काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

CHAPTER V 139 पदानामन्वितैः पदार्थैरन्वितानामेव संकेतो गृह्यते इति विशिष्टा एव पदार्था वाक्यार्थः । न तु पदार्थानां वैशिष्ट्यम् । by the corresponding generic character (a notion of the particular being impossible without that of the corrrespond- ing universal); and this for the simple reason that those word-meanings that are inter-related are always of the said character (i. e., the particular over-shadowed by the universal).” According to this view also, the subject of Conven- tion is only such word-meaning as appears in a particular form, but over-shadowed by the corresponding universal; from which it follows that when a word occurs in a sentence, what is denoted by it forms part of the denotation of the sentence as a whole, and as such what it expresses is some- thing that is very much restricted to an extremely specific form (in which it is correlated to the other words of the particular sentence) and this very specific form which is expressed by the word, not being the subject of convention (which appertains to particulars only as overshadowed by universals), cannot be regarded as directly ‘denoted’ by the word. And thus when the ordinary meaning of a word also cannot be ‘denoted’ by it, it is a far cry to what we hold to be the objects of ‘suggestion,’ which are totally different from the direct meaning of the words employed;—e. g., in the verse ‘The Sandal paint over thy breasts is entirely rubbed of...thou hast not gone to that wretched man,’ what is ‘suggested’ is that the person addressed has gone to the man, while the direct meaning of the words is quite the opposite. Thus it is found that—(a) according to the ‘Abhi- hitānvayavāda’, what is ‘denoted’ by the word is some-