काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

CHAPTER VII 195 यथा अत्रैव श्लोके आद्यपादयोर्व्यत्यासे । द्वयोरुपादाने तु निरा- काङ्क्षत्वं प्रसिद्धम् । अनुपादानेऽपि सामर्थ्यात्क्वचिद्द्वयमपि गम्यते । यथा ये नाम केचिदिह नः प्रथयन्त्यवज्ञां जानन्ति ते किमपि तान् प्रति नैष यत्नः । उत्पत्स्यतेस्ति मम कोपि समानधर्मा कालो ह्ययं निरवधिर्विपुला च पृथ्वी ॥१८९॥ preceding clause, it is always deficient (wanting in essen- tials), if the corresponding ‘tat’ is not actually present ; as for example in the verse just quoted, if we reverse the order of the two clauses [reading ‘militam yadabhirāmatā- dhike sādhu chandramasi puṣkaraiḥ kṛtam’] we find that it gives no sense. (a) In cases where both the pronouns are used, of course, there is nothing wanting, as every one knows ; and (b) in certain cases, even when neither is present, both are implied by the force of the sentence. e. g. (a) ‘Ye nāma kechidiha naḥ prathayantyavajñāṁ Jānanti te kimapi tān prati naiṣa yatnaḥ ; (b) Utpatsyatesti mama kopi samānadharmā Kālo hyayaṁ niravadhirvipulā cha pṛthvī’. ‘Who would deride me in this attempt, know some- thing perhaps ,—for them this effort of mine is not inten- ded ; some one possessed of qualities similar to mine may yet be born,—or he may even be living now,—time is interminable and the earth immense’. Here in the second half both ‘yat’ and ‘tat’ are under- stood, the meaning intended being ‘the person who will be born, for him is this mark of mine meant ’.