काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

338 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA स्तोकेनोन्नतिमायाति स्तोकेनायात्यधोगतिम् । अहो सुसदृशी वृत्तिस्तुलाकोटेः खलस्य च ॥३७८॥ न चायमुपमाप्रतिभोत्पत्तिहेतुः श्लेषः अपि तु श्लेषप्रति- भोत्पत्तिहेतुरुपमा । तथाहि—यथा ‘कमलमिव मुखं मनोज्ञमेतत्कचतितराम्’ इत्यादौ गुणसाम्ये क्रियासाम्ये उभयसाम्ये वा उपमा । तथा ‘सकलकलं पुरमेत- ज्जातं संप्रति सुधांशुबिम्बमिव’ इत्यादौ शब्दमात्रसाम्येऽपि सा युक्तैव । तथा ह्युक्तं रुद्रटेन as ‘ideal’, where the pun remains unaffected even when the words are changed ; as is the case in the verse— ‘Stokenonnatimāyāti stokenāyātyadhogatim aho susadṛśī vṛttistulākoṭeḥ khalasya cha’] [‘Rising with little and falling with little,—the character of the wicked is exactly like that of the balance-beam’]— [where the Pun remains unaffected even when other synonyms are substituted for the words ‘stokena’, ‘unnatim’ and ‘adhogatim’.] Nor would it be right to regard the instance cited above (‘svayañcha pallavā &c.’, stanza No. 377.) as only serving the purpose of indicating the Semblance of a Simile [as has been held by the objector], for in reality it is the Simile (the similitude between ‘Gaurī’s hands’ and ‘Morn ’) that serves the purpose of indicating the Semblance of the Pun. [It will not be right to urge that “the similitude between ‘Gaurī’s hands’ and the ‘Morn’ resting merely on the fact of the verbal form of certain epithets being applicable to both, it can not be a case of Simile” ; because] even such instances as ‘Sakalakalaṁ purametajjātaṁ saṁprati sudhāṁśubimbamiva’ [‘This city has become sakalakala, full of humming voices, and hence resembles the disc of the Moon which is sakalakala, complete with all its