काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

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 ।

144 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA यत्तु 'विषं भक्षय मा चास्य गृहे भुङ्क्थाः' इत्यत्र 'एतद्गृहे न भोक्तव्यम्' इत्यत्र तात्पर्यमिति स एव वाक्यार्थ इति, उच्यते तत्र चकार एकवाक्यतासूचनार्थः न चाख्यातवाक्ययोर्द्वयोरङ्गा- ङ्गिभाव इति विषभक्षणवाक्यस्य सुहृद्वाक्यत्वेनाङ्गता कल्प- नीयेति 'विषभक्षणादपि दुष्टमेतद्गृहे भोजनमिति सर्वथा मास्य गृहे भुङ्क्थाः' इति, उपात्तशब्दार्थे एव तात्पर्यम् । be included in the ‘sense’ or ‘import’ of a certain word, then) the expression ‘the former man is running’ would have to be regarded as having its ‘sense’ applying to the notion of the ‘latter’ also [as the notion of the ‘latter’, is implied by that of the ‘former,’ which is the word pro- nounced]. Then again, it has been urged that in the case of the sentences, ‘Eat poison, and don’t eat in that man’s house,’ the sense is that ‘you should not eat in that man’s house,’ and this is accepted as the meaning of the sentence [though it is only implied and not directly expressed]. But what happens in the case of this sentence is that the conjunctive particle ‘and’ indicates that the two sentences have to be construed together,—and as between the two sentences themselves, there can be no justification, (without sufficient reason) for taking one as subordinate to the other;—but it is found that there is such reason in the shape of the fact that the admonition coming from a friend, the first sentence ‘Eat poison’ (being incompatible, in its direct meaning) must be regarded as subordinate to the second one,—the meaning of the two sentences taken together being ‘Eating in that man’s house is worse than eating poison, therefore you should never eat in his house.’ And when we accept this to be the sense or im- port of the sentence, it is only what is expressed by the

CHAPTER V 145 यदि शब्दश्रुतेरनन्तरं यावानर्थो लभ्यते तावति शब्दस्या- भिधैव व्यापारः ततः कथं 'ब्राह्मण पुत्रस्ते जातः ब्राह्मण कन्या ते गर्भिणी' इत्यादौ हर्षशोकादीनामपि न वाच्यत्वम् । कस्माच्च लक्षणा लक्षणीयेऽप्यर्थे दीर्घदीर्घतराभिधाव्यापारेणैव प्रतीतिसिद्धेः। किमिति च श्रुतिलिङ्गवाक्यप्रकरणस्थानसमाख्यानां पूर्वपूर्वबली- यस्त्वम् इत्यन्विताभिधानवादेपि विधेरपि सिद्धं व्यङ्ग्यत्वम् ।। words of the sentence itself (by Indication, if not by direct Denotation). [The distinction between such 'Indication' and the 'Suggestion' under dispute is that the indicated meaning is apprehended immediately from the words themselves, while what is suggested comes to be grasped some time after the direct denoted meaning has been comprehended]. Further, if we were to accept the view that in regard to anything and everything that happens to be perceived on the hearing of a certain word, the action of the word is always 'Denotation' only,—then, in the case of the words 'O Brāhmaṇa, a son has been born to you—and your unmarried daughter is enciente'—why should not joy and dejection that become manifested on the face of the man to whom they are addressed be regarded as the mean- ing of the words? 'Why too, in that case, admit of 'Indication' either (as a Secondary Verbal process) ? For in the case of 'Indication' also, the gradually extending reach of 'Denotation' itself could account for the desired signification.—Why again should there be any gradually descending authority attaching to 'Direct Vedic Declara- tion', 'Indicative Power', 'Syntactical Connection', 'Con- text', 'Position' and 'Name' (as the means of ascertain- ing what accessory is subservient to what sacrificial act) ? From all this it follows that under the theory of the 'Anvitābhidhāna' also, 'the affirmation (implied by the 10

146 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA किं च 'कुरु रुचिम्' इति पदयोर्वैपरीत्ये काव्यान्तर्वर्तिनि कथं दुष्टत्वम् । न ह्यत्रासभ्योऽर्थः पदार्थान्तरैरन्वितः इत्यनभिधेय एवेति एवमादि अपरित्याज्यं स्यात् । यदि च वाच्यवाचकत्वव्यतिरेकेण व्यङ्ग्यव्यञ्जकभावो नाभ्युपेयते तदासाधुत्वादीनां नित्यदोषत्वं कष्टत्वादीनामनित्य- verse ‘ The sandal paint......thou hast not gone to the wretched man ’) must be regarded as the object of sugges- tion.’ Further, in the case of the expression ‘ kuru ruchim ’ (‘ have the pleasure ’), it has been held that if in a poem, the order of the two words is inverted, and we have the form ‘ ruchinkuru ’, it becomes defective [by reason of the unseemly suggestion by the word ‘ chinku,’ which would be heard in the middle of the said expression, and which is the name of a private part of the female body] ;—now why should the said expression be defective ? [Even though a particular sound-combination may have an unseemly significance, yet] the unseemly meaning is not correlated to any other words of the expression ; and not being so correlated, it would be as good as not denoted (according to the view that there is no other verbal signification ex- cept ‘ denotation ’ and the denotation of a word must always be correlated to the denotation of other words) ; and thus there would be no ground for avoiding the use of such expressions as the one noted above (which are to be avoided only on account of the unseemly meaning suggested by the particular sound-combination). Then again, if the suggestive process be not accepted as distinct from the denotative process, it would be im-

CHAPTER V 147 दोषत्वमिति विभागकरणमनुपपन्नं स्यात् । न चानुपपन्नं सर्वस्यैव विभक्ततया प्रतिभासात् । वाच्यवाचकभावव्यतिरेकेण व्यङ्ग्यव्यञ्जकताश्रयणे तु व्यङ्ग्यस्य बहुविधत्वात् क्वचिदेव कस्यचिदेवौचित्येनोपपद्यत एव विभागव्यवस्था ॥ ‘द्वयं गतं संप्रति शोचनीयतां समागमप्रार्थनया कपालिनः ।' possible to make any such distinction among ‘Defects’ as that ‘grammatical mistake’ and others like it are per- manent defects (always defective), while ‘Harshness ’and the like are impermanent defects (sometimes defective and sometimes not so). [Harshness is regarded as an excellence when occurring in words depicting the Heroic Passion, but a defect in those portraying the Pathetic; and the reason for this lies in the idea that the suggestions made by the harsh sounds are helpful in the delineation of Heroism, but mar the effect of the Pathetic Passion. There is no difference in the denotation or expressed meaning of a word, be its letters harsh or sweet. Hence if denotation were the only verbal process, there could be no ground for regarding the mere sound as either helpful or preju- dicial to the sentiment depicted.] And yet we know that such distinction is not impossible; in fact we find such distinction made by all men. If, on the other hand, the suggestive process is accepted as dis- tinct from the denotative, the suggested meaning of words being manifold, some of these only may be appropriate in a certain instance ; and as such the said distinction (among defects) would be quite permissible. Then again in the line—‘The brilliant digit of the Moon and Thyself (Pārvatī), who art like moon-light to the eyes of people, are the two things that have become pitiable by reason of seeking association with the Holder

148 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA इत्यादौ पिनाक्यादिपदवैलक्षण्येन किमिति कपाल्यादि- पदानां काव्यानुगुणत्वम् । अपि च वाच्योर्थः सर्वान् प्रतिपत्तॄन् प्रति एकरूप एवेति नियतोऽसौ । न हि ‘गतोस्तमर्कः’ इत्यादौ वाच्योर्थः क्वचिदन्यथा भवति । प्रतीयमानस्तु तत्तत्प्रकरणवक्तृप्रतिपत्त्रादिविशेष- सहायतया नानात्वं भजते । तथा च ‘गतोस्तमर्कः’ इत्यतः सपत्नं प्रत्यवस्कन्दानवसर इति अभिसरणमुपक्रम्यतामिति प्राप्तप्रायस्ते प्रेयानिति कर्मकरणात्निवर्तामह इति सांध्यो of the Begging-bowl (Śiva),'—what is that peculiar charm that is added by the use of the particular name 'kapālin' (Holder of the Begging-bowl), in preference to such other names as 'Pinākin' (Holder of the Pināka bow) ? [Both 'Kapālin' and 'Pinākin' are the names of Śiva; so that there is no difference in their denotation; and yet there is a peculiar charm in the use of the former name, which lies in its suggestion of poverty, which heightens the 'pitiable' character spoken of]. Further, the denoted meaning of a word is one and the same for all persons bearing it ; so that it is fixed and uniform ; the denoted or directly expressed meaning of the words 'the sun has set' never varies (is fixed), while its suggested meaning varies with the variation in such accessory conditions as the context, the character of the speaker, the character of the person spoken to, and so forth. For instance, the words 'the sun has set' suggests (1) the idea that 'now is the opportunity to attack the enemy' (when they are addressed by the general to the king) ;— (2) that you should set forth to meet your lover' (when addressed by the confidant to the girl in love),—(3) that 'your lover is just coming' (when addressed by a friend

CHAPTER V 149 विधिरुपक्रम्यतामिति दूरं मा गा इति सुरभयो गृहं प्रवेश्यन्ता- मिति संतापो धुना न भवतीति विक्रेयवस्तूनि संह्रियन्तामिति नागतोद्यापि प्रेयानित्यादिरनवधिर्व्यङ्ग्योऽर्थः तत्र तत्र प्रतिभाति । वाच्यव्यङ्ग्ययोः निःशेषेत्यादौ निषेधविध्यात्मना “मात्सर्यमुत्सार्य विचार्य कार्यमार्याः समर्यादमुदाहरन्तु । सेव्या नितम्बाः किमु भूधराणामुत स्मरस्मेरविलासिनीनाम् ।। १३३” to a girl who is eagerly awaiting the arrival of her lover),— (4) that ‘ we shall rest from our labours ’ (when addressed by one labourer to another),—(5) ‘ let us betake ourselves to our twilight prayers’ (when addressed by one religious student to another),—(6) ‘ don’t go very far ’ (when add- ressed to a way-farer),—(7) ‘ let the cows enter their fold ’ (when addressed to the cowherd),— (8) ‘ we shall not suffer from heat now ’ (when addressed by one way- farer to another),—(9) ‘ let us pack up our merchandise ’ (when addressed by one salesman to another),—(10)‘ my love has not come even to-day ’ (when spoken by an impatient girl waiting for her beloved’s return from a journey) ; thus, in fact, there is no end to the number of suggested meanings. As a matter of fact, the suggested and the expressed mean- ings differ on the following (seven) points :— (1) In point of character:—e. g., (a) in the verse ‘ the sandal-paint is entirely rubbed out ... thou hast not gone to the wretched man ’, the expressed meaning is negative, while the suggested one is affirmative (‘ thou hast gone ’).— (b) Or in the verse—‘ you noble men, give up all partiality and after due consideration say whether one should have

150 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA इत्यादौ संशयशान्तशृङ्गार्यन्तरगतनिश्चयरूपेण, “कथमवनिप दर्पो यन्निशातासिधारा- दलनगलितमूर्ध्ना विद्विषां स्वीकृता श्रीः। ननु तव निहतारेरप्यसौ किं न नीता त्रिदिवमपगताङ्गैर्वल्लभा कीर्तिरेभिः ॥१३४॥” इत्यादौ निन्दास्तुतिवपुषा स्वरूपस्य । पूर्वपश्चाद्भावेन प्रतीतेः कालस्य शब्दाश्रयत्वेन शब्दतदेक- देशतदर्थवर्णसंघटनाश्रयत्वेन च आश्रयस्य शब्दानुशासन- ज्ञानेन प्रकरणादिसहायप्रतिभानैर्मल्यसहितेन तेन चावगम इति recourse to the outskirts of mountains or to the waists of beautiful women smiling with love,’—the expressed meaning is the mere doubt (whether one should have re- course to the one or the other), while what is suggested is the definite assertion, that ‘one should have recourse to women’ (when the speaker or the person addressed is inclined to be erotic),—or that ‘one should retire to the mountains’ (when the persons concerned are of the quietistic temperament).—(c) Or again, in the verse— ‘why should you feel proud of your having appropriated to yourself the property of your enemies, whose heads were cut off by the sharp edge of your sword? When you had killed your enemies, was not your Fame, so loved of you, been taken away to heaven by those enemies, even when they had lost their bodies’;—what is expressed is reproach, while what is suggested is praise. (2) In point of times:—The suggested meaning is comprehended after the expressed meaning. (3) In point of the conveying medium:—The expressed meaning is conveyed by the word, while the suggested meaning may be conveyed by the word, by a part of the

CHAPTER V 151 निमित्तस्य बोद्धृमात्रविदग्धव्यपदेशयोः प्रतीतिमात्रचमत्कृ- त्योश्च करणात् कार्यस्य “गतोस्तमर्कः” इत्यादौ प्रदर्शितनयेन संख्यायाः “कस्स व ण होइ रोसो दट्ठूण पिआइ सव्वणं अहरं । सभमरपडमग्घाइणि वारिअवामे सहसु एण्हि ॥१३५॥” word, by the expressed meaning of the word, by the letters, and by the style. (4) In point of the means (of knowing) :—The expressed meaning is understood with the help of grammatical rules, while the suggested meaning is understood with the help of those as also with that of context and other conditions (described above). (5) In point of their effects :—The expressed meaning brings about a simple comprehension and that also in every one who hears the word, while the suggested meaning brings about a certain charm in the minds of such persons as are entitled to the name of ‘cultured’. (6) In point of number :—As has been found in the case of the expression ‘the sun has set’ (where the expressed meaning is one only and the suggested meanings are ten or more). (7) In point of the person addressed :—In the verse— ‘who will not be annoyed at seeing the lips of his wife bitten ? I warned you not to smell the lotus with the bee inside it !’—while the expressed meaning is conveyed to the girl-friend [who, on appearing before her husband, has her lips bearing the mark of her paramour’s kiss, and feels disconcerted at the husband’s notice of it,] while the suggested meaning (that the mark on the lips of my friend

152 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA इत्यादौ सखीतत्कान्तादिगतत्वेन विषयस्य च भेदेपि यद्येकत्वम् तत् क्वचिदपि नीलपीतादौ भेदो न स्यात् । उक्तं हि “अयमेव हि भेदो भेदहेतुर्वा यद्विरुद्धधर्माध्यासः कारण- भेदश्च” इति । वाचकानामर्थापेक्षा व्यञ्जकानां तु न तदपेक्षत्वमिति न वाचकत्वमेव व्यञ्जकत्वम् । किं च “वाणीरकुडुंगु-”इत्यादौ प्रती- यमानमर्थमभिव्यज्य वाच्यं स्वरूप एव यत्र विश्राम्यति तत्र is one made by the sting of the bee in the lotus, and not by a man’s kiss) is conveyed to the husband. Even when differing in so many points, if the two are to be regarded as one and the same, then there can be no difference at all, even in the case of such things as the blue and the yellow colour and so forth. In fact, it has been declared that—“The difference, or the ground of difference, (between any two things) consists in their having contrary properties and in having different causes” [and both these conditions are fulfilled in the case of the ex- pressed and suggested meanings]. Then again, purely denotative or expressive words require (in the act of denoting their meaning) the aid of an actually existent meaning (fixed by convention), while suggestive words do not stand in need of any such meaning (as suggestion very often lies in mere letters or syllables, which have no meaning at all). For this reason also suggestive- ness cannot be the same as denotativeness. Further, in the verse quoted above—‘Hearing the chattering of parrots in the Vetasa bower etc.,’—where, it has been shown, the expressed meaning rests within itself after having signified the suggested meaning,—and which, on that account, has been regarded as an instance

CHAPTER V 153 गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्येतात्पर्यभूतोप्यर्थः स्वशब्दानभिधेयः प्रतीतिपथ- मवतरन् कस्य व्यापारस्य विषयतामवलम्बतामिति । ननु 'रामोस्मि सर्वं सहे' इति 'रामेण प्रियजीवितेन तु कृतं प्रेम्णः प्रिये नोचितम्' इति 'रामोसौ भुवनेषु विक्रमगुणैः प्राप्तः प्रसिद्धिं पराम्' इत्यादौ लक्षणीयोप्यर्थो नानात्वं भजते विशेषव्यपदेशहेतुश्च भवति । तदवगमश्च शब्दार्थायत्तः प्रकर- णादिसव्यपेक्षश्च इति कोयं नूतनः प्रतीयमानो नाम । of 'subordinated suggestion,'—it is found that a meaning, which is not denoted by the words and which does not fall within their import, is yet brought within the range of cognizance;—and under what operation of the word would the meaning thus cognised fall (if Suggestion is not ad- mitted)? [ The following question is raised by one who admits of 'Indication' as distinct from 'Denotation', but does not accept 'Suggestion.']—"In such instances as (a) 'I am Rāma and shall bear everything', (b) 'O beloved one, Rāma is so fond of his life that he has not done what befits love', and (c) 'This Rāma has attained high fame for the excellence of his valour' and so forth, we find that the 'indicated' meaning (of the single word 'Rāma') is mani- fold and also capable of having the several peculiar appella- tions ['with the expressed meaning transformed', 'with the expressed meaning entirely ignored' and others that have been described above as pertaining to 'suggestion' and 'suggested meaning'],—the comprehension also of such 'indicated' meaning is based (like that of the 'suggested' meaning) upon both words and meanings, and is also dependent upon context and other conditions; so that (all these conditions being fulfilled by the 'Indicated' mean-