काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

144 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA यत्तु 'विषं भक्षय मा चास्य गृहे भुङ्क्थाः' इत्यत्र 'एतद्गृहे न भोक्तव्यम्' इत्यत्र तात्पर्यमिति स एव वाक्यार्थ इति, उच्यते तत्र चकार एकवाक्यतासूचनार्थः न चाख्यातवाक्ययोर्द्वयोरङ्गा- ङ्गिभाव इति विषभक्षणवाक्यस्य सुहृद्वाक्यत्वेनाङ्गता कल्प- नीयेति 'विषभक्षणादपि दुष्टमेतद्गृहे भोजनमिति सर्वथा मास्य गृहे भुङ्क्थाः' इति, उपात्तशब्दार्थे एव तात्पर्यम् । be included in the ‘sense’ or ‘import’ of a certain word, then) the expression ‘the former man is running’ would have to be regarded as having its ‘sense’ applying to the notion of the ‘latter’ also [as the notion of the ‘latter’, is implied by that of the ‘former,’ which is the word pro- nounced]. Then again, it has been urged that in the case of the sentences, ‘Eat poison, and don’t eat in that man’s house,’ the sense is that ‘you should not eat in that man’s house,’ and this is accepted as the meaning of the sentence [though it is only implied and not directly expressed]. But what happens in the case of this sentence is that the conjunctive particle ‘and’ indicates that the two sentences have to be construed together,—and as between the two sentences themselves, there can be no justification, (without sufficient reason) for taking one as subordinate to the other;—but it is found that there is such reason in the shape of the fact that the admonition coming from a friend, the first sentence ‘Eat poison’ (being incompatible, in its direct meaning) must be regarded as subordinate to the second one,—the meaning of the two sentences taken together being ‘Eating in that man’s house is worse than eating poison, therefore you should never eat in his house.’ And when we accept this to be the sense or im- port of the sentence, it is only what is expressed by the