काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

486 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA उद्ययौ दीर्घिकागर्भान्मुकुलं मेचकोत्पलम् । नारीलोचनचातुर्यशङ्कासंकुचितंय था ॥५९९॥ उत्प्रेक्षितमपि तात्त्विकेन रूपेण परिवर्जितत्वात् निरूपाख्य- प्रख्यम् । तत्समर्थनाय यत् अर्थान्तरन्यासोपादानम् तत् आलेख्य- मिव गगनतलेऽत्यन्तमसमीचीनमिति निर्विषयत्वमेतस्य । अनुचि- तार्थतैव दोषः । यथा assumption can be expressed by only such things as ‘dhruva’ ‘iva’ and so forth,—and not such terms as ‘yathā’ and the like ; as all that the latter, by itself, signifies is the presence of a common property, which is not in- tended to be expressed in Poetical Fancy. Hence when- ever the assumption involved in this latter figure is ex- pressed by ‘yathā’ or some such word, it involves the defect of ‘In-expressiveness’. For example, in the following verse,— ‘The tender lotus-bud rose from amidst the tank,— shut up as being afraid of the superior elegance of the girl’s eyes’;—[where the term ‘yathā’, ‘as’, is not ex- pressive of the idea of ‘as it were’, which is what the Poetic Fancy requires]. Another defect attributed to the Figure of Poetic Fancy is ‘objectlessness’ (‘nirviṣayatva’), which has been found in those cases of Poetic Fancy where what is imagined (fancied, or assumed) having no real existence, and hence being as good as non-existent,—a ‘Transition’ is put forward for its justification, and this ‘Transition’ is as improper as painting in the sky.—But here also the defect is that of ‘Improper Signification’. For example, in the following verse—