काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

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.

अथ षष्ठ उल्लासः शब्दार्थचित्रं यत्पूर्वं काव्यद्वयमुदाहृतम् । गुणप्राधान्यतस्तत्र स्थितिश्चित्रार्थशब्दयोः ॥ ४८ ॥ न तु शब्दचित्रे अर्थस्याचित्रत्वमर्थचित्रे वा शब्दस्य । तथा चोक्तम् “रूपकादिरलंकारस्तस्यान्यैर्बहुधोदितः । न कान्तमपि निर्भूषं विभाति वनिताननम् ॥ रूपकादिमलंकारं बाह्यमाचक्षते परे । सुपां तिङां च व्युत्पत्तिं वाचां वाञ्छन्त्यलंकृतिम् ॥ CHAPTER VI LOWEST KIND OF POETRY OF FANCIFUL WORD AND FANCIFUL MEANING In the two kinds of Poetry spoken of above—that of Fan- ciful Word and that of Fanciful Meaning,—subordinacy and pre- dominance belong respectively to the fanciful meaning and the fanciful word. It is not that in the Poetry of Fanciful Word, there is no fanciful meaning or vice versa. [All that the division means is that though in any individual instance, we may have both fanciful word and fanciful meaning, yet it is regarded as the Poetry ‘ of Fanciful Word ’ when the fanciful word (i. e., the Verbal Figure of Speech) is more prominent than the fanci- ful meaning (i. e., the Ideal Figure of Speech) ; and it is regarded as ‘ of fanciful meaning ’ when the fanciful meaning is the more prominent of the two]. [In support of this commixture of both] we have the following declaration :— ‘(a) Some writers have spoken of Metaphor and the other (ideal) Figures of Speech as the real ‘ embellishments ’ 11

162 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA तदेतदाहुः सौशब्द्यं नार्थव्युत्पत्तिरीदृशी । शब्दाभिधेयालंकारभेदादिष्टं द्वयं तु नः॥” इति ॥ शब्दचित्रं यथा “प्रथममरुणच्छायस्तावत्ततः कनकप्रभ- स्तदनु विरहोत्ताम्यत्तन्वीकपोलतलद्युतिः । उदयति ततो ध्वान्तध्वंसक्षमः क्षणदामुखे सरसबिसिनीकन्दच्छेदच्छविर्मृगलाञ्छनः” ॥१३९॥ of Poetry ; even the face of a woman, though beautiful in itself, does not appear charming when it is without any ornaments [similarly Poetry, however beautiful in itself is not charming unless it is embellished by a Figure of Speech] ;—(b) others regard Metaphor and the other Ideal Figures of Speech as something foreign to Poetry, and they hold that the real embellishment consists in the elegant placing of nouns and verbs ; it is this that they call ‘ ele- gance of composition ’; no such elegance (or charm) attaches to the mere Ideal figure (the fanciful meaning);— (c) we however accept both kinds of embellishments ro figures—the Verbal and the Ideal ’. Example of the ‘ Fanciful Word ’ (Verbal Figure of Speech)— Prathamamaruṇachchhāyastāvattataḥ kanakaprabhas. Tadanu virahottāmyattanvī kapolataladyutiḥ. Udayati tato dhvāntadhvamsakṣamaḥ kṣaṇadāmukhe Sarasabisinīkandachchhedachchhavirmṛgalāñchhanaḥ. ‘ The Moon rises at first with a shade of red ; then he takes the golden hue ; after that he has the lustre of the cheeks of the slender woman pining under separation ; then towards night he takes the splendour of the bulbous

CHAPTER VI 163 अर्थचित्रं यथा ते दृष्टमात्रपतिता अपि कस्य नात्र क्षोभाय पक्षमलदृशामलकाः खलाश्च । नीचाः सदैव सविलाससमीकलग्ना ये कालतां कुटिलतामिव न त्यजन्ति ॥१४०॥ यद्यपि सर्वत्र काव्येन्ततः विभावादिरूपतयैव पर्यवसानं तथापि स्फुटस्य रसस्यानुपलम्भादव्यङ्ग्यमेतत्काव्यद्वयमुक्तम् । root of the fresh lotus-stock and is then capable of dis- persing darkness'. [Here the charm, lies in alliteration, which is more prominent and charming than the series of similes involved]. Example of the 'Fanciful Meaning' (Ideal Figure of Speech)— 'Whom do not (a) the locks of the woman with fair- lashed eyes—and (b) the wicked people—not perturb,— when they (a) curl over the eyes [(b) are seen], (a) hanging low [(b) mean], (a) lying beautifully on the forehead [(b) delighting in telling lies], and never abandon their (a) blackness [(b) fraudulence] and (a) curls [(b) crooked- ness, dishonesty]'. [Here we have the ideal figure 'Combination' aided by 'Paronomasia' and 'Simile]'. Though in reality, in the case of all kinds of Poetry, everything ultimately turns upon the Excitants, Ensuants and Variants (and the Passion manifested by these) [and hence in Fanciful Poetry also there is bound to be some suggestion of Passion], yet what happens in the two kinds of Fanciful Poetry just described is that no real 'Passion' is clearly discernible and it is on that ground

164 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अत्र च शब्दार्थालंकारभेदाद्बहवो भेदाः ते चालंकारनिर्णये निर्णेष्यन्ते ॥ इति काव्यप्रकाशे शब्दार्थचित्रनिरूपणं नाम षष्ठ उल्लासः ॥६॥ that they are regarded as ‘devoid of suggestiveness’ [and hence ‘inferior’]. The varieties of this kind of Poetry are many, in accor- dance with the number of Figures of Speech—ideal and verbal ; and these are going to be described under the section treating of the ‘Figures of Speech’ (Chapters IX and X). 48. Thus ends Chapter VI dealing with the Poetry of Fanciful Word and Meaning.

अथ सप्तम उल्लासः काव्यस्वरूपं निरूप्य दोषाणां सामान्यलक्षणमाह मुख्यार्थहतिर्दोषो रसश्च मुख्यस्तदाश्रयाद्वाच्यः । उभयोपयोगिनः स्युः शब्दाद्यास्तेन तेष्वपि सः ॥ ४९ ॥ हतिरपकर्षः । शब्दाद्याः इत्याद्यग्रहणाद्वर्णरचने । विशेषलक्षणमाह दुष्टं पदं श्रुतिकटु च्युतसंस्कृत्यप्रयुक्तमसमर्थम् । निहतार्थमनुचितार्थं निरर्थकमवाचकं त्रिधाश्लीलम् ॥५०॥ CHAPTER VII OF DEFECTS Having described the form of Poetry, the author states the general definition of defects (the absence of which he has made a necessary condition in all poetry) :— Defect is the repressor of the principal meaning ; the ‘ principal meaning ’ being the Passion, as also the Expressed Meaning, which is essential for the manifestation of the Passion ;—both of these requiring the aid of Word and the rest, Defects pertain to these latter also. 49. ‘ Repressing ’ is hindering the agreeableness. ‘ Word and the rest.—The phrase ‘ and the rest ’ is meant to include Letters and Syntactical construction (i. e. Sentence). The author now proceeds to add specific definitions of particular Defects.— The defective Word is such as—(1) unpleasant to the ear, (2) lacking correctness, (3) unconventional, (4) incapable

166 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA सन्दिग्धमप्रतीतं ग्राम्यं नेयार्थमथ भवेत् क्लिष्टम् । अविमृष्टविधेयांशं विरुद्धमतिकृत्समासगतमेव ॥ ५१ ॥ (१) ‘श्रुतिकटु’ परुषवर्णरूपं दुष्टम् । यथा अनङ्गमङ्गलगृहापाङ्गभङ्गितरङ्गितैः । आलिङ्गितः स तन्वङ्ग्या कार्ताथ्र्यं लभते कदा ॥१४१॥ अत्र कार्ताथ्र्यमिति ॥ (२) ‘च्युतसंस्कृति’ व्याकरणलक्षणहीनम् of giving sense, (5) having its meaning suppressed, (6) having an improper signification, (7) useless, (8) not expressive, (9) indecorous in three ways, (10) ambiguous, (11) unintelligible, (12) vulgar, (13) and one whose meaning has to be guessed ;— and it is (14) obscure, or (15) having the predicative factor not discriminated, or (16) of repugnant implication,—only when occurring in a compound. 51. [ Examples of each of the above sixteen defects ]—(1) The word that has the defect of being ‘ unpleasant to the ear ’,—i. e. consisting of harsh letters,—is found in the following— ‘ Anaṅgamaṅgalagṛhāpāṅgabhaṅgitaraṅgitaiḥ Āliṅgitaḥ sa tanvaṅgyā kārtārthyaṁ labhate kadā’. ‘ When will he attain the fulfilment of his desires, on being embraced by the slender-bodied girl, lovely through the graces of her glance, the auspicious abode of the Love-god himself ?’. Here the word ‘ kārtārthyam ’ is ‘ unpleasant to the ear ’ (Harsh). (2) The following contains an example of the word ‘ lacking in correctness ’, i. e. not according with the rules of grammar.—

CHAPTER VII 167 यथा एतन्मन्दविपक्वतिन्दुकफलश्यामोदरापाण्डर- प्रान्तं हन्त पुलिन्दसुन्दरकरस्पर्शक्षमं लभ्यते । तत् पल्लीपतिपुत्रि कुञ्जरकुलं कुम्भाभयाभ्यर्थना- दीनं त्वामनुनाथते कुचयुगं पत्रावृतं मा कृथाः ॥१४२॥ अत्रानुनाथते इति । ‘सर्पिषो नाथते’ इत्यादावाशिष्येव नाथतेरात्मनेपदं विहितम् । “आशिषि नाथः” इति । अत्र तु याचनमर्थः । तस्मात् ‘अनुनाथति स्तनयुगम्’ इति पठनीयम् । ‘ Etanmanda ............................. Dīnaṁtvāmanunāthate ............. ‘ O thou, the daughter of the chief of the settlement ! the herd of elephants, seeking safety from danger (at the hands of young foresters), is begging you not to cover your breasts with leaves,—breasts that resemble the half ripe Tinduka fruit in being dark in the centre and slightly white all round, and which deserve to be fondled by Shabara-youths ’. [The sense is that if the girl does not cover her breasts the hunting youths would be attracted nearer towards them than towards the heads of the elephants.] Here the verb ‘ anunāthate ’ is grammatically incorrect. In accordance with Pāṇini’s Sūtra 2.3.15, the root ‘ nāth ’ can take the Ātmanepada-ending only when it is used in the sense of benediction (hope or expectation), as in the ex- pression ‘ sarpiṣo nāthate ’ (‘ he expects to obtain butter ’); while in the verse cited, the word ‘ anunāthate ’ has the sense of begging. Hence the correct reading should have been ‘ anunāthati stanayugam ’.

168 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA (३) ‘अप्रयुक्तं तथा आम्नातमपि कविभिर्नादृतम् । यथा यथायं दारुणाचारः सर्वदैव विभाव्यते । तथा मन्ये दैवतोस्य पिशाचो राक्षसोथ वा ॥१४३॥ अत्र दैवतशब्दो “दैवतानि पुंसि वा” इति पुंस्याम्नातोपि न केनचित्प्रयुज्यते ॥ (४) ‘असमर्थं’ यत्तदर्थं पठ्यते न च तत्रास्य शक्तिः । यथा तीर्थान्तरेषु स्नानेन समुपार्जितसत्कृतिः । सुरस्रोतस्विनीमेष हन्ति संप्रति सादरम् ॥१४४॥ अत्र हन्तीति गमनार्थम् ॥ (3) The following is an example of the ‘unconven- tional’,—i. e. a word, which though quite correct formally, is one that has not been admitted by poets into usage— ‘yathāyaṁ...........................daivatosya’ ‘Inasmuch as this person is always cruel in his actions, it seems as if his guiding spirit were a ghost or a demon’. Though the form ‘daivataḥ’ is formally correct,—it being mentioned in the lexicons as belonging both to the masculine and neuter genders—yet as a matter of fact, it has never been used in its masculine form. (4) The following is an example of the word incapable of giving sense’, i. e. one used in a sense to which its denotative potency does not extend. ‘Tīrthāntareṣu......hanti samprati sādaram’ ‘After having acquired merit from bathing in other sacred places, he now reverentially repairs to the Celestial River.’ Here the verb ‘hanti’ has been used in the sense of going (which it is incapable of denoting). [In the Dhātupāṭha the root han is mentioned to have the mean- ings “to kill” and “to go”.]

CHAPTER VII 169 (५) ‘निहतार्थं’ यदुभयार्थमप्रसिद्धेऽर्थे प्रयुक्तम् । यथा यावकरसार्द्रपादप्रहारशोणितकचेन दयितेन । मुग्धा साध्वसतरला विलोक्य परिचुम्बिता सहसा ॥१४५॥ अत्र शोणितशब्दस्य रुधिरलक्षणेनार्थेनोज्ज्वलीकृतत्वरूपोऽर्थो व्यवधीयते ॥ (६) ‘अनुचितार्थं’ यथा तपस्विभिर्या सुचिरेण लभ्यते प्रयत्नतः सत्त्रिभिरिष्यते च या। प्रयान्ति तामाशु गतिं यशस्विनो रणाश्वमेधे पशुतामुपागताः ॥१४६॥ (5) The following is an example of a word which has its meaning ‘suppressed’—i. e. used in a sense which, though formally correct, is not generally known— ‘ Yāvakarasārdra.........śoṇitakachena......... ........................parichumbitā sahasā. ‘ When the lover, who had his locks made ruddy by the touch of her feet painted with red alakta, saw that the young girl was flurried through fright (caused by the sus- picion that the redness might be due to blood), he kissed her vehemently ’. Here the intended meaning of the word ‘śoṇita’ i. e. ‘made ruddy’—is ‘suppressed’ by its better known meaning, ‘blood’. (6) In the following we have an example of the word ‘ with an improper signification ’— ‘ Tapasvibhiryā........................... ............raṇāśvamedhe paśutāmupāgatāḥ ’ ‘ The glorious men who have become beasts offered in the sacrifice of battle quickly attain that condition which is attained by ascetics by prolonged austerities, and which is eagerly sought after by performers of sacrifices.’

170 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अत्र पशुपदं कातरतामभिव्यनक्तीत्यनुचितार्थम् ॥ (७) 'निरर्थकं पादपूरणमात्रप्रयोजनं चादिपदम् । यथा उत्फुल्लकमलकेसरपरागगौरद्युते मम हि गौरि । अभिवाञ्छितं प्रसिद्ध्यतु भगवति युष्मत्प्रसादेन ॥१४७॥ अत्र हिशब्दः ॥ (८) 'अवाचकं' यथा अवन्ध्यकोपस्य विहन्तुरापदां भवन्ति वश्याः स्वयमेव देहिनः । अमर्षशून्येन जनस्य जन्तुना न जातहार्देन न विद्विषादरः ॥१४८॥ Here the word ‘pashu’, ‘beast’,—indicating (in its proper denotation) as it does, cowardliness—conveys a sense that is ‘improper’ (and repugnant to the context). [The meaning is that those who lose their lives in battle attain heaven more quickly than others ; this has been figuratively expressed by means of the words ‘men who are killed in battle as beasts are offered in sacrifice’,—and this implies that the men are possessed of the qualities of the ‘beasts’ ; and these qualities are quite the reverse of bravery and other qualities which are generally associated with the heroes of war.] (7) In the following we have an example of the ‘useless’ (redundant) word.— ‘Utphulla................................................mama hi gauri ................................................................ yuṣmatprasōdena’ ‘O blessed Gauri, whose complexion is bright like the pollen of the full-blown lotus, may my desired object be accomplished by your kindness!’ Here the particle ‘hi’ is entirely superfluous. (8) In the following we have an example of the ‘in- expressive’ word— (a) ‘Abandhyakopasya .................. .............. jantunā .........daraḥ.’