन्वेष नराधिपेन etc. ).

133

constitute this figure.—सदृश न केजलं विराजते सत्व दर हृदये, कीर्ति निनादैः श्रवणकमलस्य । तेन नयुज्यते नृपतेरनुरागजदहितनिकेतनकेलिषु (उद्घोत०)।

28. परिदृत्ति—When there is an exchange of things—the equal with the equal, the inferior with the superior and the superior with the inferior, the figure is परिदृत्ति। In the verse कीर्ति निनादैः श्रवणकमलस्य etc., in the first half we have an interchange between two similar things—the wind imparts graceful movement to the fragrance from it. In the second half an inferior thing is exchanged for a superior one—the creeper receives strokes of the eyes of travellers and gives to them mental and great perplexity etc., in return. In the verse तेन नयुज्यते नृपतेरनुरागजद etc., there is an exchange of a superior thing with an inferior one—the king receives strokes of the creeper in return. The equality of comparison of it consists in both of them being agreeable or one agreeable and the other disagreeable.—तत् सदृशमेव इति मते (अत्रेयः), इति श्लोकार्थः । It should be noted that the exchange must be such as can be fancied by poets. When the comparison is real, there is no परिदृत्ति—वदनारविन्दं etc. When the comparison is unreal, it is परिदृत्ति—मुखचन्द्र यथा युग्माननिहितोः, कथमिव ते मुखे (काव्यप्र०)। It could further be argued that there is a variety of opinion as to whether there should be taking or only comparison of something in its stead ( इत्यादि ). Mammata, Vidyācakravartin and Ānandavardhana are of this मतः while Rājaśekhara is of the view—किञ्चित् हि नाम तस्याः परिदृत्तेर्नाम लक्षणम् । न तु दृष्टान्त एव सा इति नः प्रतिपत्तिः fिञ्चिदिति (वि०)।

29

भाविक

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

[ भाविक is not अतिशयोक्तिः, because there is no अतिशयिताध्यवसाय.—नाप्यमतिशयोक्तिरलङ्कार: अत्ययिताध्यवसायात् ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्व० ). न चातिशयोक्तिरलङ्कार: अध्यवसायाभावात् ( दृपं० ). Uddyota observes, however, that in भाविक a relation is established between the present on one hand and the past and future on the other, though there is absolutely no relation between them ( असम्बन्धे सम्बन्ध: ) and so, there is अतिशयोक्तिः. According to some, and it is also recorded by उद्योत, अतिशयोक्तिः only helps this figure.—अतिशय: चिन्त्यस—असम्बन्धे सम्बन्धोपातिशय्योऽत्र गम्योऽर्थोडयम्, प्रत्यचायास्वस्मैडपि तत्सम्बन्धवर्जनात्, भूतादिवस्तुसम्बन्धेऽपि तत्सम्बन्धवर्जनाच्चेति । सा चानुप्रासिकादेवि कश्चित्. There is difference between भाविक and भ्रान्तिमान also. In भ्रान्तिमान one thing is mistaken for another thing which is similar to it. In भाविक there is no mistake—the past and the future objects are not mistaken for the present objects, because the past and the future objects are described and made known as such.—न चेयं भ्रान्तिः, भूतभाविलगेव निर्देशात् ( उद्योत० ). न च भ्रान्तिमान् भूतभाविनो भूतभावितयैव प्रकाश्याव् ( दृपं० ). भाविक is distinct from स्वभावोक्तिः as well. In स्वभावोक्तिः there is a faithful description of the peculiar property of a thing in the shape of गुण or क्रिया but there is no question of the past and future objects appearing as present. In भाविक also there is a faithful description but through this description past and future objects appear as if present.—न स्वभावोक्तिः; तस्य लौकिकवस्तुगतधर्मसंभवस्यैव यथावदवर्णनं स्वरूपम् । असौ वस्तुन: प्रत्यचायमात्रसदृपी विशेषोऽसौति ( दृपं० ) न चैवं स्वभावोक्तिः, तद् वस्तुधर्मो वैचित्र्यग्राह्यक्;, इद तु कवेश्चित्रनिर्मित्सवा अभिप्राय: ( उद्योत० ).

30

काव्यलिङ्ग

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

—काव्यपदार्थेति विमर्शे। वाक्यार्थेता परामर्शेता चेत्सधे।। पदमप्येकंमनैकर्कं चेति वोधयन् (उद्घोत्नो)।

Hence the verse is an example of वाक्यार्थहेतुककाव्यालंकार. In the verse मसौद्गलन etc., the sense of सुरालोककंधरितव (the quality of destroying the light of pleasure) is a cause of मोक्ष (liberation) being described as मदामोद (dense darkness). सुरालोककंधरितव being a compound is a single word. So it is an instance of एकपदार्थहेतुककाव्यालंकार. In the verse प्रणतिसंघर्षलील etc. दारतोषपहेष (raising of the weapon) is the cause of सुप्रतिपत् (falling of the aim) वपुषि नाशसुप्रसक्त्. is not a complete sentence on account of the absence of a finite verb and hence there is अनेक-पदार्थहेतुत्वालंकार.—अथ न दैत्योपसेपयो मुनिपदयो हेतु । न चाप वाक्यार्थे, दैत्यसुप्रक्षितः पततामप्यत्र साकाश्चेदनावाव्यापरिलात् ( प्रदीपो ).

It should be noted that the हेतु (cause) which constitutes the figure must be implied and not expressed by the third or the fifth case-ending.—गम्यमानहेतुकत्वस्यैव हेतोः सुंदरवचेन प्राचीनै वाक्यलिङ्गनाश्रुपगमाद्. अत पूर्व वपु प्रादुर्भावादनुसक्तिमं हृश्यते न्याय-लक्ष्मया हिादु ( उद्घोतno ).

[ काव्यपदार्थ—is different from वाक्यमान. काव्यकृत् constitutes काव्यलिङ्ग —ध्वन कारकहेतौध्रृक्, वाक्यमानावदारो तु व्याप्त-प्रतीतौधृति भेद. (काव्यकारतः). काव्यलिङ्ग is different from परिकर in that in परिकर the suggested sense arrived at from the sense of words and sentence develops the thing intended to be described, whilst in काव्यलिङ्ग it is the expressed sense of words and sentence which serves as a cause and thereby develops the description परिकरे पदावयवार्थेन कथ्यमानोऽर्थो वाच्योपकारकतां भजते, काव्यलिङ्गे तु पदावयवार्यचैव हेतुत्व भजते (सुदीपारतः).

In काव्यकारत the sentences are grammatically independent of each other. In काव्यलिङ्ग the sense of the sentence which is to be supported is grammatically dependent on the sense of the sentence which supports it. काव्यलिङ्गे तटस्थ-तदोःसंबंध हेतुत्वे पर्यवसानंवितलेनैवभेद (उद्घोतno). According to Darpana there is संशयकृत्सु in काव्यालङ्कार which distinguishes it from काव्यलिङ्ग in which there is कारककृत्सु ].

31

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

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

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

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

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

32

उदात्त

32. उदात्त—When there is a description of extraordinary prosperity i. e.; of prosperity which surpasses the comprehension of पर्याय means प्रकार ( पर्यायस्थं प्रकारे. स्वाभिप्रायोद्देशवशात् क्रमे—विश्व० ). The आलङ्कारिकs hold different views regarding this figure.

ordinaty experience, the figure is उद्रातः. In the vet-e मुचा कें

निम्रधारणांi. etc, what is meant to be des-ibed is the extreme

pro-perity of the king and it is done by a hyperboiical des-cription

of the piosperity enjoyed by the lealned men in his kingdom

though his munificence.—अथ निद्रेधनस्य मुचादिपनमुग्धद्योत्. । तेन कनत्क-

रुपने: समुच्चयविधिय: ( प्रदीप० ) This figure consists also in the action-

description. In the veise तरिद्मरण्य यमिनतं etc., the दृश्यवरस्य is the sulject

under description. It is therefore अधः ( आह ) to that of the दृश्यवर्णनः. The fact that Rāmı

who was so great used to reside in the दृश्यकारण्य suggests the greatness

of the latter. There is no sugge-tion of वीप्सा in the

verse, because it is only a subordinate factor, the predomin int

factor being the दृश्यवर्ण्यः.

33

33. समुच्चय—Where not withstanding the presence of one

cause sufficient to produce an effect, other causes which produce

the same effect are mentioned, the figure is समुच्चयः. In the ve-e

दुर्वारः: शरमाोभि: etc, शरमाोभिः (arrows of the love-god) are enough

to produce the effect viz, the unbeurableness of the pangs of

sepnation. Yet in addition to this other eause-, such as

the love being deep, the age being young, the beloved being at a

distance etc, are mentioned as producing the same effect. The

causes that are mentioned as bring about the effect may all be

good, mıy all be had or mıy be good in one way and had in

another.* The cause- are good or had as they are agree.ahln

(sources of delight) or otheiwise under a particul ir circumstaner.

• The expre-sion सदृशोयं mııy be explaine 1 in two wıy-s —समय

वशय ( वश ) हेतु योत् (combination of things some of which are good and some

bad), or समयाय से समयवशय ( कालकृतः ) हेतु योत् (combinationation of things that are both

good and bad i. e., good under one circumstance and had under another.

The acceptance of the first explantation would involve the fault I known as

सदृशतारता (combination of good and bad things) and अव्यवत्था (breech of the

uniformity of decsription) and thus affect the वाच्यार्थ of तयोः यत्सदृशो हेतुः

योऽस्तु ( यत्र ) । मोदकादीनां दोषोत्कट हेतु तौमाद्यादौनिषादनादिमध्ये’ न्ते’ वा

कोपो न ।। इत्यादि । ख-१७—१८

K-17—18

In the example दूतीरा: सारमारणा: etc., the causes are all bad as they give pain to a love-lorn girl. इह सदसद्वयंग उपादेयानुपादेयतथा वकतुरमिप्रेतत्वम् । सरमारणादीनाम असमीनीनानामेव योग इत्यर्थः । सारमारणादीनां विरहिण्या: दुःखदत्वात् अन्वादेयत्वेनासमीनीनत्वं शोभनत्वेऽपि विरहोद्दीपक-तैनाद्योभनत्वं शोभनम् ( चन्द्रिका ).

In the verse कुलमलिनं—etc., अमलिन-कुल (unblemished family) alone is sufficient to produce the effect viz., arrogance in one person and the absence of arrogance in another. Yet other causes such as gentle appearance, cultured mind etc., are mentioned as producing the same effect. Hence, there is समुच्चय. Here the causes are all good on account of their natural agreeableness.

In the verse रागी दिवसघूसरो—etc., धूसर-रागी (dim moon) is enough to produce the effect viz., the pangs of heart. Yet other causes such as the woman with faded youth, the tank devoid of lotus etc., are mentioned as producing the same effect. Hence, there is समुच्चय. Here all the first six causes viz., रागी, कामिनी, सरः, युग, प्रिय and सज्जन are both good and bad—good in themselves but bad being associated respectively with the attributes धूसरत्व, गलित-यौवनत्व, विगतवारिजत्व, अतिकरत्व, धनपरायणत्व and सततदूषणतत्व. - रागी स्वरूपेण सन्न्यपि दिवसघूसरत्वेनासन्न । एवमग्रेऽपि । एवमन्य सदसद्वर्गा आद्यादीनां योग: ( उद्घोत 0 ). अन्र रागिन: स्वतः शोभनस्यापि दिवसघूसरत्वादशोभनत्वेन शोभनाशोभनरूपस्य सदसद्वर्गैरेव कामिनी-प्रभृतिभिः समुच्चय: ( चन्द्रिका ).*

• It should be noted that in the case of the first six causes the विशेषणs (such as घूसर, कामिनी etc.) are good but the विशेष्यs (such as दिवसघूसर, गलितयौवन etc.) are bad. In the case of the last cause, however, the विशेष्य ( खल ) is bad but the विशेषण ( नुपाङ्गयगत ) is good. Hence there are the faults सदसद्विम्नता and अन्यप्रक्रमता affecting the श्रतल्लूारत्व of the whole thing. So the figure समुच्चय is constituted by the first six instances and the seventh one is left out of consideration :—नुपाङ्गयगत: खल: इत्यच तु नुपाङ्गयगतलेन शोभनत्वम्, खलत्वेन लगोभनत्वमिति रील्या सदसद्विपतासङ्गणेऽपि तस्मिन्नेभे नायसमङ्गार:, किंतु स्वतः शोभनस्य धर्मविशेषसम्पर्कादशोभनस्य सदसतः प्रकारेण स्वतोडशोभनस्य खलस्य पाठात् सहचरभिन्नत्वं दृश्य एव । एवं सर्वच विशेष्यस्य शोभनत्वं विशेषणस्य खलस्य लाङ्गयगतत्वं शोभनलवमिति प्रकरणम्, इह लन्यर्थेति भग्रप्रक्रमवसङ्गय दोषः । तस्मात् ‘नुपाङ्गयगमसद्सुतम्’ इति पाठो युक्तः ( चन्द्रिका ), ‘नुपाङ्गयगत खलः’ इति प्राप्तं काममेवाद् दुष्टतमावहति, सर्वच विशेष्यखलैव शोभनत्वेन प्रक्रमादिति ( रुद्रट 0 ).

There is another kind of सङ्करः and it is constituted by the simultaneity of (a) two qualitics-, (b) two actions and (c) a quality and an action In the वे-c विलक्षणगुणाधिकृत—etc., the two qualitics-विमलत्व and मलिनत्व are simultancously produced —अत्र विमलत्वमलिनत्वयोः

शब्देन च नाम्रा ( नातासाम्या ) समुचय. ( उद्घोतः ). अत्र विमलत्वमलिनत्वयोः पुनर्योगस्तु शब्दरूप मतुबर्थक्षोभारहयगम्य ( चन्द्रिका ). In the वे-e अयमेवादः etc., there is simultaneity of two actions उपगम (coming about of the seperation from the belovcd) and अभवन (appcarance of fresh cloud-) अन्योन्यम्

भवनयोः क्रिययोः समुचयः ( नदित्रीका ). In the वे-e वदप च etc., the quality and the action पनन are simultancous —आय वद्यरतपननयोःपुनरियः समुचयः. ( चन्द्रिका ). Ruylata thinks that simultaneity of two qualitics,

two actions or a quality and an action must be described as subsisting in two different substrat a (वैधिकारये ऽप ) while others think that the substratum should be one and the time ( सामानाधिक-रण्ये ऽप ) Neither of these contentions is correct. For we meet with such recognized examples of समुचयः as 'युनोति नामि तनुते न ददाति' (he

blandishes his sword and spreads his fame) where the substratum of both the actions (blandishing and spicrding) is one and the time, and क्रियाप्रकर्ष मवतत् रपक्षिणी, सत्सामयुवातादृश सुरतार्लये (you take hold of the sword with your hand in the battlefield and the gods utter words

of praise in heaven) where two simultancous actions (taking hold of the sword and uttering words of praise) are found in two different substrat 1.—'युनोति तनुते' ह्यद्योरेक एव स चां हि न क्रिययोःपुनरपिवरत्वात्, तथा चोदाहृतौ नेयात्, तस्या युतः स च नाम हि मतभेदः. हि. तथा न गुणक्रियामाश्रिल्मात ह्यमुचय ह्यम्राज्जातं ( विवरणं )

31

पर्यायः—When one object is ( मती ) or made to be ( क्रियते ) in several places in succession ( परम्परया ) or when several objects are or made to be in one place in succession, the figure is पर्यायः. The diflerence between या’ (is) or क्रियते (in the to be) is that the causal agency ( प्रयोजक ) is not mentioned while in the other it is mentioned —प्रयोजकनिमित्तनिदर्‌शे या’ प्रयोज्यते ( पर्यायः ). (i) In the वे-e

नायिकादर्शरिय—ie., the same object viz., position is represented as being in several places in succession viz., the heart of the enemy, the heart of the warrior, the heart of Siva and the words of wicked men Here then is no mention of causal agent.—न हि तत्र 'नाम न र्पर म्‌ हि—fि't (T.x*) is

वैलक्षण्य घरतुन एकरयानेकव वासे प्रयोजकं किन्तिद्रपि नोक्तमिति भवतीत्यस्योदाहरणमिदम् (प्रदीप०). The sameness of the object may either be real or fancied. In the verse विमोह etc., the राग as found in शोक and the राग as found in हृदय are indeed different from each other but regarded as one and the same through fancy. (b) In the verse तं ताग etc., the same objects viz.,

the hearts of the demons are made to be in several places viz., Viṣṇu and lips and a casual agency viz., the love-god is mentioned.

(c). In the verse मधुरिमरचिरं etc., several objects viz., nectar and poison are represented as being in one place viz., the words of the wicked. Here no casual agency is mentioned—अलौकसिमन् खलवचनने क्रमेणामृतविपयोः स्थितिरीतिः पूर्वविपरीतः पर्यायः (चिन्त्रका ). (d) In the verse तद्रोधं नतमित्ति etc., several objects viz., hut and palace, cow and elephant etc., are successively made to be (as properties) in one place viz., the Brāhmaṇa. A casual agency viz., time is mentioned.—अलौकसिमन् द्विजे तद्रोधंहमन्दिरादीनामनेकेपां क्रमेण स्थितैः दिवसैरिति प्रयोजकनिदेशः ( चिन्त्रका ).

पर्याय is not the same as परिवर्तन, for exchange (i. e., giving up of an object and acceptance of another by the same agent) is not meant to be expressed here.—विनिमयाभावात् परिवर्तनमेदः ( दृपण० ) पर्याय is also not to be confounded with the second variety of विशेष, for there one thing is represented as being in many places at one and the same time.—अत्र क्रमेणैति सञ्चयन्यावर्त्तनाय, वक्ष्यमाणविशेषपालक्लारद्वितीयमेदवारणाय च, तत्र यौगपद्यसत्त्वादिति वोधयम् ( प्रदीप० ).

35

अनुमान—When the साध्य (that which is desired to be proved) and the साधन (that which proves the साध्य) are mentioned, the figure is अनुमान. साधन is nothing but the हेतु which has three characteristics viz., of being found in the पक्ष (पक्षसत्त्व), of being found in the सपक्ष ( सपक्षसत्त्व ) and of being not found in the विपक्ष ( विपक्षासत्त्व ).—पक्षधर्मंत्वेन अन्वयितत्वेन व्यतिरेकितत्वेन च त्रिरूपो हेतुः साधनपदेनोच्यते ‘पक्षसत्त्व-सपक्षसत्त्व-विपक्षासत्त्व-

नीति ह्योणि रूपाणि’ ( सारवोधिनी ). साध्य is the व्यापक (व्यापक=वहि, धूम being व्याप्य) which has invariable relation with the पक्ष. The अनुमान must be due to poetic imagination and not real. Therefore, there is no अलङ्कार in पर्वतो वहिमान् धूमात्.—अस्य च कविप्रतिभोल्लिखिततैवैन चमत्कारिर्वे काव्यालङ्कारता ( रस-

गकाघर० ). In the verse यवता लहरी--etc., the साधन is stated in the

first half and साध्य in the second half. The order may also be reversed. The strikingness remains all the same and is absolutely due to the statement of साध्य and साधन and not to the order in which they are stated. So there is no variety of this figure as Rudrata thinks. The difference between काव्यलिङ्ग and अनुमान is that in the former the हेतु is कार्य, while in the latter the हेतु is गमक — गमकाद् अनुमेयो हि यत्न साधकहेतुत्वप्योत्प्रेक्षितगम्यते तद् काव्यलिङ्गम्। निर्जितद्युतिसावनवश हेतु कवनमनुमानमित्येव ध्वनवरस्था युक्ता ( प्रभा )

परिकर—

परिकर—When an object is described with epithets ( विशेषण ) that are significant i. e., that nourish the meaning of the विदेपर्य the figure is परिकर।—सामप्रायानेकविशेषणाधारा यत्न विशेष्यसमन्वयादप्रतीतप्रतीति—ी म परिकर इत्यपे। ( सारस्वतिनी )। In the verse महोजस: indicates that the warriors are unconquerable, the epithet मानपनता: indicates that they are always careful to keep their self-respect in tact, and so on. Fiom the plural number in the word विशेषण it is evident that many significant adjectives are necessary to constitute this figure.—विशेषणात् चायं बहुलत्वमेव विशिष्टतम ( विमर्शिनी)। Mammuṭṭha elucidates the point thus.—epithets must always be significant, otherwise the fault अगुस्तता would arise (cf. विशेष्य विशेषे श्लाघ्यो निःशेषं निस्तत or विशेषणविशेष्ये श्लाघ्यो निःशेषं निस्तत etc, where the word निस्तत is useless) From this it may be said that परिकर is not an अलङ्कार but merely the absence of the fault अगुस्तता Actually it is not so. For a number of significant epithets used in regard to a single object brings about special charm So according to Mammuṭṭha a single significant epithet causes the absence of अगुस्तता and in my view significant epithets constitute परिकर।

रमगकभार, प्रदीप and उद्योतन are against this view. According to them a single significant epithet is sufficient to constitute परिकर To get rid of अगुस्तता it is not necessary that a significant epithet should be used, for it may be done by not using any epithet at all —'निरङ्कुशत्वेन हि श्लाघ्यताविश्रयाभाववशाद् नैर्गुण्यपीडितवृत्तीनाम्। न तु कृत्स्न "*" मलेख नादृता द्वारि वयुम् ... उद्धरयेत् निमेषः। रघुकुलो या अनन्तरं न तु दुः "' वंश्यम् ( रघुवंश० ) नादृते कपीश्वराः सन्ति मृगयूथपाः।

निरदय निरदयोपणतयाड्युपपत्तेरदयैविदद्वाभावात वैचित्र्यरथ चानुभवसिद्धत्वात ( प्रदीप० )। दोपानुरथ निरोपणानुपादानेऽप सम्भवेन सामिप्रायैकनिरोपणनिबन्धनश्रमत्कारो दुरपह्नव इति भाव: ( उद्योत० )*.

अपह्नुति—

When something concealed is somehow brought to light and then again it is concealed by some artifice, the figure is अपह्नुति. In the verse शृङ्गारद्रप्रतिपयमानगिरिजा—etc., the love ( रति ) that was concealed is brought to light by thrill and other indications of love and it is again concealed by the artifice that these indications are due to cold ( श्रम ).—पुलकादेवशुभ्रां सात्रिकाक्राम्यां प्रकाशिता पावतीविपयया गृढा रति: स्तयो: दृशोर्दृश्यतयकारणकतामकाशनेनापहुता ( प्रदीप० ). In अपहुति there is similarity between प्रकृत and अप्रकृत but it is not so in व्याजोक्ति (there being no similarity between रति and शल्य which are प्रकृत and अप्रकृत in the present example).—न चायमपह्नुति: प्रकृताप्रकृतयो: साम्ये तत्त्वस्वीकारात्। तत्र तु तदभावात् ( प्रदीप० ). The विमर्शिनी says that in अपहुति the denial of प्रकृत and the assertion of अप्रकृत in its place serve to show the excellence of प्रकृत, while in व्याजोक्ति, प्रकृत which somehow comes to light is hidden by अप्रकृत and thus the difference between व्याजोक्ति and अपहुति is great. अपहुतौ हि प्रकृतमेवोत्कर्षंयितुमप्रकृतस्योपनानम्। इह तूद्र्रिकृतं सत् प्रकृतं वस्तु वस्त्वन्तरेणाप्रकृतेन निगृहीते इत्यनयोर्मेदान् मेव:.

परिसंख्या—

When a thing being mentioned, in response to a question or otherwise i. e., not in response to a question, excludes other things similar to it, the figure is परिसंख्या. The thing mentioned is known from other sources. Its mention therefore has no other purpose but to exclude things similar to it. The name परिसंख्या is accounted for thus : परि means वर्जन (exclusion) and संख्या means बुद्धि (idea) ; thus परिसंख्या means ‘the idea of exclusion (arising out of the mention of a thing)’. परिशब्दो वर्जनार्थ: संख्याबुद्धि:। तेन वर्जनानुबन्धिरित्यर्थेयं संख्या ( प्रमाअ ). The exclusion may either be implied or expressed. Thus परिसंख्या is of four kinds :—

(a) The exclusion implied by the mention of a thing being preceded by a question;

• We learn from a reliable authority that Mammata's authorship of the KP. ends with the figure परिकर and the rest of the book was done by one ऋट्ट. cf. अन्त: श्रीमम्मटाचार्यवृन्दे: परिकरावधि:। प्रभास्त: पूरित: श्रेष्ठो विधायाज्ञटसूरिणा ॥

(b) The exclusion expressed by the mention of a thing being preceded by a question ;

(c) The exclusion implied by the mention of a thing not being preceded by a question ; and

(d) the exclusion expressed by the mention of a thing not being preceded by a question.

Examples in due order.

[विधि, नियम and परिकल्पा are terms of M mīmāṁsā. They are defined in the following K ārik ā of the Tantrarvatīka

विधिरनियमः पक्षा विधेयस्य च वाक्यतः ।

तथा शेषत्व शास्त्रस्य परिकल्पो विधीयते ॥—1. ii. 42.

The विधिरāṇakrodaya explains the terms as follows —

सादातनामवादिनो विधिवादिनः । यथा स्वर्गकामो यजेतेत्यादौ । यत् यजनादेः प्राप्तत्वात् । यथा तु दीक्षादौऽनित्यविधिः । तथा नितीयु मरविन्दनसनुमित्यादिष्वनपेक्षो विधिः

सुतरांऽनियमविधौ नियम्यते । यत्रं प्राप्ते कचिद्रित्यादौषि । यथा पच पचनत्रा भृत्या हेतु

पचनघानांऽऽश्रये पचनेति । गामक नाश्लेषो गेधा रसज्ञो कुत्रचिद् अपि

हति पचनत्रा शेषः । Grammarians and वैशेषika do not make much distinction between नियम and परिकल्पा on the ground that there is an idea of exclusion common to both. See N āgeśa, R ūṣāgar gidhara and Athak īrtanisāsi ]

39. वारणमाला— When among a number of things mentioned each preceding one is represented as the cause of each succeeding one, the figure is वारणमाला. In the example फिट्सकस्य वित्तस्य तृषा etc.,

फिट्सकत्व is the cause of वित्तम्, वित्तम् of तृष्णा etc., and so on.

Udbhata speaks of an अलङ्कार named केष and defines it as consisting in the representation of the cause and effect as identical

Our author says that there is no charm in it just as there is no charm in the statement मृगजाम् and thus it cannot be regarded as an अलङ्कार. Of course मृग and other rhetoricians use मृगजाम् etc., in which there is identity of cause and effect (मृगजाल on the one hand and मृगाज etc., on the other ) a good piece of poetry. Our author suggests that the beauty of the verse is due not to the figure है but to वारणमाला.

According to the रसगङाधर the figure कारणमाला occurs also when each preceding object is represented as the effect of each succeeding object.--अत्र पूर्वं पूर्व कारणं परं परं कार्यमित्येकां ; पूर्वं पूर्व कार्यं परं परं कारणमित्येकां.

40

अन्योन्य

अन्योन्य—When two things are each a cause and effect of the other through a single action, that is to say, when two things produce the same action to cach other, the figure is अन्योन्य. वस्तुनो: परस्परं जन्यजनकभावोदयसम्भव: । तस्म तं प्रत्येकं पौर्वापर्ययोरेवंयोरसम्भवादित्युक्तं क्रियतेति । एकक्रिया-जनकत्वारेणेत्यर्थ: । भवित्रीष्टं ( वैशिष्यरहितं ) वस्तु तावदजातकल्मषं तेन वैशिष्यप्रयोजकक्रिया-जनके । जनकत्वोपचार: । तथा च मिश्रस्तादृशैकक्रियाजनकत्वमन्योन्यालङ्कार: ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse हंसाण सरेष्टि etc., swans add beauty to the lakes and the lakes do the same to the swans. Here there is mutual जन्यजनकभाव between the lakes and the swans through the service they render to each other. न तु पूर्वस्तौहैस्सरसां सौन्दर्य जन्यजनकभाव इत्यते भवति—अलङ्कार: । तथा न पूर्वोत्पन्नयोरेवान्योन्यैककारोपरागे अन्योन्य जनकत्वामिधानमिति लक्षणार्थ: ( चक्रवर्ती ).

41

उत्तर

उत्तर—(1) When a statement embodying the question is inferred from the answer or (2) when to several questions there are several answers which being beyond the reach of ordinary comprehension do not readily occur to one, the figure is उत्तर—यदोत्तरश्रवण-मात्रेणानुपात्तमपि प्रश्नवाक्यं परिकल्प्यते तदेकमुत्तरं ( प्रदीप० ). असकृत् अनेकवारं तत्र सति प्रश्न इति असंभाव्यं संवर्तयितुमशक्यम् असकृत् यदुत्तरं प्रतिवचनं स्यादत्तद पुनरपरम् उत्तरम्.

(1) In the example वाणिजअ हत्यिदन्ता etc., the request on the part of the traveller in the form 'I want ivory and tiger-skins, give them to me after taking their price' or rather the question 'Have you got ivory and tiger-skins for sale ?' is inferred from the words of the old fowler.--'अत्रिदन्ततन्याप्रकृतय: किं तव सन्ति' इति प्रश्नवाक्यमिहोचनीयम् (प्रदीप०). In this variety of उत्तर a single answer and the inference of a single question from it will do—उत्तरप्रदाने सकृदुत्तरस्य चारुत्वम् ( रसगङाधर० ). Now उत्तर is different from काव्यलिङ्ग, because in the काव्यलिङ्ग there is कारकहेतु while in उत्तर the हेतु (contained in the answer) is शाबक. उत्तर is also not the same as अनुमान, because in अनुमान, साध्य and साधन ( वहि and धूम ) subsist in the same substratum ( पर्वत ), while in उत्तर the साध्य and साधन ( प्रश्न and उत्तर ) pertain to two different persons. Moreover in अनुमान, साध्य and साधन are both expressly mentioned —न चेदमुमानम्, साध्यसाधनयोर्योर्निदेश एव तस्याङ्गीकारात् ( दरपण० ).

(2) In the example मा निम्नमा देवर्गादि etc., there are several questions and there are several answers. The answers do not generally occur to us and as such inconceivable.—अत्र देयगयाादिौपमयादि लोकासिद्धमेव प्रकार्यते (प्रदीप०)

[ The author of उद्योत is of opinion that (a) when there are several answers to a single question or (b) when the question and the answer are identical i. e., expressed in the same words ( c. f., कामोत्कण्ठाद्दिनो गाढा and here the question is का मोत्कण्ठाद्दिनो गाढा ) or (c) when there are several questions but a single answer, then also the figure will be उत्प्रेक्षा.—प्रदर्श शृङ्गारपादाने उत्सरसानिकलेप्यममन्वदर्श एव प्रभोत्तरगोरवभिन्नलक्ष्यमेषम्, एवं प्रदर्शक-कोत्तरवादिभिः। उद्योत further remarks that when either the प्रश्न or उत्तर or both of them are significant, one question and one answer will do. प्रभोत्तरगौरवस्यात्मा कृतकल्पैः सहत्कृतान्तरैर्नैवि भवत्कारौद्भुतैः। यथा—‘निमित्त कथमपि हृदये हृदयस्थितं वचोभिः—तत्कथं न हृदये’ इति । यत् प्रयोजक प्रतोकारसामर्थ्य व्यङ्ग्यम्, उत्तरेषु स्फुटं पातितत्वं यद्यपि—तत्कथं न भण्यत इति । Cf. प्रभोत्तरगौरवकृतममले साश्रयं चमत्कारकारित्राश्रितकदापादाग्रिप्रचा (रसगङ्गाधर० ) ]

The difference between the प्रदर्शप्रसिद्धा and the second variety of उत्प्रेक्षा is that in the former the expressed meaning leads to the exclusion of a thing, while in the latter the expressed meaning is final.—श्लोकोत्तरत्वेन नायुक्तमपि वाच्यं च विपमवाच्यताप्रतिपादने तादृप्यहीनो भावः (उद्योत०).

यत्नम्—When a subtle thing known by an intelligent person either from (a) आकार (change of appearance—स्वदेहेऽन्यस्य रसास्वारः —प्रदीप०) or from (b) इहित (gesture—नयनाद्देहितम्—प्रदीप०) is intimated to another person by means of a sign i e., a clever hint, the figure is यत्नम्. In the verse वचःशेषैरितरत्रभृत्—etc., the गूढादान of a girl, a very subtle thing after all, is known by her friend from आकार (e. g., पादाङ्गुष्ठेन and it is intimated to that girl by means of a clever hint viz, तरलनेत्र (painting of a sword ) on her hand, रत्नप्रतापेन being a characteristic of mind.—आकारेण शरि हृदयवेद्यवस्था यत्न प्राप्यते (चन्द्रिका). In the verse पुष्पावधि पाले रत्नाङ्गुल्यैस्तेन प्रणिहितनितान्ति गूढादानम् etc., a subtle thing viz, that a lover is eager to know the time of meeting is known by the सखी by means of an चिह्न (e. g., the glances on the part of her lover) and the fact that she understands the meaning of his glances is intimated to him by means of a clever hint viz., रत्‌ (clipping

K-P-13

takes place at night, indicating the night thereby as the time.—अथ नीलोत्पलहुपेणेढितेन लक्षितः कामिनी: सङ्केतकालमिलापः कामिन्या: निशासूचकेन पञ्चानिमीलनेन लीलया प्रकाशित: ( प्रदीप० ).

[ The figure भ्रान्तिमान is involved in सूक्ष्म but one is different from the other. In सूक्ष्म, भ्रान्तिमान is subordinate and the charm does not lie in the inference of the subtle thing from ज्ञाकार or हेतु but in intimating that subtle thing to another with a view to prove one's own intellect. भ्रत विद्यमानसङ्भानुमानं सूक्ष्माङ्गस् ( उद्द्योत० ). यथाप्रत स्त्रीविशेषपुरुषायितयेः साध्यासाधनयोरेकधर्मिगतात्वेनोपादानदर्शनमानसेवाकडारो भवितुमर्हति तथापि स्वदेहान्धप्रतिपाद्यविशषया भ्रयस्यैव सूक्ष्मार्थप्रकाशनसुखेनैव चमत्कार इति च एवालङ्कार:, भ्रानुमानं तु तदनुगाङ्कमिलन्यदेतत् ( चक्रवर्त्ती )].

43

सार

सार—When of the several things described each succeeding one is represented as more charming than each preceding one, till the limit is reached with the last one, the figure is सार.—पर: पर्यन्तभागो गद्यस्य पद्यस्य वा अभिरुत्कर्षसमीमा यस्य । तेन पर्यन्तभागो यस्य सर्वोत्कृष्ट इत्यर्थ:, धाराभिरोहतया ( प्रवाहलूपेण ) तदैवोत्कर्षनिश्रान्ते: ( प्रदीप० ). According to the रसगङ्गाधर and उद्द्योत this figure occurs also when each succeeding object is represented as of inferior charm to each preceding object till the climax is reached with the last object.—सैव संसर्गस्योत्रकृष्टापकृष्टभावारूपत्वे सार: ( रसगङ्गाधर० ) उत्तर्कपक्ष इत्यादिगुणानां अवरतासगुणानां च सञ्भवति । तत्रायो सूने अन्यो यथा—अन्वालङ्कुत्तरस्तूलस्तूलादपि च याचकः । वाच्युनाऽपि न नीतोऽसौ सामयं याचविष्यति ( उद्द्योत० ).

[ In this figure the charm of the last thing is caused by the exclusion of other charming things. Hence some rhetoricians think that सार is not different from परिसंख्या. This view is not correct. For in परिसंख्या the final idea is exclusion, while in सार it is the surpassing excellence of the thing last spoken of.—अन्यन्रन्योऽहकृतचातुल्यमिल्ययं परिसंख्खैवेदंकि, तदस्तु, सारत्वे ह्यच विग्रान्तिनिर्णय-स्वपोहे ( सहृदय० )].

44

असहति

असहति—When two things standing in the relation of cause and effect are represented as existing, at the same time, in two different places, the figure is असहति. It is a wellknown fact that cause and effect exist in the same region (e.g. fire does not exist in the kitchen while smoke is seen on the mountain). The figure असहति therefore involves the abandonment of natural propriety ( सङ्ङति i.e. the propriety of cause and effect being in the same place) for the sake of a special meaning. In the example

147

जसेअ वणो etc., the cut is repie-ented to exist in one pl ce and the

puin consequcnt upon it in .nother, and this is done to

indicate that the sight of the cut of tcth inflicted on the

cheek of a newly wedded wife by her husband is extremely

painful to her co-wives. It should be noted here that the actual p in

of the cut is difierent from the puin caused to another person by

its sight Yet they are regarded as non-diflicult.—अय रेन चेनादि

प्रतिषेध वाच्येऽपेद्येऽर्थस्यैवगानमुपगाणमम ( उक्तसोत० ) अतिदयोज्ञि is thus at the root of

this figure.—अनेनातिदयोऽकितरस्य अधयुपपन्नकतोन वदाधिना। अनवथा हि विरोषो

दुवशिहारः स्वार ( निस्संदीनी ). The प्रतिषेध remarks that the expre-sion उपमा

(at the same tim ) in the deflniition is redumd int and the exi-tence

of the cause and cffect in diflicnt plces alone is -uflicient to

constitute this figure.—जुगुपरिते स्वहेतुप्रच्युतत्नम्, न तु व्यासंगम्। तेन वायवार्थ

भूयोपपंवोऽपेंद्र यथ निंदादेशतया स्मृतिपादन सा अमद्रति Though this figure

implies inconsistancy it is not the same as विरेषभाम It only

restricts the scope of विरोषभाम, विरेषभाम having a widei -cope of

uplication than अमद्रति. Thus where there is po-sibility of अमदति,

विरेषभाम is excluded To be more clear, when two things which

should subsist togethei are found in diflicient substrata, it should

be iegarded as a case of अमदति and when two things which should

sub-sist in the difierent -ub-thi late the found together it should

be iegarded a- a cuse of विरोषभाम.— इदम निरवरणकम—“ न दसराजयोर्निदेशि

व एवं अमद्रति: समश्रयति विरोषभामरतु नान्योन्यप्रतिपि नान्तरारान्नियाधिनी हि देशे तुया गमही

सामान्य-विशेषक्येयेन विरोषभामा वाधते, सुतरा विरेषभामो निंदादेशयोरिदंरदर्शि

यद्यपि,

अनरथ विरोषभामोदाहारणाति पूर्वं तसैर दस्मानि (विरस्रो )

समधि

समधि-When inspite of the pr-nce of a competent

समधि

euse the fulfilment of an action becomes eisy for the agent through

समधि

the accidental op ration of some othei c use, the figur is ™mfe.

समधि

In the evample मानमरत etc, the action of remon ing the wounded

समधि

pride of a woman is done through the acidental thundering of the

समधि

claud, though a cau-e competent to bring it about vi , filling on

समधि

the feet i- present. The difierence between ™mfe and ™ggr is that

समधि

in the former thcie i- mainly one caue, the action laing only

समधि

facilitated or made peifect by the op ration of some othei ca-e,

while in the latter all the causes operate together and are equally powerfal.—द्यात् कारणान्तरगतेन कारणेनोपकृतः कर्त्ता यदकेरेत् कार्यं करोति स समाधिः (प्रदीप०) एककारणजन्यकार्यस्य आकारैककारणान्तरसमवधानाहितं सैकृत्यं समाधिरित्यर्थः । सैकृत्येन्व कार्यस्यैकस्मिन्नेककारणसम्पत्तौ सवेंपां डन्येनैकरमदापत्तत्साौकृत्यादुपातिश्रयसम्पादनम् । समुचये तु एककार्यसम्पत्तौ सर्वेपां कार्यैकस्मिन्नुपकृत्यतिशयः इति भावः (उद्योत० )

46

सम—When there is a connection of two things befitting each other, the figure is सम. The two things may either be both good or both bad. So there are two varieties of this figure. In the example यत्नः शितपाणिग्रह—etc., there is a connection of two things viz., नारी and देव, which are both good. In the example चित्तं चितं वत etc., the connection is hetween two things viz., निम्ब and काक which are both bad.

47

विपम—(i) When the connection between two things which are incongrnous on account of extreme dissimilaritude is conceived to be impossible, (b) when the agent not only does not get the fruit of his action but comes by an undesirable effect, (c) when the quality of a cause is contrary to the quality of its effect, and (d) when the action of a cause is contrary to the action of its effect, the figure is विपम. (i) In the verse शिरीषपाणि etc., there is a great incompatibility between a girl whose body is as tender as Śirīṣa flower and the fire of love which is as terrible as straw-fire and their connection with each other is conceived to be an impossibility which is indicated by the use of the word कव twice. (ii) In the verse सिंहिकासुतसत्रत्रः etc., the hare being frightened by a lion, seeks protection from the moon, does not get it, but on the other hand is devoured by Rāhu. (iii) In the verse स चः करतस्पर्शीम् etc., the black sword produces white fame. (iv) In the verse आनन्द—ममन्दिमं etc., the action of the cause viz., the lotus eyed girl, consists in giving extreme pleasure but the action of the effect viz., the separation brought about by her, gives extreme pain.—अत्र नायिका—विरहयोजेन्यजनकयोःानन्दजननताप्रक्रिययोर्विरोधः ( उद्योत० ). It should be noted here that generally the qualities of a cause and those of its effect are similar. When however they are dissimilar in the natural

course of things there is no viṣama. In order to constitute this figure

the dissimil arity must be due to poet's fancy*.

Other varieties of viṣama which rest on the as-sociation of in-

congr uous objects are also possible. One of them occurs when

there is incongruity between the avayava and avayavī. In the ver-e

viṣayen sāgaradṛṣaya etc, viṣayakṛti which is avayava (a put of the whole) is

the agent of dlinking ( i e, swallowing) the world, while viṣayakṛti

which is avayavī (the whole) is the object of dlinking (i e, eagerly

looking at) by the single eye of a woman. Thus there is an

association of two incongruous objects vi;, viṣayakṛti (avayava) which

swallows all the worlds and viṣayakṛti (avayavī) which is swallowed by

the eye of a woman. Here the act of swallowing in the case of

viṣayakṛti is of course different from the act of swallowing in the case

of the woman. But the two are regarded as non-different.—yena vibhāv

upakṣayate, tena, samyagbhinnorutkarottulyasamāhātmakaḥ viṣayakṛtiḥ āśrayedaiḥ medair samam vidhīyate,

amāvayavāvayavinor bhedapratīteḥ (pratīpaḥ) : an nṛ kṣitidharīrayorvayavāvayavinor-

vaiparyam panakṛtvapavanākantavṛṣpam panaptadrāhyoṅmeṣedvi ametropacāreṇa kośyam (pramāṇam) : varaṁ

kukṛteḥ satkṛtyavacanapānasmadheḥ tarasy sampūrṇarasāyavīnen. śriyaḥ pṛthaktvā pān cāśar viṣamam

(udāhṛtam).

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

48. ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

relation of āśraya (abode or the container) and āśritam (abider or the

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

contained), one which is of le--er magnitude is repre-ented as

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

larger than the one of greatr magnitude, the figure is, ādhikya. The

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

figure has thus two varieties—(i) the āśraya may be repre-ented

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

as larger than the āśritam and (ii) the āśritam may be repre-ented

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

as larger than the āśraya. The purpo-e of such des-cription is

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

to bring home the greatne-s of the object de-cribed In the ver-e

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

bhadro niśākala etc, the three worlds (āśraya) and the fume of the king

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

(āśritam) are both large. The object of de-cription is the fume of the

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

king Its greatne-s is brought home by the de-scription that the

ādhikya—When of the two large things st unding in the

three worlds which though smaller in mig nitude thun the fume, the

• The distinction betweeen viṣam, pratīpa and ādhikya is clearly brough t

out by the उद्धृत in the following w y —yadānanvayinaḥ kiñcit 'aṅgaṁ viṣaṇo

viṣayakṛtī māmānaviṣkaratnavi, cakṣurviṣaṇṇo jāyate viṣaṇṇatāṁvakāṁścitkuścitkuścit

yadāvalambanavidhināyordhāryate tadā pratīpaḥ; yadāvalambyaviṣaye viśeṣaṇāyordhāryate tadā ādhikyam iti nibandhaḥ.]

description only proves the superiority of the nāyaka. In the verse दस्स शत्रिदत्तयुंनिष्कसम् etc., राह being unable to do any harm to his enemy, viz,

विष्णु, is described as assimilating the moon who is similar to the face of विष्णु and thus indirectly connected with him ( अप यदपि तद्गुणस मुग्ध रसना-वशवभावः समन्वपसेन नन्दराय माद्यत्कषाय इति परपरामर्शकल्प - प्रमेय० ). The description only proves the superiority of विष्णु.

[ In the verse just referred to राह is represented as molesting the moon as if through his enmity with विष्णु because the moon is similar to विष्णु's face and therefore शत्रुपक्षे may be thought to be the वाक्यार्थ here अर्थात् (iys that it is not so, because there is a special charm in the description that somebody unable to injure his enemy, injures another connected with the enemy directly or indirectly.—न स अमावसाद्रुतमुपगतया मुखग्रहकमहिम्ना वाराहयितुम इति प्रतीयते शशाङ्कोपप्लवधाम्ना, यांर्थ नु यौवनप्रपीडयिताम्, पायिर्नु यौवनप्रपीडित इति किमनेनातिपरिदरक्षित वाच्यम्। तदपकाराच्चिदमदनोऽर्थ पोषयतोति पतिमेव जात शमनत्कारादियत्। ]

मीलित—When though common characteristics one thing is obscured by another more prominent thing, the figure is मीलित The common characteristic may either be natural or adventitious and thus the figure is of two varieties. In the verse अवगिरते रे हृदि etc.,

the tremulousness of the eyes, sweetness and antfulness of words etc., are characteristics common to both शशि (lusciousness) and मृग (intoxication) सीत्क being more apparent a reason thin मृग, is more prominent of the two and obscures ( hides from view ) the latter through these characterstics which are natural on account of the fact that शीत which produces them is natural to the body. यथा

प्रविष्टदया वध्वन लोलहस्तावलगुना etc., गतिरस्या धीरतया। रसानुप्रासाद जनारतोल्ल नन्वन्या निवेदिता मृग (Jhalkrit ). अप चन्द्ररुक्मादतया रसानुप्रविष्टि हेतुः; समानातिशयोरोचते मृगः । अप सानुप्राप्त दुग्धाल्लादिना निगूढोनामरममाणत्वात् मृगोनाम मरोचकिप्तो ( उद्द्योत० ).

In the verse ये ररत्सु निष्फलि etc., thrill and shivering are characteristics common to both cold and fire; cold being more apparent a reason thin fire obscures the latter through these characterstics which are adventitious on account of the fact that cold (implied by the residence in the Himalyas ) which produces them is something adventitious i.e., not a natural condition of the body.—अप धृष्णु

प्रादुर्भूततनुताममामान्यधृतिः। स्फुरत्कुटिलः स्फुरन् मुख ममामनु यौवनमोहान्मृगः ( मधेय० ).

51. एकावली—When among a number of things each succeeding thing is represented as affirmed as a qualification of each preceding thing or denied as such i.e., when the absence of each succeeding thing would indicate the negation of each preceding thing ( अपोहकतवन्न स्वन्यतिरेकैन विशेष्यतावच्छेदकन्यतिरेकैक्युद्भिजनकत्वम्—उद्घोत० ), the figure is एकावली. In the verse पुराणि यस्यां etc., there is a series of qualifications affirmed—the excellent women are a qualification to the city, beauty is qualification to the women, and so on.—अथ पुराणामधनारतासामधु न विशेपणक्रियामुखेन रूपं तस्य विलासास्तेपामस्त्वमिति क्रमेण विशेषणतया विधि: ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse न तज्जलं यत्न etc., lotuses are denied as a qualification to water; bees to the lotuses and so on i.e., the absence of lotuses and bees indicates the negation of water and lotuses respectively.—अत्र जले पद्मजस्य तत्र पट्पददानाम् अत्र पुजितसय तत्रापि मनोहारिताया विशेषणतया निषेध: ( प्रदीप० ).

[ In मालादीपक each preceding thing enhances the charm of each succeeding thing and there lies its difference from एकावली in which each succeeding thing adds to the beauty of each preceding thing.—पूर्वं वस्तुना उत्तरसुत्तं चैडुपक्रियते तत् मालादीपकम् ].

52. स्मरण—When there is recollection of an object with a well-defined character, just in the way in which it was perceived before, from the perception of an object similar to it, the figure is स्मरण. The object recollected may either be one perceived in this or in previous birth. Thus the figure is of two varieties.—स द्विधा—एतज्जन्मनि जन्मान्तरे वानुभूतस्य स्मृते: ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse निम्ननाभिकुहरेऽपु etc., there is recollection of an object which was perceived before in this birth. In the verse करजघगहिब etc., an object which was perceived in previous birth is recollected.

53. भ्रान्तिमान्—When at the sight of a thing which forms the subject of description ( उपमेय or प्रकारणिक ) another thing which does not form the subject of description ( उपमान or प्राकरणिक ) is cognized through resemblance, the figure is भ्रान्तिमान्. To put it simply when the उपमान is charmingly mistaken for the उपमेय, there is भ्रान्तिमान्. It should be noted that the mistake must not be gross but poetical.—भ्रान्तिमात्रमच्चालम्बनारः । सा च कविप्रतिभानिर्मितेन ( उद्घोत० ). Thus when a piece of rope is mistaken for a snake there is not this

figure. The difference between भानिमान् on one hand and रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति (first variety) on the other is that in भानिमान् the identification is real ( यथार्थ्य ) i. e., the उपमान is really mistaken for the उपमेय, while in the रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति the identification is artificial ( आहार्य ) i. e., in रूपक and अतिशयोक्ति we are conscious of the difference between उपमान and उपमेय but identify them on account of great similarity between them.

54. प्रतीप--(1) When the उपमान is discarded as superfluous or useless with a view to bring home the idea that the उपमेय through its excellence can do the function of the उपमान, or (2) when the उपमान is regarded as the उपमेय, and thereby condemned, the figure is प्रतीप. In the Verse शशाङ्कोक्त etc., all the उपमानs, viz., शशी, पूषा etc., have been discarded as of no importance in the presence of the उपमेय, viz., the king, to convey the idea that the alone possesses all their qualities and can do the functions assigned to all of them.—अथ निषिध्यमानवरतुगतसकलयुगप्रतितिथ्यलक्ष्मा प्रेयसीनम् ( उद्भोट0).* In the second variety the condemnation of the उपमान may be effected in two ways—(1) by non-accomplishment of comparison and (2) by comparison correctly accomplished.—दितीये तु मत्वचिदुपमित्यनिष्पया विरसारत्: मत्वचिन्ति निष्पन्ना सैव विरकारतेष्ट: ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse र रे दार मन्द्रारे etc., the moon is sought to be compared to the face, but as the moon is possessed of inferior qualities there is no comparison (1 तस्मिन् ).† This non-accomplishment of comparison which is

• The figure in the verse is neither यादृशं nor प्रतिरूपक. वच यादृश्य-गर्भेण्यादपि चमत्कारीलावेशपीडादरत्वात् ( मम्मट० ). वच चापेक्ष्य च उपमानताव्यपदेश: ( चक्रवर्ती ). वच ग्रहणम्: किं चापेक्ष्य तिरस्कार्युपमासमर्पणम् प्रतिभावने म तृतीय-रसमात्रान्त न मत्वचिन्ति निष्पन्ना म तृतीय-रसमात्रान्त न मत्वचिन्ति निष्पन्ना. जयोर्मेदेनोच्यतेन; चकाराद्-गुकाराच्च मेलनात्. उपमानम्.

† उपमित्यनिष्पत्तिरिति । अतदपक विरेकाषि पीड; ममोन्मीलनप्रसङ्गावृत: । चत वर्धनुकार्थनिर्देश* यत्नम् ( उद्भोट0 ). चत अतमान इन न तु यत्नस:; उपमानोऽनुसंहार्योऽत्र ! वच न यत्नस्त इति न यत्नस:; उपमानोऽनुसंहार्योऽत्र ! वच न यत्नस्त इति न तत्र यत्नसारत्वम् । एवं चमत्कारविधिरिति न तत्र चमत्कारविधिरिति न तत्र चमत्कारविधिरिति । चमत्कारविधिरिति न तत्र चमत्कारविधिरिति न तत्र चमत्कारविधिरिति । X-1—20

implied by the word वचनीय is the cause of the condemnation of the moon.—अत्र मुख्योपमानस्य शशिनः स्वरूपगुणस्वादुपहित्यनिष्पत्तिः ‘वअणिज्ज’मिति पदेन योलते। सैव तिरस्कारहेतुः ( प्रदीप॰ ). In the verse गर्वमसंवाद्यामिमं etc., there is comparison ; blue lotuses are made उपमेय and thereby condemned.

Another variety of this figure is also possible, viz., when a thing which is incomparable on account of being possessed of a unique property is condemned by being made to assume the position of an उपमान. In the verse अहमेव गुरु: etc., हालाहल which is too dreadful to have another thing to be compared to it is made an उपमान to the words of wicked persons and thereby condemned.—अत्र निरुपमत्वेन गर्वोयमानस्योपमानताकल्पनरूपं प्रतीपम् ( चन्द्रिका ). अत्र हालाहलस्य खलवचनोपमानत्वम् असंभाग्यमानमेवोपनिबद्धं तिरस्कारहेतुः (प्रदीप॰ ).

The figure is significantly so called because in all its varieties the उपमेय is represented as प्रतीप (opposed) to the उपमान.—उपमानप्रतिदूल-त्वाद् उपमेयस्य प्रतीपमिति व्यवदेशः ( अलङ्कारसर्वस्व॰ ).

सामान्य—When an object under description ( प्रस्तुत ) is represented as identical with another object which is not under description ( अप्रस्तुत ), with a view to describe that they possess similar properties, the figure is सामान्य.* This connection (through similar properties) accounts for the name of the figure ( सामान्य-निवन्धनात् सामान्यम् ). In the verse म्लेयजेरस-etc., अमृतसरिका is प्रस्तुत and चन्द्रिका (moon-light) अप्रस्तुत. They are represented as identical (not distinguishable from each other) with a view to describe that they possess in common the quality of whiteness.

The figure सामान्य occurs also when the प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत being at first cognized to be identical are afterwards known to be different from each other through some cause. This is so for the simple reason that the idea of identity has already been cognized and being once cognized cannot be rooted out by the cognition of difference produced afterwards. In the verse वेत्रस्वच्चा etc., the प्रस्तुत (cheeks) and the अप्रस्तुत (champaka flowers) had been perceived to be identical and could only be distinguished

• According to the Darpana the possession of similar properties by the प्रस्तुत and अप्रस्तुत is the ground of identity.—सामान्यं प्रकृत्यन्यतादात्मं सत् सहेतुं योः.

from each other by the loveing of the bees.—अथ भ्रमरविलासवद्गते मेदस्सयो न चू पृथक् प्रतिति:। ननु भ्रूभङ्गावलम्बनेत्रप्रसाद कथमेकस्यासमप्रतीतिरिति चेन्न, ध्वं तथावेटनि प्राथमिकनेत्रप्रसादस्याभिरासाव, तत्स्य चाप्यायात् ( प्रतीयते ) एवं चोन्मीलनविधेयपरत्वाद्व्यञ्जनस्य मेदस्सान्। मुक्ताकलापिक न पूवोंवप्रवद्यम्हे निरमित्सुमत्सरहदे, उदपयावलास्यवनेपेयपथ:, तत्पूर्णमीलितर गौः। चङ्कपकोत्पननसमासङ्गयुगलप्रसङ्गस्याधिरकार इति तावदयं ( उद्घोतन0 )।

[ It should specially be noted that the मेदस् in this figure must be represented as identical with the पद्मस्र without renouncing its own qualities and herein lies its difference from the figure तद्गुण.—पदार्थनिभृतेनिजगुणाविष्कारेऽपि तद्गुणालंकारोऽतिरिच्यतेमे: ( मदोद्ध० )। The difference of शानिमत् from the उद्घोत—तथ्य ( मोहिते ) शब्दाद्विमताज्जातीयोद्घोतनविधयमपि चमत्कृतिहेतु:, तथा न च पृथक्-नानिमित्तं मुहु:। तथ म्रेयमालम्बनारोप:, पथावृत्यमात्रसम्पत्ति विवक्षितान्। मापि ध्वयवृत्ताविमित गतोकिल्यान्, उपमानतादात्म्यादासाम यथादृश्यसते रपकाभासनात्। उपमानतादात्म्यादखेदैरव्ययैरेव ध्वनितीयमान-लामातिमयोद्भिः। ]

56

56. निश्रेय—(1) When the आादेय (the abider or the contained) is represented as existing without its अभेद्य (the abode or the container), (2) when a -ingle thing is repre-ented as being in several things in the -ame character and simultaneou-ly, and (3) when a person engaged in doing one thing i- repre-ented as doing somethling el-e which is impo-ible to be done in the +ime manner (i.e., by the cum effort), the figure i- निश्रेय. There are in reality three figures which go by the one name of निश्रेय.—निश्रेयस् वच्मि न धुनरङ्गरिस्थेयः। अत्युग्य नित्रद्वार ( निमित्तं ) (1). In the wir- fi-sure-वाचक etc., the word- of poct- ( वाचक ) are hyphtatied even in the ab-nce of the puct-thm-lr- ( वाच्य ). This अत्युग्य figura which is not real but one merely rccognizd by p-.-.तत्सम्बन्धिना तु सम्बन्धो निश्रेयस् न भवति निश्चेत्यमानेन ( निश्चेय० )। निश्चेयत्वं हि न भवत्यन्योन्यसम्बन्धिना ( निश्चेय० )।

The real अर्थ of the word- i- the वाच्य रl i- it. for—नहि ffromsyn खरः निश्चेयः = निश्चीयते अर्थोऽनेन इति ( निरु० )। (2) In the ver-c ri =त c'th . y thi-- ri- t', i rth, i repre-ented a- exi-ting withl. a -त्य e' = ci it i' c'th .—i simultneou-ly in uerl thi-- ri- t'. In re-rtis thi--i- -noi -noi !

tönnection with several things in different characters and in पर्यायं not simultaneously but by turns.—एकात्मेत्येकैत स्वभावावेनैत्यर्थः। पतच्च विशेषोपणं ‘परित्रिप्रपा वसति’—इत्यादि यथासंरयग्न्यावर्त्तनाय। युगपदिति पर्यायवाचरणाय ( प्रदीप० ).

(3) In the verse रफुरदद्युते—etc., विधि while creating the king is represented as creating (in the person of the king) a new Love-God, a new Sun and a new Brhaspati on the earth, which is impossible to be done by the effort needed for the creation of the king. The expression तथैव in the definition is meant to exclude क्रियासमुचय (simultaneity of actions) from the range of विशेष.—अत्र तथैवेत तेनैव प्रकारेणेत्यर्थः। अतथा ‘घुनोति चाशि तनुत इ च कीर्तिम्’—इत्यादिसमुचयग्न्यावर्त्तनाय ( प्रदीप० ): The doing of a different thing in the above example is शाब्द (expressed by words) ; it may also be व्यङ्ग्य (suggested). In the verse मृहिणा सच्चिवा: etc., it is suggested that the cruel death in depriving Ajā of his beloved wife has deprived him of his counsellor friend and pupil.—अत्र कि न मेँ हतमिति सचिवादेसर्वहरणरूपं कार्यकरुणं व्यज्यते ( प्रदीप० ).

It is true that a thing cannot exist without a receptacle, one thing cannot exist simultaneously in several things and one effort cannot produce two effects. Then how can there be any अलङ्कार in such descriptions? Our author on the authority of Bhāmaha replies that these descriptions rest on अतिशयोक्ति (meaning not the figure अतिशयोक्ति but अतिशयेन उक्ति:, i.e., metaphorical expressions). It is the soul of अलङ्कार without which almost all अलङ्कारs would cease to be अलङ्कारs.—नन्वाधारं बिना वस्तुस्याधेयस्य व्यवस्थितिरनुपपत्ते:, एवमन्योऽप्यनुपपत्तिरिति चेत, न, अतिशयोक्तिमवलम्ब्य तथाभिधानात्। सर्वत्रैवविधे विप्रलितिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणयिता, तां विना प्रायशोऽलङ्कारत्वासम्भवात ( प्रदीप० ). अतिशयोक्तिम् अतिशयेनोक्तिमित्यर्थ:.....नत्वत्ति-शयोक्तिरलङ्कारोऽन विवक्षित:, तस्यात्रासम्भवात ( उद्योत० ).

57

तद्गुण—When an object which is प्रस्तुत and possessed of inferior quality is represented as giving up its own quality and assuming the quality of another object which is अप्रस्तुत and possessed of superior quality through the relation of nearness, the figure is तद्गुण. In the verse विभित्तवर्णा—etc., the horses of the sun are प्रस्तुत (objects under description). They come in contact with Aruṇa, who is अप्रस्तुत (an object not under description) and assume his colour

giving up thein own Ag in they conie in cont ict with the

green gems of the mountan ( मरकत ), give up the colour they

hid taken up and assume that of the gems It should be noted

that the Sun's horses ale infeitior in colour to Aun and Arun

to the gems —प्रत तद्गुणग्रहण । रवितुरगाश्वक्‌षया गरुडाश्रयस तरपेशया न हि च्यमानाः

प्रकृष्टगुणाच्चतृष्यवया प्रतिपते ( प्रदीप० ) यत्न विभित्रवर्णा हि्वेत्यवस्थिता, रष्वानां रष्यन्

सागेनाप्रतुतगुराश्राद्गुणयुग्मग्रहाव, पुनस्तस्यागेनाप्रतुतमरकततरणियुग्मग्रहावादपरवलद्युतम् (प्रभा० )

[ The difterence betueen तद्गुण, मोहित, श्रामात्य and श्राननिमान् is thus

explained by the उद्योत—नीहिते धर्मिणि एवायः, सामान्ग्यपरित्यागेन गुणसेवया प्रतिभोभे,

एष तु यथास्वेच्छाभिप्रव, धर्मिणि प्रधानगुणाश्रयेऽपि नैव दृश्यते । भानिर्सति कार्येपाधिकारोप, चथा रक्त-

मोषादौ मेद, भान्तीनिबहललाभिवाचः ]

58

अतद्गुण—(1) When an अप्रकृत object of infeiior quality

58 अतद्गुण—(1) When an अप्रकृत object of infeiior quality

58

अतद्गुण

does not take up the quality of the object which is प्रकृत and

58

अतद्गुण

possessed of superiol qulity though the two come in contact with

58

अतद्गुण

encli other and (2) when a प्रकृत object does not take up the qu lity

58

अतद्गुण

of the object whieh is शप्रकृत inspite of the connection of nearnes-s

58

अतद्गुण

the figure is अतद्गुण —अखिलगुणगणोनेदध यदि़ि नगुणोदप्रहत प्रकृतस्य ग्युन नानुरक्ते

58

अतद्गुण

तदा अतद्गुण । तथा चाप्रस्तुतेऽपि प्रस्तुततुपानुरागान्वयवत् अप्रस्तुतेऽप्रस्तुततुपानुरागोद्द्योतन्य प्रवार

58

अतद्गुण

( प्रदीप० ) (1) In the veise भवलोकिति etc, the नायक ( अप्रकृत ) his

58

अतद्गुण

not become red (affected by love) though he is enihrined in the

58

अतद्गुण

heart of the नायिका ( प्रस्तुत ) whieh is red (glowing with love) —मदनान्-

58

अतद्गुण

रेक्षि मनसि पूर्णतया हृदयवचाननादृशार्द्राश्चकार सवेऽपि मेवोदारणम् । तत्र प्रकृत हदयस्, सम्भोग्यस्तत्प्रकृत्,

58

अतद्गुण

रशेहद्यप्रकृतान्निवेदितनयनरयैव विवक्षितत्वात् ( प्रदीप० ) (2) In the ve-c गहनसु etc,

58

अतद्गुण

though it comes in contact with them, —अस्म वण्यतया प्रकृतौ रागमन्त नहा

58

अतद्गुण

वमद्योर्म्रहणयोग्यससामह्नात् अतद्गुणोदाहृत् (Jhillikar)

59

व्यापार—When a cet ain thing done by a man adopting

59 व्यपात—When a cet ain thing done by a man adopting

59

व्यापार

a certain meand is undone by another by the fime me ins the

59

व्यापार

figure is व्यापात । In the veie दधा दनप—etc, the Love-God is redued

59

व्यापार

to ashes, by क्रि by meun of a gl ince and he is re-v ified by

• मोहित प्रकृतस्य वस्यो वदनार्द्रयावादानम् । एष तु वसन्तरागदिग्दाहृतो मतेन मेद

( हरदत्त० ) ।

† वामनार्धशय्या? विचमननायामपि व गतदहनिश्र्चया म हृदन हृदो मादृशोऽपि म

हृदय । यत स गुरादपि विप्रकृष्टादपि नितान्तविश्र्वास्यतया

विरोषोभेदः । विलोक्याग्निप्रचयैः स विस्म

( हरदत्त० ) ।

women by the very same means, viz., the glance. The glance of Śiva and the glance of women are in reality different from each other but they are regarded as one and the same.—अन्न दृशौ दाहो जीवन्नज ( प्रदीप० ). यसापि विरूपाक्षदृग्वालमलोचनाइशोभैर्नकयम्, तथा च न न्याधातः तथाप्येक-जातीयत्वादेकं विवक्षितंवेत्समुपादानीयम ( चक्रवर्त्ती ).

60

संस्कृत्ति

60. संस्कृत्ति—When in a poetic composition there is union of two or more figures standing independently of one another,* the figure is संस्कृत्ति. 'The union is like the union of sesamum and rice which can be separated from each other when mixed up. To put it simply, in संस्कृत्ति figures are connected by the relation of संयोज.—एपां तिलतण्डुलवदनिमित्तश्रयेणाभ्यधायि संस्कृत्ति: । तिलतण्डुलन्यायस्तु संयोजन्याय: ( एकावली ). संस्कृत्ति is of three kinds as there is (1) union of शब्दालङ्कारs only, (2) union of अर्थालङ्कारs only and (3) union of a शब्दालङ्कार and an अर्थालङ्कार.—सेयं शब्दालङ्कारमात्रस्वार्थालङ्कारमात्रस्य शब्दार्थालङ्कारयोर्वेति त्रिधकारा ( प्रदीप० ). In the verse वचनसौर्भ etc., there is union of शब्दालङ्कारs only, viz., अनुप्रास and यमक. In the verse लिङ्पतित etc., there is union of अर्थालङ्कारs only, viz., उत्प्रेक्षा and उपमा. In the verse सो ऽपतिय etc., there is union of a शब्दालङ्कार and an अर्थालङ्कार, viz., अनुप्रास and रूपक. In the last instance though the figures belong to two different classes, one being based on शब्द and the other on अर्थ, and though they are independent of each other, yet there is connection (union) between the two as they occur in the same वाक्य (sentence) or in the same verse ( छन्दः ). तद्वनयोः शब्दार्थ-रूपाश्रयमेदेन कथमेकार्थसमवायिलक्षणा संसृष्टिरिति चेत्, एकवाक्ये छन्दसि वा समवेतत्वात ( प्रदीप० ). हन्त्सि चतुष्पादातमके इत्यर्थः । समवेततवं समवदतत्वम ( उद्घोत० ).

[ It is true that each of the figures that make up संसृष्टि and सङ्कर produces a charm to the kāvya just as each of the ornaments worn produces a charm to the body. Yet the reason for treating them as separate figures is that when combined in a poetic composition produce a special charm just like the combination of ornaments in the body. किन्तु कटककेयूरादि-नानाविध पृथक् कामनীয়कहेतुत्वे सत्यपि संघटनोपपादितं किंपि रमणीयकसुन्दरितं भवति ( एकावली ). यथा लौकिकानामलङ्काराणामपि परस्परमिथस्त्वं पृथक्चारुत्वेन प्रुञ्धगलङ्कारित्वं तथोक्तकहपात्राणां काव्यालङ्काराणामपि परस्परमिथस्त्वे पृथग्ललङ्कृतौ ( दृर्पण० ) ].

61

सङ्कर

61. सङ्कर—When in a poetic composition (1) there are two or more figures which are not independent by themselves, but bear

• सेयं स्वरूपतो विषयतो वा परस्परमनपेचलम ( प्रदीप० );

the mutual relation of helper and helped, (2) there are two or more figures and there is a doubt as to which of these figures should be accepted and which should be rejected, there being no determining circumstances for accepting any one of them or for rejecting the other or other-, and (3) there are two अन्यदृश्य, one a दृश्यदृश्य and the other an अन्यदृश्य, residing in one and the same expression, the figure is सदृश. सदृश is thus of three varieties--(1) अनङ्गानुगामदृशरे, (2) सदृशसदृश and (3) एकपदनिबन्धनसादृश्य. In all these varieties of सदृश the different figures are mixed up by the relation of समवाय just like water and milk which cannot be separated from each other after they have been mixed once --मदृशोऽपि त्रिभिरभोः क्षीरनीरवद्, समवायन्यायेनैव यावत् ( प्र०दी० ).

(1) In the verse आर्ज सिमननर्तने etc, तदङ्ग gives rise to मानिमान etc, however, does not produce the charm independently but with the help of मानिमान and thus there is the mutual relation of helper and helped between these two figures --अन्य निर्बन्धकत्वाद् दोनोर्मिति तदङ्ग-मानिमानौ स तु--रति-स्त्री आभिमानिनो मानिनं स्त्रियो, तदङ्गयोग्यत्वप्रदर्शनं स्व स्वातन्त्र्येण यथाकथंचिद् रसरोध इति न तस्य आभिमानदर्शकैवेति परस्परमनुग्राहालुमाहकभाव ( प्रदीपो ).† In the above verse there is सदृश of two वलदृश only सदृश of many वलदृश also is possible and the verse जड़ाभिनयादिमि etc, is an instance of the same In this verse there is उपमा in जड़ाभिनयादिमि and विरोध in स्वध्वनि, रूप in वल्कलालस्य and तादपर्यवसानलयालक्षितत्वे, उपमा in विरोधाद्यापेच्छरितु and द्वेष in वैराग्यनिदर्श.

[ The वलदृश between these वलदृश is thus brought out by मम्मट--वनारोहणवते परस्पराविरोधिभावेन प्रतीम्यते । यद्यपि दृप्तोक्तिसादृश्याद् विलक्षणत्वं न दृष्टिगोचरम् । तदापि यथाकृति न यथा मतिर्न यत् व तद्वार्त मग्नाने गम्या यत् । तारापरिकरत्नादिमि द्विपक विरोधाद्यपेच्छरितु, द्वेष in वैराग्यनिदर्श. मम्मट further remarks that here the final वल is सम फुल as वहिहितुम्=वहि: + हितुम्=वहिष्कृत्य, हितुम ( मदी० ).

† Cak dik l's remark is as follows --अनङ्गानुगमनं नाम तद्रूपानुररतनं तस्यैकार्थत्वादिति क्रियते । Here तस्य is तर and अनुरक्तम् is तदनुरक्तम् । The inter relation between the तर and तर (i.e. the अलङ्कार being generate 1l by the तर --वाच्यं च वाचकं च तयोरन्यतरद्वाचकं यत् । तदनुरागाद् अनुरागो जायते स अलङ्कार इति मम्मटः ( मम्मट टीकाकार ).

प्रकृत ( अप्रकृतती ) is inferred from the description of प्रकृत ( चन्द्र ) through the force of common adjectives.—मदर्पण छेप्ट पार्यन्तिकचारुतरदेहतरङ्गिभूता च समासोक्ति: । चन्द्र-

गतया च मदनतिमिरेच्छान्नप्रयोत: । मा च न्यग्नोचति प्रकारक्ता नो क्कितव्यवधेयम् ]।

Now the expression कलङ्काक्षवलयम् (in the verse just referred to) may be taken both as an instance of रूपक (by breaking it as कलङ्क एव

अक्षवलयम् by the rule मुख्यवृत्तिसंकराद्यत्र) and उपमा (by breaking it as कलङ्क:

अक्षवलयमिति by the rule उपमितं न्यायादिमि: सामान्यप्रयोगे). So there is doubt if there is the figure संदेहसङ्कर (the variety of संदेह which will just be

treated) or रूपक in this part of the sentence. ननु कलङ्काक्षवलयेतिव कथमेकान्त-

तोहपकसुस्सते । उपमाया मपि सम्भवे संदेहसङ्करौचित्यादिति चेत् ( प्रदीप० )। The doubt is set at rest, however, by the adjective करधृत (worn in hand).

It is universally known that अक्षवलय and not कलङ्क is worn in hand. So the adjective करधृत indicates that अक्षवलय is the predominant factor

and कलङ्क being merged in it appears to be entirely identified with it and thus hidden from view. So there is रूपक and not उपमा in

कलङ्काक्षवलय। रूपकपरिग्रहे करधृतत्वमेव साधकं प्रमाणमत्र: संदेहस्याभावात् । कथं तस्य

साधकत्वमिति चेत्, तत्रहि—करधृततरूपविशेषणस्याक्षवलये एव सार्वाधिक प्रसिद्ध: न तु कलङ्के अत:

प्राधान्येनाक्षवलयप्रतीतिरेवोदेक्ष्यते । सा च रूपकपरिग्रहेणैव सम्भवति । तत्र तिरोहितकलङ्करूप-

मक्षवलयत्वमेव मुख्यत्वयावगम्यते ( प्रदीप० )। Now the following objection may be raised : the adjective करधृत applies only to अक्षवलय and not to कलङ्क;

thus there being no साधारणधर्म between the two there is no similarity ( सादृश्य ) based on साधारणधर्म; how is then रूपक possible which rests

on similarity? The objection may be met in this way: the word कर means hand; it means rays as well. 'The adjective करधृत

when meaning 'held by rays' may apply to कलङ्क. Of course, कलङ्क is held by the disc and not by the rays of the moon. But as the

disc and the rays are related by proximity, the rays may figuratively be said to hold कलङ्क. In this way the adjective करधृत may apply

(of course, figuratively) to कलङ्क as well. So there is similarity between अक्षवलय and कलङ्क on account of the साधारणधर्म consisting of

the sameness of word, viz., करधृतत्व (and not of quality or action) and this is the basis of रूपक.—यद्यपि कलङ्के करधृतत्वम्, अक्षवलये च

हस्तधृतत्वमिति न साम्यम्, तेन रूपकायोग:, तथापि करशब्दवाच्यधृतत्वं साम्यमिति रूपकोपपत्तिरिति

नीयम् ( चक्रवर्ती )। If it be said that there is उपमा in the expression

कलङ्काक्षवलय on account of the साधारणधर्म (the same करधृत) being there,

then काव्य will have to be regarded as the predominant factor being

the उपमेय and रूपकत्व (being held by rūpas) will have to be taken here

in a figurative sense in regard to it, which is not desirable*

The author of the Alamkāra-vārtika is of opinion that the

mixing up of two अलङ्कारs cannot constitute अत्यधिकप्रसादनर्, because

there cannot be the mutual relation of helper and helped between

them, as they are based merely on words. Our author refutes

this theory by citing the verse रजति करै तम् etc, as an instance of सङ्कर

caused by two अलङ्कारs ( यमक and दीप ) being mixed up

Each of these अलङ्कारs is charming to a cultured mind on account of

the difficulty involved in their constitution Then charmingness is

much increased when they get mixed up. So in the matter of

increased charmingness one is helped by the other Thus there is the

mutual relation of helper and helped between them —निपक्षारालातिदग्ने

परपरामुखैवात्सुगन्धादिगुणाहकस्माद्वोऽपीललन्चये ( उद्धृतोऽपि । ) पादपगतान्तरौजःप्रतिभाति लोचयोः । मन्येनेदं

हृदुतया विद्रुमशुनोद्वर्तुराकम् । तयोः सातिशय सुत्तार नित्रुमशुनोद्वर्तुरश्मि परस्परं

वारितावित्रमये परस्परमुपैक्षते ह्यमिप्रायं ( विवरणं । ) The author of the प्रवीव is

of opinion that the actual figure in this verse is rather the third

kind of सङ्कर (and not the first kind of it, i.e., अत्यधिकप्रसादनर्) —तय यम्प्र

यमाननोलोमविलोमविनिवेदयसोऽपि सङ्कर परस्पतिपेक्ष्य — यामवनियोगप्रसङ्ग य रोचयमुपारत

• The maxims 'सापेक्ष मदृश्योऽपि किल तिल्यशक पृथक्यायाम्' and 'मूले समार्काकमने'

tell us that the figurative use of a word should not be encouraged, but when

it is unavoidable it should be done in regard to a subordinate factor.

According to the दृष्टान्त the use of a figurative word in regard to a subordinate

factor is preferable to that in regard to a principal factor —मुखे कचोःप्रसङ्ग

चाहुलोपचार एव युक्तः । उपमान is the principal factor in दृष्टान्त and उपमेय in अतिशयोक्ति

If दृष्टान्तालङ्कार is taken as an instance of रूपक, then दृष्टान्त being उपेय is to be

regarded as a subordinate factor and the figurative use of a word in regard

to it will not be so bad —चाहुलोपचार एव युक्तः । मुखे कचोःप्रसङ्ग इव

न जातु वा । करुणाद्दैन्ये दृष्टान्तकाव्यस्य कस्यार्तिद

हिमशिशिरे सोपमेये न हि दृष्टान्तः प्रतीयते । यदुद्भानाविदग्धेन शुति उपमितिः कृतापि न दृष्टान्तः

प्रतिभाति हि नः । य उदमानमिदन चपमेय तिरोधाय

उपमालङ्कारस्य माङ्गल्येन न हि तस्यां न दृष्टान्त इति किल्विषम् ।

रत्नप्रभापुञ्जैरपि तयोः विश्रियमव चपमेये हरित्कृत्युम्नते किल्विषम् । ननु न हि

हृष्यते न तयोः श्लाघ्यतया । सुतरां न हृष्यतया । उपमानवीचरी कृतोऽपि न हृष्यते

हि दृष्टान्तः । उपमाने हि तिरोधाय हृष्यते ( विवरणं । )

K-P—21

निर्वृत्ततया अनुलोमविलोमस्योत्पत्तौ यमकापेक्षा यमकस्य तु चारुत्वातिशये तदपेक्षता । तदाश्रये-णातिसुन्दरतयाडतिशयेन विद्रधमनोडनुरक्तत्वादिति तेपामाश्रयः । वस्तुतस्तु यमकनिवोह एव कविप्रतिभिरिति निश्श्रायकं नास्ति । अस्सु वा तथा । तथापि यमकं न चित्रहेतुः किन्तु तत्प्रयत्नः । तस्मादेकाश्रयानुप्रवेशेनैवायं सद्दरो न त्वनुगमाद्यानुगाहकतयेत्येव युक्तम् ।

(2) In the verse जह गहिरो etc., there is doubt whether the figure is समासोक्ति or अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा. In the verse नयनानन्द--etc., there is doubt of several figures, viz., पर्यायोक्त, अतिशयोक्ति, रूपक, दीपक, तुल्ययोगिता, समासोक्ति and अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा.

It should be noted that in सन्देहसङ्कर, doubt regarding the several figures should be equally strong. When, however, argument in favour of a particular figure is stronger than that in favour of other figure or figures, that is to say, when there is either न्याय, i.e., reason in favour of the acceptance of one of the figures or दोष, i.e., reason against the acceptance of the other figure or figures, there will be no सन्देहसङ्कर.

In the passage सौभाग्यं वितनोति etc., हास्युतिः, taken in its primary sense, viz., हास्थशोभा (brightness of smile), pertains to face ( उपमेय ). It is neither applicable nor wholly inapplicable to the moon ( उपमान ), because it is not a property of the moon if taken in its primary sense but may be so if taken in a secondary sense, viz., विकासशोभा (beauty of full display). This expression thus makes it clear that the face and not the moon is the principal factor. It has already been noted that उपमेय is the principal factor in उपमा and उपमान in रूपक. So the expression हास्युतिः does not so much bar रूपक (because it may be construed to the moon if it is taken in a secondary sense) as it establishes उपमा ; or, in other words, in this passage, doubt in favour of उपमा is stronger than that in favour of रूपक.—मुख्यतयैव प्रतीमपन्ना हसितश्रुतिवैक्ले एवानकुल्यं भजते । तत्रैव मुख्यतस्तत्सम्भवाद । वक्त्रस्य प्राधान्येन स्थितिरुपमायामेवस्युपमा-साधिका । शशिनि तु नानुकूला मुख्यतस्तत्न हास्युतिरभभावात् । नापि प्रतिकूला हास्यपदस्य विकासपरत्वं परिकल्प्य कदचित् शशिन्यप्यन्वयसम्भवाद (विवरण०). In the passage—वक्त्रेन्दुस्तव etc., the expression अपर points to the previous mention of another moon and it is in the shape of the face ( वक्त्रेन्दुः—वक्त्रमेव इन्दुः ); the meaning being, ‘in the presence of the

moon in the shape of your face, the appearance of the other moon (in the sky) is useless.’—मुखचन्द्रो न ते मति मुखरेन्दुनोति कतीने। (प्रदीप०)। So the figure here is रूपक —नयथा अवयव अपहर। निहित्तः हृयव निहित्तनिस्स निकेवणतया उपरतव पूणोंक्तना प्रत्याययति, तथा ‘अपर। हितातनु’— हृयव चन्द्रम निहेपणतया उपमानव अपरतव चन्द्रान्तरसय पूंओक्तना प्रत्याययति। चन्द्रा-नरवर पुव्वोंक्तस्सु हु ‘वक्खरेणो’ हृयदव रूपेए व भवति, तहेब उपमानस्स चन्दस्स प्रधानतया पतीते: (निरण०)। But the उपमा is not altogether baried. Because the passage may also be taken to mean ‘when your face which is as beautiful as the moon exists, what is the use of the principal moon ?’—हन्दुसमानुपुणे वक्खे सति किं हिमवर: (मुखः ) इन्दुदित इति प्रतीतावनासक्तसभावाव ( प्रदीप० )। न तु वक्खस्स प्रधानतया मदीहि प्रतिपुल्लिलेयो: ‘इंदुतुहे मुगे सति किं अरेगण मुगेण चन्देणोति यथाप्रथंप्रतीतिप्रच्यावनात वस्स-प्रधानगे न प्रतिपुल्लिमिति उपमाया न बाधकस्मित भाव: (Jhalkikar). This me.ning is after all far-fetched. So the doubt in favour of हृयव is stronger than that in favour of उपमा। Doubt in favour of a particular figure being stronger in each of the two above examples, there is no संदेह-

सदूर (in which doubts regarding two or more figures are equally strong)।—प्रथयामोयस्तदाहारगोयपेक्कोते: साधकमसति सदकोवस्से सदस्सयोवकस्सव, मद्दुर-लयपुणे च तुयकोविटकणविसेसर विसेसणप्पाय संदेहस्सदूर हवास्स: (उद्घोत०)। Likewise there is no संदेहस्सदूर in the passages सामणायण etc., and पादमूज मवयु नो etc. In the former passage उपमा is barred by the circumstance of the embrace on the part of Lakṣmī, because it is highly improper for the wife of one person to embrace another who may be like her husband.—रामिस्सइहह प्रतिस पेमियमियवस्सइणरस्सालोणिवियाद ( मम्मट० )। So the compound रजताद्रिस must be di-solved as रजत इव दृश नासामया: where नासामय (उपमान ) becomes prominent and रजत becomes merged in it and hidden from view, as it were. In the latter pa-sage कफर (jingling) bars हृयव because it is impossible in अरुण (lotus). So the compound पादरजमुज must be di-solved as पाद: अरुणजिनि where पाद becomes prominent and is merely likeलd to अरुण। The circumstance of jingling being possible in पाद does not, however, e-tabli

त विगणाय हृदयस्स उपदंसिहं: निठकगुं ) is much fu:c in favour of उपमा.*

• As to why it is so we may note the f

(3) In the verse स्पष्टोहसत्व किरण—etc., there is mixing up of a शब्दालङ्कार ( अनुप्रास ) and an अर्थालङ्कार ( रूपक ) in each of the three expressions किरणकेसर, सूर्यविम्बविस्तीर्यर्णकर्णिक and दिग्दलकलाप.*

The three varieties of सदृश have been illustrated. It is not possible to sub-divide this figure on the basis of any other method (e.g., the method suggested by Bhojarāja or the method of taking up all the figures two by two—उपमारूपकयोः अनुप्रासोपमयोः अनुप्रासरूपकयोरित्येवं रीत्याेति यावत् ) because the varieties would then be innumerable.—शब्दगतयेनारङ्गगततयेव शब्दालङ्कारोंऽभयगततद्वेन चानुगतीकृत्योक्तम् । उपमारूपकादीन् विशेष्योपदाय स्वनन्त-

Now follows the discussion about the difference between शब्दालङ्कार and अर्थालङ्कार. It has been stated in the 9th chapter that अन्यतिरेक are the criteria to determine whether an अलङ्कार, दोष or गुण pertains to शब्द or अर्थ or to both शब्द and अर्थ. Thus, when a word on which an अलङ्कार, दोष or गुण rests does not bear any change, that is, when a particular अलङ्कार, दोष or गुण disappears with the substitution of a synonym of the word that has caused it, then it is called शब्दालङ्कार,

शब्ददोष or शब्दगुण ; but when it bears such a change, that is, when a particular अलङ्कार, दोष or गुण remains as such even when the word that has caused it is substituted by its synonym, then it is called अर्थालङ्कार, अर्थदोष or अर्थगुण. When some words bear change and some do not, then there will be शब्दार्थालङ्कार, शब्दार्थदोष or शब्दार्थगुण.

उद्योत.—यस्य यथातलम् उत्कटं तु प्रतीयते तथा तस्य तथालव्यपदेशः। श्रुतं तु विध्युपमर्दिंशाधकं साधका-

पेचयोत्कटतैलं प्रतीयते इति तेनैव व्यपदेशो युक्तः । तद्वेतदुक्तं विध्युपमर्दिंशाधकस्य तद्पेचयोत्कटतैलं

प्रतिपत्तेरिति । श्रुत्ये तु तदन्यथा व्याचचते——विधीयते श्रवणेनैति विधिः; साधकम्, तदुपमर्दि तमात्र बलौीयः ।

एतदुक्तं भवति——सझोरपि जितस्य पदे सम्भावमात्रेण न लावुपसा——साधकत्वं निर्वैति यावदस्मुजे तद्विरहो न

निश्रीयते । तथा च तदाधकसैव प्राधान्यमिलाचालात्रनुखेनैनैव व्यपदेशः ( प्रदीप० ) । विध्युपमर्दीति——स्वविरोधि-

कोटिभूतविध्युपमर्दैर्‌लर्यः ( स्वशब्देनैवोपमा, स्वविरोधिका)टेरूपमाविरोधिकोऽभूतस्य विधेः रूपकवैधर्म्यस्

उपमर्दः । उपमा——साधकमित्ये किश्चित् रूपकस्यापि साधकं स्यादश्रिति सदृशो नापैति । वाधकं लभिहते

तद्वच्चेष्टप्रतीतेः सन्देहेहि चेद् इत्याशयः ( उद्योत० ).

• According to the प्रदीप, एकपदप्रतिपाद्यसदृशर occurs also when two शब्दालङ्कारs are mixed up.—शब्दालङ्कारैकतीति प्रायोवादः । शब्दालङ्कारयोरप्येतदग्रनान् । यथा

—‘कलकलोऽलकवलोलह्रादन्या’ इत्यादौ अनुप्रासयमकयोः* According to the विवरण, the mixing up of two अर्थालङ्कारs also will constitute this figure.—शब्दालङ्काराव्युप-

लक्षणम्, कलकलोऽलकवलोलह्रादन्या इत्यादौ शब्दालङ्कारयोरनुप्रासमकयोः, वक्रोक्तिविन्दसपुलकस्मन्-

वताया धावन्यमेव वक्रतामझुलकुज्जन्मनि इत्यादौ अर्थालङ्कारयोः रूपकातिशयोक्त्योः सदृशरोदधियः.

165

On this principle पुनरुक्तवामास will have to be regarded as a दण्ड्यभेदोद्वार because in examples like सनत्सुजः—etc., of this figure (ch. ix) the word वधु: can be substituted by its synonym but the word तद् cannot. Similar is the case with परम्परितसूचक, अभिधानतरस्वास, उपमा etc. In the verse विद्रुम्नानतहस्त etc., ( an example of परम्परितसूचक ) the word मानत cannot be substituted by its synonym but the word हस्त can. In the verse उदपादयति लोकस्य प्रीति महयमारुत. । न तु दक्षिणयसम्प्राप्तः (an example of दण्ड्यहेतुक अभिधानतरस्वास ) the word दक्षिण्य cannot be substituted by its synonym but the word महयमारुत can. In the example सकलकलं पुरमेतज्जातं—etc., ( an example of उपमा ) the word सकलकल cannot be substituted by its synonym but the word पुर can. Why are then परम्परितसूचक, अभिधानतरस्वास, उपमा etc., regarded as अवद्याभेदोद्वारs and not दण्ड्याभेदोद्वारs? The answer is that they are in reality दण्ड्याभेदोद्वारs but as the meaning is of an outstanding charm in them they are regarded as अवद्यालङ्कारs.

According to the अलङ्कारसर्वस्व, आश्रयाश्रयिभाव and not अन्योन्यव्यतिरेक is the criterion to determine whether a particular अलङ्कार is दण्ड्यालङ्कार or अवद्यालङ्कार. आश्रय is either शब्द or अर्थ and आश्रयी is अलङ्कार. The sum and substance of अलङ्कारसर्वस्व's view is that when the आश्रय of an अलङ्कार is शब्द, the अलङ्कार is दण्ड्यालङ्कार and when it is अर्थ, the अलङ्कार is अवद्यालङ्कार. Our author criticises the view as unsound. He says that ultimately अन्योन्यव्यतिरेक will have to be resorted to. For, without अन्योन्यव्यतिरेक the ascertainment of particular आश्रयाश्रयिभाव ( शब्द and अर्थ being आश्रय and अलङ्कार being आश्रयी ) becomes impossible.

According to the older rhetoricians there are defects of अलङ्कार. Our author is of opinion that they are included among the defects dealt with in the seventh chapter and so there is no need of giving them a separate treatment.

(1) Three defects are mentioned (by older rhetoricians) in connection with अनुप्रास, viz., प्रसिद्धिदोष, वैफल्य and इतिवृत्तदोष. These defects are in reality not different from प्रसिद्धिदोष, अनुपयुक्तता and प्रतिकूल-वर्ण्य, respectively.

(2) The presence of यमक in three feet of a verse has been mentioned as a defect This defect is not different from यमकप्रयुक्तता. —नहि रूपं व पदार्थानां यमनप्रयुक्तकलङ्कितम् । कवीनां मतिरीड्योऽपि न यमकमहिषीयते ( प्रतिप0 ).

(3) Defects of उपमा (as mentioned by older rhetoricians) are :-

(a) जातिगतन्यूनता—In the example चण्डालैरिव etc., उपमान being Candālas (people belonging to extremely low caste) the उपमेय has been condemned as capable of perpetrating all sorts of misdeeds, though the intention is to accuse him merely of rashness.—अभ्य चण्डालत्वजातेरन्यूनतया दुष्कर्मैकारितवव्यक्तिरनुचितार्थत्वम् ( प्रदीप० ). यदा साहसिकभावतोपमान-

दिवक्षया चण्डालादिपदसुपादीयते तदैवेदमुदाहरणम्, न तु दुष्कर्मैकारितविवक्षायामपि ( सुधासागर० ).

(b) प्रमाणगतन्यूनता—In the example वह्निस्फुलिङ्ग एव etc., the sun is compared to a spark of fire. This is nothing but a condemnation of the sun.

(c) जातिगताधिकता—In the example अयं पङ्कनिमग्नसीन: etc., the उपमान is मग्न and the उपमेय is चक्रवाक. The comparison, therefore, is simply ridiculous.

(d) प्रमाणगताधिकता—In the example पातालमिव etc., the उपमानs are पाताल, क्षितिधर and कालिन्दीपात (the stream of Yamuna) and the उपमेयs are नाभि, स्तन and वेणीदण्ड, respectively. The comparison, therefore, is nothing but ridiculous.

[ The defect in all these cases also is merely अनुचितार्थत्व. —एषु चण्डालादिरुपमानैरुपमेयभूता अथो अत्यन्तमेव कदर्थिता:, निन्दोपहासादिप्रतीतिरित्यनुचितार्थता ( प्रदीप० ). अत्युत्कृष्टवह्न्युपमानकत्वम् अपकृष्टेपमेयस्स्यालस्यताप्रयवसायितयोपहासाय भवतीति भाव: ( उद्योत० )†. ]

(e) धर्मंगतन्यूनता—In the example स मुनिरिव स्थित:—etc., there is absence of the mention of तडित् in connection with the sun ( उपमान ) which would be corresponding to मौञ्जी mentioned in connection with the मुनि ( उपमेय). [ The defect involved here is therefore हीनपदत्व ].

(f) धर्मंगताधिकता—In the example स पीतवारि: etc., the mention of the moon in connection with cloud ( उपमान ) is redundant in the absence of the mention of conch or a similar thing in connection

• ब्रह्मया: कल्पमेदेन भेदाद् ब्रह्मत्वं जाति: ( प्रदीप० ).

† The remark of उद्योत refers to (c) and (d) only.

with Śrikrṣṇa. [ The defect, therefore, is मथिक्लरदय.—अयोर्मेये दधाप-

निदेशाद उपमानि तरलुस्यरत्न राधिनो महामनमतिरिच्यते हयादिकपदतन्मेयेन ( प्रदीप० )।]

Diver-ity in the gender and number of the उपमान and उपमेय with a qualifying word agreeing with one of them (e. g., चित्रारसमनिर वं च्युतोदति and सक्त्वो मधिना देवन शुधा: द्वयश्वरित ) al-o constitutes a defect of उपमा (according to old rhetoricians). Our author says that the defect is no other than मथामकत्व. The reason is that the qualifying word expressive of the common property is directly connected with one of them (उपमान or उपमेय ) and impliedly* (i. e., after alternation of the gender and number of that qualifying word) with the other (उपमेय or उपमान) and thus the common property is expressly understood in one case and through implication in the other.—

उपमाने प्रतियममानत्वया वाच्यत्वया वा उपकान्तरस्य साधर्म्यैर उपमेये तत्स्यथा (वाच्यतया प्रतीयमानत्वा षत् उपसंहाराव भवत्ककमत्स्यम् ) इति प्रकारान्तरत्वम् (विदग्ध०)। अन्र च्युत हयुपमेयमप्यनुसन्धानीयम् ।

अत्र शुधा: हयुपमेयशब्दानुगामीचे ( प्रदीप० )। अलंकारमेये पुंसि च्युत द्वी वाच्यो भवः उपमाने चित्रारने तु च्युतमिति लिङ्गविपर्यायेन प्रतियमानो भवति।

साधारणधर्मस्य बहुत्रावहरदसकृनुनेवानयो न द्वेकावार्हदुपपुष उपमान इति भावः (उद्घोत०)।

When, however, notwithstanding the diversity of the gender and number of the उपमान and उपमेय the qualifying word can equally be connected in its original form with both of them, this fault will not arise. In the example गुङ्गेर्नम्यः etc, though रसने: and गुङ्गा: (उपमान and उपमेय ) are of different genders, the qualifying word (अनर्घः ) can equally be connected with both of them without any change in either case —गुङ्गेर्नम्यादिविलक्षणैर मतन्विती पनेयनतस्य

निरयेदिति तुव्यसनप्लातत् दोप न हि भावः (उद्घोत०)। In the example मधुरेष्टदृशो-

दृशामः etc, the उपमान is स्रिग्धा: (in plural number) and the उपमेय दृशामः (in plural number).

† उपमानानुगतसादृश्यसम्भवेपोरमेयाधिक्यमुपसंहन्ति यथासम्भम्—Thus, उपमेय offers an explanation as to why मधक्त and गुङ्गल in regard to उपमा has not been separately illustrated.

• The expression प्रतोमाननेन has been variously explained. Jhalkikar's explanation (e. g., मयमानेऽन, निङ्क्रियाविश्लेषणं यथासंयदस्यर्थ: चिरुं० न कथम् ) is quite reasonable. This explanation seems to be supported by the उद्घोत who re mark on the topic as follows :-च्युतना पनेयनाभिप्रायेण स्यादिति चेन्न; मधनिदर्शने च्युमानिर्योऽपि मादृशो भवः । वदन्ति विश्नविनिर्दशे तद्वदेवोपमानपदस्य हि तादृशम्.

is तत्र: (in singular number). But the words expressive of common properties, viz. सामान्यः, विशेषः and समता can apply equally to both of them without a change in either case.—वस्तुनिष्ठो भेदोऽभेदेन । विशेषो वस्तुनिष्ठो भेदेऽभेद इव भेदावृत्या पुनरव्यतिरेकाद् भेदः । एवं द्वयोर्यत्रे सलक्षणं तत्रैवं भेदः ( अभेदश्च ).

i. e., diversity in वाच्य (tense), पुरुष (person), and वृत्ति (विधि, संख्या etc.) in relation to सामान्य and विशेष would certainly mar the clear comprehension of सामान्य and विशेष and thus constitute defects. Our author says that such defects also come under विरुद्धमती.

Examples of :—

(a) उज्जयिन्यां वस etc. Here the verb वस is in the past tense. It may apply to सामान्य ( हृदय ) but as applying to the विशेष ( हृदयवती ) it should be in the present tense.—अत्र चेतनः पदार्थोऽन्वेति न तु वसनेरितसामान्यो हृदयादिः । तथा च पदार्थोऽन्वेति न तु वसनेरितविशेषो हृदयवतीति । व्युत्पत्तिमात्रविश्रान्तसामानाधिकरण्येन चेतनः पदार्थोऽन्वेति न उज्जयिन्यां वसनेरितः ( उद्योतः ).

(b) सङ्गतं ते वचः . Here the last portion of the verb विशेषे ( i. e. the portion ते ) agrees with the person addressed ( i. e. प्रतियोगिनि addressed in the second person singular ) and not with the object not addressed ( i. e. सामान्य ). In other words, the verb agrees with the विशेष which is in the second person and not with the सामान्य which is in the third person.—अत्र त्वद् विशेषेऽन्वेति न तु सङ्गतसामान्यो हृदयादिः । ननुधर्मविशिष्टं त्वद्योज्यपदार्थान्वयित्वेन सामानाधिकरण्यं न सङ्गतं ते वच इति ( उद्योतः ).

(c) विशेषे :—

(i) विशेषे प्रहृतो हि तद्द्वेषः . Here हि i. e., ( विशेषे द्वेष: ) applies to the उपमान ( हृदय ) and not to the उपमेय ( हृदयवती ) to which प्रहृतः etc. apply.—अत्र हि प्रहरतीत्यादिविशेषणविशिष्ट उपमानेऽन्वेति न तु विशेषे द्वेष इति । तत्रोभयं प्रहरतीति तथा क्रोधः प्रहरतीति विशेषान्तरे विरुध्यते ( उद्योतः ).

क्रमतालुकन्यायेन सङ्कीर्णत्वाद् विरुद्धमती । कमलं वधिंहितु नोच्यते ।

(ii) आशीर्वीन्दमेद—निर जीवतु वे पुलो मार्गपेटयो मुनिदया

applies to the उपमेय ( पुत्र ) and not to the उपमान ( मार्गपेटेसमुनि ).

(iii) प्राभ्नामेद—इन्द्रस्येव धियो यदिसतु संदृश्यते जने .

Here the थ्रृद्ध wished for does not apply to the उपमान ( इन्द्र ) but to the उपमेय (the person addressed)—प्राध्यंमानताभिधितेष्टश्रौदृदनोपमाने हति दृश्यते ( प्रमा० )

It is evident that in the above instances defeets are due to काल, रूप etc, applying to the उपमेय and not to the उपमान It may be contended that in such instances उपमा may be cognized through other common properties either expressed or implied* and उपमा being once cognized काल, रूप etc., applying to उपमेय alone, will not constitute any defect.—नेदृदृश्येय कथ हन्तु । नैकत्नसमीदृशाद् धर्मोद् अतिरिचतगुपात् प्रयोज्यमान

या कचिद् साधारण धर्मेसुभादयोsप्येवन्तने पाक्षाद् मिन्नकालादिसंप्रतिभिन्नींन्वयात् । तथा हि विभाने

हृद्य निबन्धनतिसादृशादिना तुस्थानान्यकोरुपमापयवसाने पाक्षाद् विभान्तसे ह्यन्रय नाधिक्यमात्रनयेदपि

न दोष ( प्रदीप० ) एव तु साम इत्थं राजा भातीसादृ सोदनादिनाडनुपपोचेन साम्प्रतिकीनी पक्षा

निवाल्यपदार्थनेऽपि च वामोदयौ एवमय भातीयवरो न दोष , कामद्दशसुन्दरोऽय मारोति

मतीवै. ( उज्ज्वल० ) 'There may, of course, be instances where the common property is expressly mentioned, and it one only and appears to involve the defect of मालदिमेद. We may take, for example, the sentence युधि्दिर इव सत्य वदति Here the only common property is सत्यवदनतुण्य (the agency of telling the truth) whlch is expressly mentioned The present tense refers to the उपमेय (the person pointed out) and not to the उपमान ( युधि्दिर ) In order to get rid of the defeet of मालमेद here सत्यवदित (the hibit of telling the truth) should be regurled as an implied common property and the

समनिरितस्य निलतन गवादेः' प्रवणिनमदनुरुत्यादिसमप्रचक्री यो वदवार उसकहतद गमादिमेदार 'नित्य

'ह्य' ह्यादिपितनदसामानादपरिप्लुतिं याथा। मधोदादर्शे न ह धमनदंप ख्यातिमार्ग

खायं या मगलिसारदकुमो यं पामोदरदर्शंनुपादारं कधोस्सदपनदाकानो फले 'नित समनाती' य'चय

(Jhalkhār)

† In fिदिमेद also there is श्रौमेद but not direct.

• काल रव सुदृदृरोऽपि न भति and ह्यादि रव भतिन—in both theee ininces

धर्मत may be cognized through the common property e-ti whi-h is expressly mentioned in the former cise us in lmplied in the littel.

K-P-22

full idea of the sentence would be—‘he, as truthful as Yudhiṣṭhira, tells the truth’ ( युधिष्ठिर एव सत्यवादी यं सत्यं वदति ).—युधिष्ठिरो हि सत्यमवदत् । न च वदतीति चेत् । उच्यते । तत्रापि सत्यवादिति प्रतीत( प्रतीममान)-धर्मेणैवोपमित्यनव्याघातः

( प्रदीप० ). ‘There is no tautology ( पौनरुक्त्यम् ) involved in the idea ‘a truthful man tells the truth’ just as there is no tautology in the sentence (according to the authors of the Kāśikā and Nyāsa) रैपोऽपुन्नाति (he nourishes with the nourishment of wealth, i. e., by spending wealth).—रैपोपमित्यत्रार्थे व्यये न पोपणस्येवात्राप्याज्ञानिकसत्यवादित्वस्य प्रतीतेरिति

( प्रदीप० ). धनकृतं पोषणमित्यर्थलाभाय रैपोमित्युक्ते न वैयर्थ्यम् ( उद्ध्योत० ). यद्यपि राया धननेत् पोपयित्येति रैपोपं यथा स्वातथ्या पुन्नातीत्यानुपयोगानुशासनान्न पौनरुक्त्यम्, प्रकृते च तदभावात् पौनरुक्त्यमेव, तथापि घटेन घटवद् भूतलमितिवत् सत्यवदनेनार्थां सत्यवादिति न पौनरुक्त्यमिति

घ्येयम् । तथा पोपणवदन सत्यवदनमात्रेऽपमा, तेन कालादिशेदो न दोष इति महाशाब्दार्थः

( कमलाकरभट्ट० ).

These contentions are not at all sound, because in instances like these a quick comprehension of उपमा ( प्रस्तुतवस्तूपमेयप्रतीति:=प्रस्तुतस्य वस्तुनः उपमानोपस्य प्रतीति:) is marred. Of course, we should attempt to justify the uses found in standard authors.

असादृश्य and असंभव, two defects of उपमा (mentioned by old rhetoricians), would come under अनुचितार्थ.

(4) संभावना (assumption) is the soul of उत्प्रेक्षा. It can be expressed by words like ध्रुव, हव, मन्ये, शङ्के etc., and not by the word यथा. This word, by itself, i. e., without being joined with any other word can only express साधर्म्य (relationship of the common property with the उपमान and उपमेय ) which is not intended to be expressed in उत्प्रेक्षा. Thus, if the word यथा is used to express संभावना

उत्प्रेक्षा (according to old rhetoricians). According to our author the defect is no other than अवाचकत्व.

Another defect of उत्प्रेक्षा has been named निर्हेतुकत्व (by old rhetoricians). It consists in the object imagined or assumed ( उत्प्रेक्षित ) being justified by अर्थान्तरन्यास. The object assumed in उत्प्रेक्षा has no real existence and hence to justify it is quite improper just as painting in the sky. The verse दिवाकराद् रक्षति etc., has been cited as an example of this defect. Here darkness has been des-

cribed as getting protection from the Himalayas. Darkness being an insentient thing there is no possibility of any fear on its part and hence its protection by the Himalayas is after all imaginary. This being so it is useless to justify such protection by the use of विभावना ( vibhāvanā ). —अन्य तमसस्याम एवामम्भवी। तमसोद्गिरणानार्तः, तमः च तद् उपप्लुतं न किञ्चिद् उपप्लवयितुमर्हति यत् इत तमसां न तमः ( मतीपो ). This defect would come under अकिञ्चित्करत्व ( akincitkaratva according to our author ). —निगदव्यपेतस्यैवेहैकावृत्या समुदाहृतमस्य तु तत्त्वमभिज्ञैः सदर्थोनतस्योपोद्बलान तद् अपि तमः ( मतीपो )

(5) In समासोक्ति, उपमान ( agrya ) is suggested from the गम्य ( gamy ) through the force of common adjectives. If the result is expressly mentioned it will constitute a defect and it has been named अनुवाददोष ( by old rhetoricians) The verse रसवती हि कुमति etc., has been cited to illustrate this defect. In this verse through the force of common adjectives as well as from the predicate of the nouns it is indicated that the sun is the आदर्श, the quantity, the आलोक to the direct mention of दिवसा ( upamān or summer day-light— आलोक्यते ) causes the defect अनुवाददोष. This defect is not different from अनुचपेतः ( according to our author ) —नञ् विशिष्टानां विशिष्टार्थवचनस्य करणं नाम नोच्यते— न अर्थः उपमानस्य अन्यस्य सदृशत्वेन व्यपदेशः। सादृश्यं धर्मः; सादृश्यं हेतुः।

It is not right to say that there is अर्थान्तर in the word ‘आदर्श’ etc., and thus the direct use of the word ‘रूपक’ ( rūpak ) is not useless. The reason is that the अर्थान्तर is the force of common adjective. Here in the verse रसवती etc., the force of common adjectives is used in the sense of सादृश्य ( sādṛśya ) धर्म ( dharma ) as well as हेतु ( hetu ).

adjectives.—अयमारायः:—चतोपमानस्य स्वपदोपादानेऽपि न समासोक्तियागस्तत्रावश्यकसमा-सोक्त्यैव निर्देशेऽपि उपमानपद्रे पद्रानां ध्रयमेयं। यथा स्पष्टतादृशोऽत्र द्रवितयेत्युपादानेऽपि रवेर्नीयकत्वं तुब्धं नायिकात्वं न समारोहद्रयमेति तस्या आवश्यकत्वम्। यथा तृपमानपद्रोपादाने समासोक्तिनिर्द्रूततादृशुपादाने न यत्रोपमानात्रुंदिरुपातत्साधारणधर्मीणामुपमेयमात्रान्विततयैव प्रतीते: तलोपमाया एव तमचकारित्वाय देयं तत् पद्रकम्। यथा स्वर्यं चेत्यादौ। छत्रोपमानपद्रोपादाने समासोक्तियागात् ( सङ्केत० )।

In अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा also the प्रस्तुत or उपमेय should not be mentioned but suggested from the अप्रस्तुत or उपमान through common adjectives, otherwise there will be अपुष्टार्थता as in समासोक्तौ. In the verse आहूतेऽपि etc., the प्रस्तुत or उपमेय (अचेतन प्रभु i. e., unappreciative master) is suggested by the अप्रस्तुत or उपमान (सामान्य) through the adjectives common to both and as such should not have been directly mentioned.—अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामप्युपमेयस्योपादानवैचर्यं यत् तदुपुष्टार्थत्वमेव दोष:। तत्राप्युप-मेयन्वनैयैव गीयादवगन्तव्यं, न पुन: शब्दप्रयोगेण दुष्टतां नियम्। अत्र ( आहूतेऽपिस्वागत्युदाहरुणे ) प्रभो:पमेयस्याप्रस्तुतनिष्ठसाम्याद्दारेणाभिहितियक्त्र( प्रनीति )-सम्भवादुक्तमेव शब्देन कथनमिल्युपुष्टार्थत्वं पुनरुक्तता वेभि ( प्रदीप० ).

Thus, the defects of अलङ्कार as also other defects, of similar nature come under the general defects described in Ch. VII and do not deserve a separate treatment.

Calcutta University, January, 1936 } Amareswar Thakur