काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

124 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अविरलकरवालकम्पनैर्भ्रुकुटीतर्जनगर्जनैर्मुहुः । ददृशे तव वैरिणां मदः स गतः क्वापि तवेक्षणे क्षणात् ॥१२०॥ अत्र भावस्य भावप्रशमः । साकं कुरङ्गकदृशा मधुपानलीलां कर्तुं सुहृद्भिरपि वैरिणि ते प्रवृत्ते । अन्याभिधायि तव नाम विभो गृहीतं केनापि तत्र विषमामकरोदवस्थाम् ॥१२१॥ अत्र त्रासोदयः । tion (for the king, on the part of his enemies)—implied in the second half—are ‘ subservient ’ to the (poet's) feeling of veneration for the king. Another example— ‘ The haughtiness of your enemies was seen in the constant brandishing of swords, in the curvature of the eye-brows and in frequent roaring ; but at sight of you, it instantly disappeared’. The ‘ Allayment of the Feeling ’ (of pride) is sub- servient to the (poet's) feeling (of veneration for the king). Another example— ‘ On the occasion of your enemy setting about a drinking revelry in the company of the fawn-eyed girl and his friends,—your name, even though mentioned by some one in another connection, filled him with dis- tress’. Here the ‘ appearance of the feeling of fear ’ (is subservient to the poet’s feeling of veneration for the king).

CHAPTER V 125 असोढा तत्कालोल्लसदसहभावस्य तपसः कथानां विश्रम्भेष्वथ च रसिकः शैलदुहितुः । प्रमोदं वो दिश्यात् कपटबटुवेषापनयने त्वराशैथिल्याभ्यां युगपदभियुक्तः स्मरहरः ॥१२२॥ अत्रावेगधैर्ययोः संधिः ॥ पश्येत्कश्चिच्चल चपल रे का त्वराहं कुमारी हस्तालम्बं वितर ह ह हा व्युत्क्रमः क्वासि यासि । इत्थं पृथ्वीपरिवृढ भवद्विद्विषोरण्यवृत्तेः कन्या कंचित् फलकिसलयान्याददानाभिधत्ते ॥१२३॥ Another example— ‘May the Destroyer of Kāma (Śiva) ordain your happiness,—He who, being unable to bear any longer the zealousness of Pārvatī’s austerities, and fondly grati- fied at her confidently loving manner of address, was seized simultaneously by both precipitancy and languor’. Here we have the ‘Conjunction’ of the feelings of Flurry and Equanimity, (which is ‘subordinate’ to the poet’s feeling of devotion to the king). Another example— ‘“O impetuous one! Some one might be looking! Move aside.—What is the hurry?—I a virgin!—Offer me the support of your arms.—Ah! Ah! this perverted order of things!—Where are you? Whither are you going?”—O Lord of the earth, thus does the daughter of your enemy who has retired to the forest address some man while she is collecting fruits and leaves’. Here there is the ‘Commixture’ of the feelings of Apprehension (‘some one might be looking’), Calmness (‘what is the hurry?’), Remembrance (‘I, a virgin’), Lan-

126 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अत्र शङ्कासूयाधृतिस्मृतिश्रमदैन्यविबोधौत्सुक्यानां शबलता । एते च रसवदाद्यलंकाराः । यद्यपि भावोदयभावसंधिभाव- शबलत्वानि नालंकारतया उक्तानि तथापि कश्चित् ब्रूयादि- त्येवमुक्तम् । यद्यपि स नास्ति कश्चिद्विषयः यत्र ध्वनिगुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्ययोः स्वप्रभेदादिभिः सह संकरः संसृष्टिर्वा नास्ति तथापि प्राधान्येन व्यपदेशा भवन्तीति क्वचित्केनचिद्व्यवहारः । guor (‘offer me the support of your arms’), Depression (‘Ah, ah’), Determination (‘what a perverted order of things’), and Longing (‘whither are you going?’),— (which is ‘subordinate’ to the poet’s regard for the king). These [(1) Passion, (2) Feeling, (3) Aberration of Passion, (4) Aberration of Feeling, (5) Manifestation of Feeling, (6) Conjunction of Feeling and (7) Commixture of Feeling—as ‘subordinate’ to another Passion or Feel- ing] are what are known as the Figures of Speech [called (1) the Sentimental, (2) the Agreeable, (3) the Forcible, (4) the Quiescent, (5) Manifested Feeling, (6) Conjunct Feeling and (7) Commingled Feeling respectively]. Though as a matter of fact, ‘Manifested Feeling’, ‘Conjunct Feeling’ and ‘Commingled Feeling’ (the last three of those just mentioned) have nowhere been spoken of as ‘Figures’, yet, we have made the above assertion (including these also) in view of the possibility of some one describing them as such. Though there is no single case where there is no commixture of both ‘Suggestive Poetry’ and ‘Poetry of Subordinate Suggestion’ and their respective varieties— where one or the other is the more prominent or where both are of equal importance [and hence no example can

CHAPTER V 127 जनस्थाने भ्रान्तं कनकमृगतृष्णान्धितधिया वचो वैदेहीति प्रतिपदमुदश्रु प्रलपितम् । कृतालंकाभर्तुर्वदनपरिपाटीषुघटना मयाप्तं रामत्वं कुशलवसुता न त्वधिगता ॥१२४॥ अत्र शब्दशक्तिमूलानुरणनरूपो रामेण सहोपमानोपमेय- भावो वाच्याङ्गतां नीतः । be cited as a pure unmixed example of any one kind],—yet we classify the examples as of one or the other, according as one or the other happens to be the prominent factor ; and this is done in accordance with the principle that appellations are applied to things in accordance with what happens to be their most prominent element. [ Example of Suggested Figure subservient to the expressed meaning]— Janasthāne bhrāntaṁ kanakamṛgatṛṣṇāndhitadhiyā Vacho vai-dehīti pratipadamudaśru pralapitam Kṛtā-laṅkābharturvadanaparipāṭīṣughaṭanā Mayāptaṁ rāmatvaṁ kuśalavasutā na tvadhigatā ‘I wandered among men’s haunts [in the Janasthāna for- est], with my mind blinded by a miragic solicitude for gold [by a desire for the golden deer] ;—at every step, with tearful eyes, I said the words “ Please give me ” [“ O Vai- dehī ”) ;—enough attempt was made by me at flattering the meanly rich people [I directed my arrows at the serried heads of the king of Laṅkā] ;—thus though I attained the position of Rāma, yet I did not obtain perfect affluence [the mother of Kuśa and Lava, Sītā].’ Here the similitude between the speaker and Rāma, which is suggested through the force of the reverberating

128 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA आगत्य संप्रति वियोगविसंष्ठुलाङ्गी मम्भोजिनीं क्वचिदपि क्षपितत्रियामः । एतां प्रसादयति पश्य शनैः प्रभाते तन्वङ्गि पादपतनेन सहस्ररश्मिः ॥१२५॥ (२) अत्र नायकवृत्तान्तोऽर्थशक्तिमूलो वस्तुरूपो निरपेक्ष- रविकमलिनीवृत्तान्ताध्यारोपेणैव स्थितः ॥ वाच्यसिद्ध्यङ्गं यथा भ्रममर्तिमलसहृदयतां प्रलयं मूर्च्छा तमः शरीरसादम् । मरणं च जलदभुजगर्जं प्रसह्य कुरुते विषं वियोगिनीनाम् ॥१२६॥ echo of the words (with double meanings), has been made subservient to the expressed meaning. [Since all that the suggested similitude does is to justify the assertion 'I have attained the position of Rāma'.] [Example of the 'Suggestion of Fact' being made subservient to the expressed meaning]. ' See, O delicate lady, the Sun, having passed the night somewhere else, is propitiating the Lotus withered through separation from him, by falling at her feet.' Here the fact of the lover (propitiating his lady-love),— which is suggested by the force of the meaning of the word,—appears merely as an imposition upon (as lending additional charm to) the entirely different fact of the Lotus (blooming on the contact of the Sun's rays). (3) Example of ' suggestion subservient to the accom- plishment of the expressed meaning,'— ' The rain (poison) emanating from the serpent-like clouds forcibly brings about, in ladies separated from

CHAPTER V 129 अत्र हालाहलं व्यङ्ग्यं भुजगरूपस्य वाच्यस्य सिद्धिकृत् । यथा वा गच्छाम्यच्युत दर्शनेन भवतः किं तृप्तिरुत्पद्यते किं त्वेवं विजनस्थयोर्हतजनः संभावयत्यन्यथा । इत्यामन्त्रणभङ्गिसूचितवृथावस्थानखेदालसाम् आश्लिष्यन् पुलकोत्कराञ्चिततनुर्गोपीं हरिः पातु वः ।।१२७।। (३) अत्राच्युतादिपदव्यङ्ग्यमामन्त्रणेत्यादिवाच्यस्य । एतच्चैकत्र एकवक्तृगतत्वेन अपरत्र भिन्नवक्तृगतत्वेनेत्य- नयोर्भेदः ॥ अस्फुटं यथा their lovers, vertigo, apathy, lassitude, insensibility, coma, stupefaction, physical prostration and death.’ Here the suggestion of ‘poison’ only serves to com- plete the expressed meaning (serpent) of the term ‘bhujaga.’ Another example— “O Achyuta (Immovable One), I am going ; is any satisfaction to be obtained from merely looking at you ? In fact, if we remain together in this solitary place, wret- ched people will think quite otherwise ;”—after the cow- girl signified her depression and languor due to her futile stay by the special form of address, Kṛṣṇa embraced her and the hairs on his body were thrilled ;—may Kṛṣṇa, in this condition, protect you.’ Here the suggestion (of unperturbability) made by the term ‘achyuta’ (‘looking on’ and so forth) only serves to help in the fulfilment of what is expressed by the expression “having signified....form of address.” The difference between the two examples just cited lies in the fact that the former consists of the speech 9

130 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अदृष्टे दर्शनोत्कण्ठा दृष्टे विच्छेदभीरुता । नादृष्टेन न दृष्टेन भवता लभ्यते सुखम् ।।१२८।। (४) अत्रादृष्टो यथा न भवसि वियोगभयं च यथा नोत्पद्यते तथा कुर्या इति क्लिष्टम् ।। संदिग्धप्राधान्यं यथा हरस्तु किंचित्परिवृत्तधैर्यश्चन्द्रोदयारम्भ इवाम्बुराशिः । उमामुखे बिम्बफलाधरोष्ठे व्यापारयामास विलोचनानि ।।१२९।।५ अत्र परिचुम्बितुमैच्छदिति किं प्रतीयमानं किं वा विलोचनव्यापारं वाच्यं प्रधानमिति संदेहः ।। of only one speaker (the poet) while the latter consists of the speeches of two persons (the poet and the cow- girl). (4) Example of the Abstruse Suggestion. ‘ While you are not seen, there is longing to see you, and when you are seen, there is fear of separation ; there is no comfort either on seeing you or not seeing you.’ What is sugested here is that ‘ you should act in such a way that you may not remain unseen and yet there may be no fear of separation,’—and this is not very clear (abs- truse). (5) Example of the suggestion ‘ of doubtful promi- nence.’— ‘ Śiva, having his equanimity slightly perturbed, like the ocean at the appearance of the moon, directed his eyes towards Pārvatī’s face with bimba-like lips.’ Here it is doubtful whether prominence attaches to the suggested meaning that ‘ he wished to kiss her.’ or to the expressed meaning that ‘ the eyes were turned towards the face.’

तुल्यप्राधान्यं यथा ब्राह्मणातिक्रमत्यागो भवतामेव भूतये । जामदग्न्यस्तथा मित्रमन्यथा दुर्मनायते ॥१३०॥ (६) अत्र जामदग्न्यः सर्वेषां क्षत्रियाणामिव रक्षसां क्षणात् क्षयं करिष्यतीति व्यङ्ग्यस्य वाच्यस्य च समं प्राधान्यम् ॥ काक्वाक्षिप्तं यथा मथ्नामि कौरवशतं समरे न कोपात् दुःशासनस्य रुधिरं न पिबाम्युरस्तः ॥ संचूर्णयामि गदया न सुयोधनोरू संधिं करोतु भवतां नृपतिः पणेन ॥१३१॥ (७) अत्र मथ्नाम्येवेत्यादि व्यङ्ग्यं वाच्यनिषेधसहभावेन स्थितम् ॥

132 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA असुन्दरं यथा वाणीरकुञ्जउड्डीणसउणिकोलाहलं सुणंतीए । घरकम्मवावडाए बहुए सीअन्ति अंगाइं ॥१३२॥ (८) अत्र दत्तसंकेतः कश्चिल्लतागहनं प्रविष्ट इति व्यङ्ग्यात् सीदन्त्यङ्गानीति वाच्यं सचमत्कारम् ॥ एषां भेदा यथायोगं वेदितव्याश्च पूर्ववत् ॥ ४६ ॥ यथायोगमिति “व्यज्यन्ते वस्तुमात्रेण यदालंकृतयस्तदा । ध्रुवं ध्वन्यङ्गता तासां काव्यवृत्तेस्तदाश्रयात् ॥” इति ध्वनिकारोक्तदिशा वस्तुमात्रेण यत्रालंकारो व्यज्यते न तत्र गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यत्वम् । (8) Example of the ‘not beautiful’ suggestion— “When she heard the chatter of parrots flying from the Vetasa-bower, on account of her being engaged in her house-hold work, her limbs began to writhe.’ Here the directly expressed meaning—that ‘her limbs are suffering (from her deep longing for her lover)’ is more charming than the suggested meaning (that into the bower has entered a lover with whom she had made an engagement]. The varieties of these (eight kinds of Poetry of Sub-ordinate Suggestion should be understood to be, as far as possible, like those of what has gone before (i. e. Suggestive Poetry).—(46). ‘As far as possible.’—This has been added with a view to the fact that there is no ‘subordination of suggestion’ in a case where a Figure is manifested by a mere Fact;—as has been declared by the author of the Dhvani in the following passage—“Whenever Figures

CHAPTER V 133 सालङ्कारैर्ध्वनेस्तैश्च योगः ] संसृष्ट्यलङ्कारैः । सालंकारैरिति तैरेवालंकारैः अलंकारयुक्तैश्च तैः। तदुक्तं ध्वनिकृता “स गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यैः सालंकारैः सह प्रभेदैः स्वैः। संकरसंसृष्टिभ्यां पुनरप्युद्द्योतते बहुधा ॥” इति । अन्योन्ययोगादेवं स्याद्भेदसंख्यातिभूयसी ॥ ४७ ॥ of Speech are suggested by a mere Fact, they only serve the purpose of making it regarded as ‘Suggestive Poetry’; because the existence of poetry rests upon those Figures (which, therefore, cannot be regarded as ‘Subor- dinate’ to the expressed meaning). 46. There is a combination of ‘Suggestive Poetry, with these (eight varieties of Poetry of Subordinate Suggestion) (a) as transformed into ‘Figures’ (the ‘sentimental,’ the ‘agreeable’ and so forth), and also (b) as accompanied (embellished) by (other) Figures (directly expressed),—this combination being per subserviency as also per equality. The term ‘sālaṅkāraiḥ’ is to be expounded as ‘alaṅkāraiḥ’—‘with these as themselves transformed into, assuming the character of, Figures of speech,’— and ‘alaṅkārayuktaiḥ,’ ‘with those as embellished by other figures of speech.’ The following declaration has been made by the author of the Dhvani :— ‘This (Suggestive Poetry),—combining, per sub- serviency and per equality, with its own varieties, as also with the varieties of Poetry of Subordinate Suggestion, along with the Figure of Speech,—appears in many forms’. Thus by mutual combination the number of its varieties becomes very large.—(47).

134 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA एवमनेन प्रकारेण अवान्तरभेदगणनेतिप्रभूततरा गणना । तथाहि—शृङ्गारस्यैव भेदप्रभेदगणनायामानन्त्यम् । का गणना तु सर्वेषाम् । संकलनेन पुनरस्य ध्वनेस्त्रयो भेदाः । व्यङ्ग्यस्य त्रिरूपत्वात् । तथाहि—किंचिद्वाच्यतां सहते किंचित्त्वन्यथा । तत्र वाच्यतासहम् अविचित्रं विचित्रं चेति । अविचित्रं वस्तुमात्रं विचित्रं त्वलंकार- रूपम् । यद्यपि प्राधान्येन तदलंकार्यं तथापि ब्राह्मणश्रमण- न्यायेन तथोच्यते । रसादिलक्षणस्त्वर्थः स्वप्नेपि न वाच्यः । ‘Thus’,—in the manner described,—by counting all the sub-divisions,—the number becomes very large; e. g. the varieties of the Erotic Passion itself are endless,— not to speak of others. Thus, briefly, of Suggestive Poetry there are three varieties, there being three kinds of what is suggested (according as it happens to be a Fact or a Figure or Passion, Feeling and the rest);—of these again, some (i. e. Figure and Fact) are such as can be expressed also, while others (e. g. Passion and the rest) can never be expressed. Of those that can be also expressed, some are fanciful, while others are not fanciful; what is not fanciful is the mere fact, and what is fanciful is the Figure.—Though, in this connection the Figure (when suggested) is really what is itself embellished (and hence cannot be called a ‘figure’, ‘embellishment,’ in the exact sense of the term), yet it is called by the name of ‘figure,’ on the same principle as the Brāhmaṇa, who has become a mendicant and thereby has ceased to be a real Brāhmaṇa, is still called a ‘Brāhmaṇa’ in view of his having formerly been a Brāhmaṇa. Passion and the rest, however, cannot be regarded even in a dream to

CHAPTER V 135 स हि रसादिशब्देन शृङ्गारादिशब्देन वाभिधीयेत । न चाभि- धीयते तत्प्रयोगेपि विभावाद्यप्रयोगे तस्याप्रतिपत्तेस्तदप्रयोगेपि विभावादिप्रयोगे तस्य प्रतिपत्तेश्चेत्यन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां विभा- वाद्यभिधानद्वारेणैव प्रतीयते इति निश्चीयते । तेनासौ व्यङ्ग्य एव । मुख्यार्थबाधाद्यभावान्न पुनर्लक्षणीयः । be directly expressed. If these were expressed, they could be so, either by the (generic) words ‘rasa’ (Passion) and the rest, or by the (particular) words ‘śṛṅgāra’ (erotic) and the rest ; as a matter of fact they are not so expressed ; as is clear from the facts (a) that even though these words are used, the Passion and the rest are not cognised, so long as the excitants (ensuants and variants) are not mentioned, and (b) that even when those words are not used, if the excitants (ensuants and variants) are mentioned, there is due cognition of Passion and the rest ; and from these two premises—both affir- mative and negative—it follows that what brings about the cognition of these latter is the mention of the excitants (ensuants and variants) (and not any verbal expressions at all). It is for this reason that Passion and the rest can be only suggested, and not even indicated, because the necessary conditions of Indication,—such as incompatibility of the primary meaning and so forth—are wanting. Then again, it has been already explained how there can be no ‘Indica- tion’ without that kind of ‘suggestion of Fact in which the expressed meaning is either transformed into some- thing else or entirely ignored. In that ‘suggestion’ which is based upon the force of the words, the denota- tion itself being restricted, any other that may be denoted,

136 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्ययोरत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्ययोर्वस्तुमात्ररूपं व्यङ्ग्यं विना लक्षणैव न भवतीति प्राक् प्रतिपादितम्। शब्दशक्तिमूले तु अभिधाया नियन्त्रणेनानभिधेयस्यार्थान्तरस्य तेन सहोपमा- देरलंकारस्य च निर्विवादं व्यङ्ग्यत्वम्। अर्थशक्तिमूलेपि विशेषे संकेत: कर्तुं न युज्यते इति सामान्यरूपाणां पदार्थानामाकाङ्क्षा-संनिधि-योग्यतावशात्पर- स्परसंसर्गो यत्रापदार्थोपि विशेषरूपो वाक्यार्थस्तत्राभिहितान्वय- वादे का वार्ता व्यङ्ग्यस्याभिधेयतायाम्। as also the Simile or any other figure of speech that may be perceptible, must doubtless be regarded as ‘suggest- ted’. In cases of ‘suggestion’ based upon the force of mean- ing also, how can there be any possibility of the ‘suggest- ted’ meaning being regarded as ‘expressed’ or ‘deno- ted’, when,—in accordance with the ‘Abhihitānvaya’ theory—what is expressed by a sentence is the mutual relationship among the denotation of the component words based upon their mutual need, proximity and capability ; and as such it must be confined to particular individuals, and hence cannot be ‘denoted’ by any single word, whose denotation must always pertain to Universals only, for the simple reason that convention, upon which alone ‘deno- tation’ is based, can never pertain to particular individuals. [‘Suggestion’ being shown to be inevitable according to the Bhāṭṭa theory of ‘Abhihitānvaya,’ the author proceeds to show that it must be accepted under the Prābhākara theory of ‘Anvitābhidhāna’ also ; and for this purpose he sets forth this latter theory, as bearing upon the matter under consideration.]

CHAPTER V 137 यप्याहुः “शब्दवृद्धाभिधेयांश्च प्रत्यक्षेणात्र पश्यति । श्रोतुश्च प्रतिपन्नत्वमनुमानेन चेष्टया ।। १ ।। अन्यथानुपपत्त्या तु बोधेच्छक्तिं द्वयात्मिकाम् । अर्थापत्त्यावबोधेत संबन्धं त्रिप्रमाणकम् ।। २ ।। इति प्रतिपादितदिशा देवदत्त गामानय इत्याद्युत्तमवृद्धवाक्य- प्रयोगाद्देशाद्देशान्तरं सास्नादिमन्तमर्थं मध्यमवृद्धे नयति सति अनेनास्माद्वाक्यादेवंविधोर्थः प्रतिपन्नः इति तच्चेष्टयानुमाय The upholders of the ‘Anvitābhidhāna’ theory have offered the following explanation of the process of denotation:—(a) “The word, the experienced elderly man uttering it, and the object denoted by the word, these three things the young child perceives by his senses,—(b) that the young man to whom the word has been addressed has understood its meaning, he deduces by inference from the action of the young man,—(c) and the two-fold potency (of the word to denote and of the object to be denoted) he recognises by means of presumption based upon ‘apparent inexplicability;’—thus the denotative relationship (of the word and its meaning) is cognised through three means of cognition.”— According to this account what happens is that—(a) the elder person utters the words ‘bring the cow,’—(b) upon which the younger person (to whom the words are add- ressed) is found to bring from one place to another an animal with the dewlap and other distinguishing features,— (c) the youngest person (the child) then deduces from this action that ‘such and such a meaning has been under- stood by the younger person from the words that have been uttered’;—(d) thus he comes to recognise the de-

138 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA तयोरखण्डवाक्यवाक्यार्थयोरर्थापत्त्या वाच्यवाचकभावलक्षणं संबन्धमवधार्य बालस्तत्र व्युत्पद्यते । परतः चैत्र गामानय देवदत्त अश्वमानय देवदत्त गां नय इत्यादिवाक्यप्रयोगे तस्य तस्य शब्दस्य तं तमर्थमवधारयतीति अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां प्रवृत्ति- निवृत्तिकारि वाक्यमेव प्रयोगयोग्यमिति वाक्यस्थितानामेव notative relationship subsisting between the said sentence and its meaning as one impartible whole, and thereby he himself comes to comprehend its signification ;—(e) after sometimes he hears such sentences as ‘ Chaitra, bring the cow,’ ‘ Devadatta, bring the horse.’ ‘ Devadatta, take away the cow,’ and so forth, and thence deduces the mean- ing of the several words and expressions. Thus it is clear from positive as well as negative concomitance that what is really significant and hence capable of being used is the sentence only ; so that the denotative convention pertaining to each individual word is cognised only when it occurs in a sentence, and is connected with other words ; so that the meaning of the sentence consists only in the denotations of its component words as related to one another ; and it is not that each word expresses its own meaning and then these several meanings become correlated (through proximity etc.) ; though it is true that individual words when found to be used in other sentences become recognised as the same (as the one that was heard for the first time). Thus what forms the subject of denotative convention is the denotation of a single word only as correlated to the denotation of other words ; thus though, when the said convention comes to be com- prehended, it is comprehended in a particular form, yet this particular form is one that is always overshadowed

CHAPTER V 139 पदानामन्वितैः पदार्थैरन्वितानामेव संकेतो गृह्यते इति विशिष्टा एव पदार्था वाक्यार्थः । न तु पदार्थानां वैशिष्ट्यम् । by the corresponding generic character (a notion of the particular being impossible without that of the corrrespond- ing universal); and this for the simple reason that those word-meanings that are inter-related are always of the said character (i. e., the particular over-shadowed by the universal).” According to this view also, the subject of Conven- tion is only such word-meaning as appears in a particular form, but over-shadowed by the corresponding universal; from which it follows that when a word occurs in a sentence, what is denoted by it forms part of the denotation of the sentence as a whole, and as such what it expresses is some- thing that is very much restricted to an extremely specific form (in which it is correlated to the other words of the particular sentence) and this very specific form which is expressed by the word, not being the subject of convention (which appertains to particulars only as overshadowed by universals), cannot be regarded as directly ‘denoted’ by the word. And thus when the ordinary meaning of a word also cannot be ‘denoted’ by it, it is a far cry to what we hold to be the objects of ‘suggestion,’ which are totally different from the direct meaning of the words employed;—e. g., in the verse ‘The Sandal paint over thy breasts is entirely rubbed of...thou hast not gone to that wretched man,’ what is ‘suggested’ is that the person addressed has gone to the man, while the direct meaning of the words is quite the opposite. Thus it is found that—(a) according to the ‘Abhi- hitānvayavāda’, what is ‘denoted’ by the word is some-

140 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA यद्यपि वाक्यान्तरप्रयुज्यमानान्यपि प्रत्यभिज्ञाप्रत्ययेन तान्येवैतानि पदानि निश्चीयन्त इति पदार्थान्तरमात्रेणान्वितः पदार्थः संकेतगोचरः । तथापि सामान्यावच्छादितो विशेष- रूप एवासौ प्रतिपद्यते व्यतिषक्तानां पदार्थानां तथाभूतत्वादि- त्यन्विताभिधानवादिनः । तेषामपि मते सामान्यविशेषरूपः पदार्थः संकेतविषय इत्यतिविशेषभूतो वाक्यार्थान्तर्गतोऽसंकेतितत्वादवाच्य एव यत्र पदार्थः प्रतिपद्यते तत्र दूरे अर्थान्तरभूतस्य निःशेषच्युतेत्यादौ विध्यादेश्चर्चा । अन्वितोऽर्थोऽभिहितान्वये पदार्थान्तरमात्रेणान्वित- स्त्वन्विताभिधाने अन्वितविशेषस्त्ववाच्य एव इत्युभयन- येऽप्यपदार्थ एव वाक्यार्थः । यदप्युच्यते नैमित्तिकानुसारेण निमित्तानि कल्प्यन्ते इति । thing not correlated to anything else, and (b) according to the ‘Anvitābhidhānavāda’, what is ‘denoted’ is some- thing only correlated in a general way with what is ex- pressed by other words ; so that in either case the parti- cular object as related to another particular object is what is never ‘denoted’ ; and hence under both these theories the meaning of the sentence can never be the object of direct verbal ‘denotation’. Some people have urged the following arguments (against the ‘suggestion-theory’)—“In every case causes are inferred from their effects. So that when we find an expression producing a certain idea, we conclude that that expression is possessed of the potency necessary for ex- pressing that idea ; consequently, whether the idea be expressed directly or indirectly, the fact remains that it has been expressed by the word ; and hence every case can be

CHAPTER V 141 तत्र निमित्तत्वं कारकत्वं ज्ञापकत्वं वा शब्दस्य। प्रकाशक- त्वान्न कारकत्वम्। ज्ञापकत्वं तु अज्ञातस्य कथम्। ज्ञातत्वंच संकेतेनैव स चान्वितमात्रे एवं च निमित्तस्य नियतनिमित्तत्वं यावन्न निश्चितं तावन्नैमित्तिकस्य प्रतीतिरेव कथम् इति ‘नैमित्तिकानुसारेण निमित्तानि कल्प्यन्ते इत्यविचारिताभि- धानम्। regarded to be of the word expressing an idea; and there is no ground for making any such distinction as that into ‘expression’, ‘indication’ and ‘suggestion’.” In answer to this we ask—What is meant by the word being the ‘cause’ here? Does it mean that it produces the idea? or that it makes it known? It cannot be said to produce the idea, as what the word does is to give expression to an idea, it can never produce one. As regards its making (the idea) known, how can the power to do this belong to what is itself not known or understood? [i. e. So long as the meaning of the word itself has not been understood, it cannot give expression to anything else.] As a matter of fact, the word itself can be understood only through convention; and this convention is (as shown above) only in regard to such words as are correlated to others. Thus then, so long as the precise extent of causal potency of the cause has not been ascertained, how can the cause itself be recognised as such? So that the assertion that ‘causes are inferred from their effects’ is extremely ill-conceived. Others again urge the following argument—“The action of the word is like that of an arrow, its reach being prolonged further and further; so that in whatever sense a word may be used, that is the meaning expressed or de- noted by it. Thus then (even in the case of the verse ‘the

142 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA ये त्वभिदधति सोयमिषोरिव दीर्घदीर्घतरो व्यापारः इति यत्परः शब्दः स शब्दार्थः इति विधिरेवात्र वाच्य इति । तेप्यतात्पर्यज्ञास्तात्पर्यवाचोयुक्तेर्देवानांप्रियाः । तथाहि ‘भूतभव्यसमुच्चारणे भूतं भव्यायोपदिश्यते’ इति कारक- पदार्थाः क्रियापदार्थेनान्वीयमानाः प्रधानक्रियानिर्वर्तकस्व- क्रियाभिसंबन्धात् साध्यायमानतां प्राप्नुवन्ति । ततश्चा- दग्धदहनन्यायेन यावदप्राप्तं तावद्विधीयते । यथा ऋत्विक्प्रचरणे sandal-paint has been entirely ...... thou hast not gone to that wretched man ’), the affirmation (‘thou hast gone’,— which has been held to be the suggested meaning) is what is really only expressed or denoted by it.” These ignorant people also do not understand what is meant by a word being ‘used in a certain sense’. It is a well-established principle that ‘when an accomplished entity (i. e., substance) is spoken of along with what is to be accomplished (i. e. an action), the former is mentioned as subserving the purposes of the latter ; and according to this principle, when substantives become correlated to verbs (e. g. in the expression ‘bring the cow ’), they them- selves acquire the character of ‘what is to be accompli- shed,’ inasmuch as they have to be the substratum of their own action of walking which helps in the accomplishment of the principal action (of bringing) [as the bringing of the cow can be accomplished only when she herself does the walking] ; and in this case (where the accomplished entity, cow, is tainted with the character of what is to be accom- plished, i. e. its walking), the direction in question (‘bring the cow ’) involves the injunction or predication of that factor alone which is not already accomplished. For example in the case of the sentence—‘The red-turbaned

प्रमाणान्तरात् सिद्धे “लोहितोष्णीषा ऋत्विजः प्रचरन्ति” इत्यत्र लोहितोष्णीषत्वमात्रं विधेयं हवनस्यान्यतः सिद्धेः “दध्ना जुहोति” इत्यादौ दध्यादेः करणत्वमात्रं विधेयम् ॥ क्वचिदुभयविधिः क्वचित्त्रिविधिरपि यथा ‘रक्तं पटं वयः’ इत्यादौ एकविधिर्द्विविधिस्त्रिविधिर्वा । ततश्च ‘यदेव विधेयं तत्रैव तात्पर्यम्’ इत्युपात्तस्यैव शब्दस्यार्थे तात्पर्यं न तु प्रतीतमात्रे एवं हि ‘पूर्वो धावति’ इत्यादावपराद्यथपि क्वचित्ता- त्पर्यं स्यात् ।