काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

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-

154 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA उच्यते--लक्षणीयस्यार्थस्य नानात्वेपि अनेकार्थशब्दाभि- धेयवन्नियतत्वमेव । न खलु मुख्येनार्थेनानियतसंबन्धो लक्षयितुं शक्यते । प्रतीयमानस्तु प्रकरणादिविशेषवशेन नियत संबन्धः अनियतसंबन्धः संबद्धसंबन्धश्च द्योत्यते । न च “अत्ता एत्थ णिमज्जइ एत्थ अहं दिअहए पलोएहि । मा पहिअ रत्तिअन्धअ सेज्जाए मह णिमज्जहिसि ॥१३६॥” ing), what is this new kind of meaning that is called ‘suggested’?” Our answer to this is as follows :— Firstly, even though a word may have several ‘indi- cated’ meanings, yet their number must be limited, just like the expressed meaning of a word which has many meanings.—Secondly, what is ‘indicated’ can never be such as has no definite connection with the primary (denoted) meaning, while the ‘suggested’ meaning, under the influence of ‘context’ and other circumstances, may have a definite connection (with the expressed meaning), or it may have only an indefinite (vague) connection with it, or it may be only indirectly connected (being connected with something else which is connected with the expressed meaning).—Thirdly, the primary (expressed) meaning is not ‘barred’ by (incompatibility) in the case of ‘suggestion’, in such instances as—‘my mother-in-law lies here, and here myself, mark this well while there is daylight; lest, O wayfarer, you tumble into our beds at night’;—so that (the very first condition of ‘Indication’ being wanting) how can this be regarded as a case of ‘Indication’? — Fourthly, it has been already shown (under Chapter II) that in the process of ‘Indication’ also, ‘Suggestion’ comes in as an essential factor.

CHAPTER V 155 इत्यादौ विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्ये ध्वनौ मुख्यार्थबाधः । तत्कथमत्र लक्षणा । लक्षणायामपि व्यञ्जनमवश्यमाश्रयितव्य- मिति प्रतिपादितम् । यथा च समयसव्यपेक्षा अभिधा तथा मुख्यार्थबाधादित्रय- समयविशेषसव्यपेक्षा लक्षणा । अत एवाभिधापुच्छभूता सेत्याहुः । न च लक्षणात्मकमेव ध्वननं तदनुगमेन तस्य दर्शनात् । न च तदनुगतमेव अभिधावलम्बनेनापि तस्य भावात् । न चोभयानु- सार्येव अवाचकवर्णानुसारेणापि तस्य दृष्टेः । न च शब्दानुसार्येव अशब्दात्मकनेत्रत्रिभागावलोकनादिगतत्वेनापि तस्य प्रसिद्धेः इति अभिधातात्पर्यलक्षणात्मकव्यापारत्रयातिवर्ती ध्वननादिपर्यायो व्यापारोऽनपह्नवनीय एव ॥ —Fifthly, just as ‘Denotation’ is dependent upon convention, so is ‘Indication’ also upon the particular convention relating to the three conditions of ‘the primary meaning being barred’ and the rest (described under Chapter II); and it is on this account that ‘Indication’ has been called the ‘tail of Denotation.’ [Hence it is just as impossible for ‘Suggestion’ to be included under ‘Indication’ as under ‘Denotation.’]— Sixthly, ‘Suggestion’ is not exactly of the nature of ‘Indication’, because in some cases Suggestion follows on the wake of Indication; nor indeed does Suggestion always follow on the wake of Indication, as in several instances Suggestion is based upon Denotation itself nor again is Suggestion always based upon these two; (Denotation and Indication), as it is found to emanate even from mere letters and syllables which do not ‘denote’ anything at all,—or even from such entirely non-verbal sources as side-long glances and other mere gestures.

156 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA तत्र “अत्ता एत्थ” इत्यादौ नियतसंबन्धः “कस्स व ण होइ रोसो” इत्यादौ, अनियतसंबन्धः । “विपरीअरए लच्छी बम्हं दट्ठूण णाहिकमलट्ठं । हरिणो दाहिणणअणं रसाउला झत्ति ढक्केइ ॥१३७॥” इत्यादौ संबद्धसंबन्धः । अत्र हि हरिपदेन दक्षिणनयनस्य सूर्यात्मकता व्यज्यते। तन्निमीलनेन सूर्यास्तमयः । तेन पद्मस्य संकोचः । ततो ब्रह्मणः स्थगनम् । तत्र सति गोप्याङ्गस्यादर्शनेन अनिर्यन्त्रणं निधुवनविलसितमिति । From all this it follows that we cannot reject ‘Sugges- tion’ as a process which functions far beyond the three processes of ‘Denotation’, ‘Import’ and ‘Indication’. (a) In the verse referred to above—‘my mother-in- law lies here &c.’—the ‘suggested’ meaning is one that bars a definite relationship (to the expressed meaning); (b) while in the verse ‘who will not get annoyed etc., (quoted above) the relationship is extremely vague and (c) in the following verse— ‘On the occasion of......when Lakṣmī saw Brahmā seated on the naval-lotus of her husband, she, being too immersed in her passion, closed the right eye of Viṣṇu (her husband)’, —the suggested meaning is related to the expressed indirectly through something else related to it; e. g. the term ‘Hari’ (Viṣṇu) suggests the fact of his right eye being the Sun (the Sun and the Moon being described as the two eyes of Viṣṇu), hence the closing of that eye signifies sunset, which signifies the closing of the lotus and the consequent hiding of Brahmā seated upon it, which, lastly, suggests the fact that her secret parts being rendered invisible to anyone, her pleasure would con- tinue unmolested.

CHAPTER V 157 'अखण्डबुद्धिनिर्ग्राह्यो वाक्यार्थ एव वाच्यः वाक्यमेव च वाचकम्' इति येप्याहुः तैरप्यविद्यापदपतितैः पदपदार्थकल्पना कर्तव्यैवेति तत्पक्षेप्यवश्यमुक्तोदाहरणादौ विध्यादिर्व्यङ्ग्य एव। ननु वाच्यादसंबद्धं तावन्न प्रतीयते यतः कुतश्चित् यस्य कस्यचिदर्थस्य प्रतीतेः प्रसङ्गात्। एवं च संबन्धात् व्यङ्ग्य- Others again (the Vedāntins) have held the view that —"It is the meaning of the sentence which, comprehended through a single indivisible cognition, is what is 'ex- pressed' or 'denoted', and it is the sentence alone that is denotative". But even these men, when they descend to the regions of 'Illusion', have to take into account 'words' and 'meanings of words'; so that according to these people also, in the examples cited above ' ('The sandal-paint over thy breasts has been......thou hast not gone to that wretched man') the affirmation and such other meanings must be regarded as being 'suggested'. [The logician starts off with another objection to the 'Suggestion theory']—"What is suggested is not some- thing entirely unconnected with the expressed meaning ; if it were, then anything could be suggested by any word, without any restriction. In view of some such connection being essential, there can be no suggestiveness in the absence of some restrictive relationship; and thus what really happens in the case of 'Suggestion' is that there is (1) a constant relation (between the suggested and the sugges- ter), (2) the relation is such that the suggester is never con- comitant with the contrary of the suggested, and (3) the suggester subsists in the suggested; so that the suggester fulfilling the three conditions of the 'Inferential Problems',

158 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA व्यञ्जकभावोप्रतिबन्धेवश्यं न भवतीति व्याप्तत्वेन नियतधर्मिनिष्ठत्वेन च त्रिरूपाल्लिङ्गाल्लिङ्गिज्ञानमनुमानं यत् तद्रूपः पर्यवस्यति । तथाहि-- “भम धम्मिअ वीसद्धो सो सुणओ अज्ज मारिओ तेण । गोलाणइकच्छकुडंगवासिणा दरिअसीहेण ॥१३८॥” अत्र गृहे श्वनिवृत्त्या भ्रमणं विहितं गोदावरीतीरे सिंहोप- लब्धेरभ्रमणमनुमापयति । यत् यत भीरुभ्रमणं तत्तद्भयकारण- निवृत्त्युपलब्धिपूर्वकं गोदावरीतीरे च सिंहोपलब्धिरिति व्यापकविरुद्धोपलब्धिः । अत्रोच्यते--भीरुरपि गुरोः प्रभोर्वा निदेशेन प्रियानुरागेण अन्येन चैवंभूतेन हेतुना सत्यपि भयकारणे भ्रमतीत्यनैकान्तिको our knowledge of the suggested meaning comes to be purely inferential in character. For instance, in the following verse—‘ My good man, roam about as you choose ; the dog has been killed by the lion living in the cave of the banks of the Godāvarī’,—what is advised is the safety of roaming about due to the removal of the dog from the house, and this leads to the inference of the danger involved in wandering on the banks of the Godāvarī, by reason of the presence of the lion. The ‘roaming of a coward’ is invariably concomitant with the certainty of ‘the ab- sence of all cause of fear’;—on the banks of the Godā- varī ‘the cause of fear’ is present ; and so this ‘presence’ is the contrary of the aforesaid ‘absence’ with which the said roaming is invariably concomitant. Hence the said ‘presence’ leads to the deduction of what is contrary to the aforesaid ‘roaming’, i. e. the impropriety of roaming”. Our answer to the above is as follows :—(a) As a matter of fact, even a coward is found going to places where

CHAPTER V 159 हेतुः शुनो बिभ्यदपि वीरत्वेन सिंहान्न बिभेतीति विरुद्धोपि गोदा- वरीतीरे सिंहसद्भावः प्रत्यक्षादनुमानाद्वा न निश्चितः । अपि तु वचनात् । न च वचनस्य प्रामाण्यमस्ति । अर्थेनाप्रतिबन्धादित्य- सिद्धश्च तत्कथमेवंविधाद्धेतोः साध्यसिद्धिः । तथा "निःशेषच्युत-" इत्यादौ गमकतया यानि चन्दनच्यवना- दीन्युपात्तानि तानि कारणान्तरतोपि भवन्ति। अतश्चात्रैव स्नान- there is danger, under certain circumstances, such as by the order of his preceptor or master, under the influence of his love for his beloved ; so that the inferential pro- bans (premise) is 'inconclusive' (the 'coward's roaming' being not invariably concomitant with the 'absence of danger');—(b) and again, it is possible that the person addressed may be a brave man who, even though fearing the dog, would not fear the lion, and thus the premise is also 'contradictory' (the 'presence of the lion' not nece- ssarily involving the impossibility of the 'fearing man' not roaming that way) ;—(c) further,' the presence of the lion' on the banks of the Godāvarī is not something known either by direct Perception or by Inference, it is learnt only from the words (of the speaker), and since no reliability belongs to the mere word (of a stray person), until it has been found to be consonant with facts, the probans is 'unknown' also.—Thus the probans being vitiated by three fallacies, how can it lead to any valid inference of the conclusion ?—Further, in the case of the verse 'the san- dal-paint over thy breasts has been entirely rubbed out...... thou hast not gone to the wretched man', the marks— rubbing out of the sandal-paint and so forth—which have been set forth as suggestive (of the conclusion 'thou hast gone') are such as could be brought out by (and hence be indicative of) other circumstances also ; in fact even in

160 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA कार्यत्वेनोक्तानीति नोपभोगे एव प्रतिबद्धानीत्यनैकान्तिकानि । व्यक्तिवादिना चाधमपदसहायानामेषां व्यञ्जकत्वमुक्तम् । न चात्राधमत्वं प्रमाणप्रतिपन्नमिति कथमनुमानम् । एवंविधा- दर्थादेवंविधोर्थ उपपत्त्यनपेक्षत्वेपि प्रकाशते इति व्यक्तिवादिनः पुनस्तत् अदूषणम् ॥ इति काव्यप्रकाशे ध्वनिगुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यसंकीर्णभेदनिर्णयो नाम पञ्चम उल्लासः ॥५॥ the verse itself they are described as brought about by bathing ; so that they are not invariably concomitant with the ‘ dalliance ’ (of the person addressed, which is held to be suggested). According to the upholder of the ‘ Suggestion ’ theory, on the other hand, the said suggestion has been explained as brought about by the marks described, through the aid of the epithet ‘ wretched ’ (applied to the lover, which suggests his infidelity in having dallied with the messen- ger).—Nor could this ‘ wretchedness ’ be made the basis of any Inference, for the simple reason that it is not some- thing that is already cognised through any (other) valid means of cognition. As for the fact that a certain set of words gives rise to the notion of things (not actually expressed by them), without any rhyme or reason,—this cannot be effectively urged against the upholder of the ‘ Suggestion ’ theory (who takes pride in the suggestion of such meanings). 47. Thus ends Chapter V dealing with the sub-divisions of Suggestive Poetry and the Poetry of Subordinate Suggestion.