काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

482 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA कालपुरुषविध्यादिभेदेपि न तथा प्रतीतिरस्खलितरूपतया विश्रान्तिमासादयतीत्यसावपि भग्नप्रक्रमतयैव व्याप्तः। यथा अतिथिं नाम काकुत्स्थात् पुत्रमाप कुमुद्वती । पश्चिमाद् यामिनीयामात् प्रसादमिव चेतना ॥५९४॥ अत्र चेतना प्रसादमाप्नोति न पुनरापेति कालभेदः । प्रत्यग्रमज्जनविशेषविविक्तमूर्तिः कौसुम्भरागरुचिरस्फुरदंशुकान्ताः । विभ्राजसे मकरकेतनमर्चयन्ती बालप्रबालविटपप्रभवा लतेव ॥५९५॥ Diversity in Tense, Person, and the Imperative and other endings interferes with the clear comprehension of the idea ; so that this also would be included under ‘ Broken Uniformity ’. For example, in the passage— ‘ Atithiṁ nāma kākutsthāt putramāpa kumudvatī, pashchimād yāminīyāmāt prasādamiva chetanā ’—‘ Kumudvatī obtained from Kākutstha, the son named ‘ Atithi ’—just as Intellect obtains enlightenment from the last quarter of the night ’,— where the verb as applying to the Intellect should be in the present tense—‘ āpnoti ’,—and not in the past, ‘ āpa ’ ; hence here we have diversity of tense (which mars the clear comprehension of the Simile). And in the following passage— ‘ Pratyagramajjanaviśeṣaviviktamūrtiḥ kausumbharāgaruchirasphuradamshukāntā vibhrājase makaraketanamarchayantī bālaprabālaviṭapaprabhavā lateva ’, ‘ Having the body brightened by a fresh bath and clothed in a dress coloured red with Kusumbha, while thou art worshipping the Love-god, thou shinest like a creeper growing out of the branch of a tree with fresh leaves ’,—the proper verb with ‘ latā ’ would have been ‘ vibhrājate ’, in the third person ; and as this would