काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

20 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA नाभिधा गच्छेत् क्षीणशक्तिर्विशेषणे" इति न्यायादित्युपादान- लक्षणा तु नोदाहर्तव्या । न ह्यत्र प्रयोजनमस्ति न वा रूढि- रियम् । व्यक्त्यविनाभावित्वात्तु जात्या व्यक्तिराक्षिप्यते । यथा क्रियतामित्यत्र कर्ता । कुर्वित्यत्र कर्म । प्रविश पिण्डी- मित्यादौ गृहं भक्षयेत्यादि च । case, is the community), is unable to proceed to the qualified (which is the Individual).' This however is not a right example of 'inclusive' indication ; because in this case, there is neither any 'purpose' (served by the indirect implication, which could not be got by direct denotation), nor any 'usage' (and these alone have been declared to be the basis for indirect implication). What really happens in the case cited is that the individual is implied by the community by reason of their invariable concomitance ; just as there is in the case of the imperative passive form 'kriyatām', where the agent is implied by reason of his being invariably concomitant with an action,—or in that of the imperative word 'kuru', the object is implied by reason of its being inseparable from every transitive verb,—or in the case of the word 'praviśa,' 'enter,' which implies the 'house' to be entered, as what is entered is inseparable from the act of entering,—or in the case of the word 'piṇḍīm' 'cake' (in the accusative), some such verb as 'eat' is implied, as without some such transitive verb, there could be no object. The expression 'fat Devadatta eats not during the day' as implying his nocturnal feeding has been regarded by some people as an example of 'Indication'; but in this case the nocturnal feeding is not 'indicated' by the words