काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

250 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अत्र विवेकख्यातिस्ततः संप्रज्ञातसमाधिः पश्चादसंप्रज्ञा- तस्ततो मुक्तिर्न तु विवेकख्यातौ। एतत् योगशास्त्रेण॥ एवं विद्यान्तरैरपि विरुद्धमुदाहार्यम्॥ (११) प्राप्ताः श्रियः सकलकामदुघास्ततः किम् दत्तं पदं शिरसि विद्विषतां ततः किम्। संतर्पिताः प्रणयिनो विभवैस्ततः किम् कल्पं स्थितं तनुभृतां तनुभिस्ततः किम् ॥२७१॥ अत्र ततः किमिति न नवीकृतम्। तत्तु यथा यदि दहत्यनलोत्र किमद्भुतं यदि च गौरवमद्रिषु किं ततः। लवणमम्बु सदैव महोदधेः प्रकृतिरेव सतामविषादिता ॥२७२॥ The doctrine of the Science of Yoga being that—first of all one obtains discriminative wisdom, then concrete meditation, then abstract meditation and then Release; and Release is not obtained immediately after discrimina- tive wisdom. Hence what is here stated is opposed to the Science of Yoga. Similar examples of opposition to other Sciences may be cited. (11) [Example of ‘Monotony’]— ‘All-affording wealth has been attained;—what then? The foot has been placed on the head of the enemy;— what then? Friends have been fully supplied with riches; —what then? The bodies of men have lasted for a whole cycle;—what then?’ Here the frequent repetition of ‘what then’ is mono- tonous. This ‘monotony’ is avoided in the following— ‘If fire burns,—what is the wonder? If mountains are full of gravity,—what then? The water of the ocean is ever salty. To great beings freedom from depression comes naturally.’

CHAPTER VII 251 (१२) यत्रानुल्लिखितार्थमेव निखिलं निर्माणमेतद्विधेर्- उत्कर्षप्रतियोगिकल्पनमपि न्यक्कारकोटिः परा । याताः प्राणभृतां मनोरथगतीरुल्लङ्घय यत्संपदस् तस्याभासमणीकृताश्मसु मणेरश्मत्वमेवोचितम्॥२७३॥ अत्र ‘छायामात्रमणीकृताश्मसु मणेस्तस्याश्मतैवोचिता’ इति सनियमत्वं वाच्यम् ॥ (१३) वक्त्राम्भोजं सरस्वत्यधिवसति सदा शोण एवाधरस्ते बाहुः काकुत्स्थवीर्यस्मृतिकरणपटुर्दक्षिणस्ते समुद्रः । (12) [Example of the ‘Too unspecific’ or ‘Too generalised’]— ‘In view of the Chintāmaṇi jewel, the entire creation of God becomes purposeless ; any mention of its excellences would be the highest insult to it ; and its plentiful richness has exceeded the bounds of human desire ; and yet when it gets mixed up with pebbles, which have been rendered gem-like through its reflection, it should be regarded as a pebble only’. Here some such specification as ‘through its mere reflec- tion’ is necessary ; and the right reading of the last foot therefore should be—‘chhāyāmātramaṇīkṛtāshmasu maṇes- tasyāshmataivochitā.’ [Such specification would imply that the other gems belong to an inferior category; and the absence of this specification places the Chintāmaṇi on the same level as the other gems, which is not what is intended by the poet.] (13) [Example of the ‘Too specific’]— ‘The Sarasvatī river (Goddess of Learning) resides permanently in your lotus-like mouth ; your under-lip is the Shoṇa (red) itself ; your arm, which is capable of reminding people of the valour of ‘Kākutstha, is the

252 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA वाहिन्यः पार्श्वमेताः क्षणमपि भवतो नैव मुञ्चन्त्यभीक्ष्णं स्वच्छेन्तर्मानसेस्मिन् कथमवनिपते तेम्बुपानाभिलाषः ॥२७४॥ अत्र ‘शोण एव’ इति नियमो न वाच्यः ॥ (१४) श्यामां श्यामलिमाप्तमानयत भोः सान्द्रैर्मषीकूर्चकैर् मन्त्रं तन्त्रमथ प्रयुज्य हरत श्वेतोत्पलानां श्रियम् । चन्द्रं चूर्णयत क्षणाच्च कणशः कृत्वा शिलापट्टके येन द्रष्टुमहं क्षमे दश दिशस्तद्वक्त्रमुद्राङ्किताः ॥२७५॥ अत्र ‘ज्योत्स्नीम्’ इति श्यामाविशेषो वाच्यः ॥ (१५) कल्लोलवेल्लितदृषत्परुषप्रहारै रत्नान्यमूनि मकरालय मावमंस्थाः । किं कौस्तुभेन विहितो भवतो न नाम याच्ञाप्रसारितकरः पुरुषोत्तमोपि ॥२७६॥ southern ocean (adorned with rings); these rivers (armies) never leave your side even for a moment ; your inside being the pure Mānasa lake (your inner heart being clean),—how can there be any thirst of water for you ?' Here the specification—'Shoṇa itself'—is one that should not have been made. (14) [Example of the 'Too unrestricted']— 'Make the night black with brushes of dense ink ; destroy the beauty of the white lotuses by means of in- cantations or herbs ; smash the moon to pieces on a slab of stone ; so that I may be able to look upon all the quarters marked with the stamp of her face.' Here the 'night' should have been restricted to the 'bright, moon-lit.' (15) [Example of the 'Too restricted']— 'O, thou abode of alligators ! do not ill-treat these gems by striking them with stones thrown about by the

CHAPTER VII 253 अत्र ‘एकेन किं न विहितो भवतः स नाम’ इति सामान्यं वाच्यम् । (१६) अर्थित्वे प्रकटीकृतेपि न फलप्राप्तिः प्रभोः प्रत्युत द्रुह्यन् दाशरथिर्विरुद्धचरितो युक्तस्तया कन्यया । उत्कर्षं च परस्य मानयशसोर्विस्त्रंसनं चात्मनः स्त्रीरत्नं च जगत्पतिर्दशमुखो देवः कथं मृष्यते ॥२७७॥ अत्र स्त्रीरत्नम् ‘उपेक्षितुम्’ इत्याकाङ्क्षति । नहि परस्येत्य- नेन संबन्धो योग्यः ॥ waves; was it not due to the Kaustubha-gem that even Lord Viṣṇu himself was made to appear before you with hands spread out to beg ?’ [Here the restricted mention by name of one particular gem, the Kaustubha, is not very effective]:—the statement should appear in a more generalised form—‘ was it not due to one of these gems that even Lord etc.’ (16) [Example of the ‘ Incomplete ’] ‘ Arthitve prakaṭīkṛtepi na phalaprāptiḥ prabhoḥ pratyuta Druhyan dāśarathirviruddhacharito yuktastayā kanyayā Utkarṣaṁ cha parasya mānayashasorvisraṁsanañchātmanaḥ Strīratnaṁ cha jagatpatirdaśamukho devaḥ kathaṁ mṛṣyate’ ‘ O Lord ! even though you exhibited beggarliness, yet the desired object has not been attained ; on the contrary, to her has been wedded the son of Dasharatha, your enemy, who hates you. How can you, the ten- faced lord of the world, bear this superiority of the enemy, and the derogation of your own pride and fame,—as also the jewel among women ?’ Here the intended assertion is—‘ How can you bear the idea of giving up the jewel among women ’; and inasmuch as the passage as the term ‘ strīratnam ’ only, it is, to that extent, ‘ incomplete.’ It might be urged that the term

254 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA (१७) आज्ञा शक्रशिखामणिप्रणयिनी शास्त्राणि चक्षुर्नवं भक्तिर्भूतपतौ पिनाकिनि पदं लङ्केति दिव्या पुरी। उत्पत्तिर्द्रुहिणान्वये च तदहो नेदृग्वरो लभ्यते स्याच्चेदेष न रावणः क्व नु पुनः सर्वत्र सर्वे गुणाः ॥२७८॥ अत्र 'स्याच्चेदेष न रावणः' इत्यत्र एव समाप्यम् ॥ (१८) श्रुतेन बुद्धिर्व्यसनेन मूर्खता मदेन नारी सलिलेन निम्नगा। निशा शशाङ्केन धृतिःसमाधिना नयेन चालंक्रियते नरेन्द्रता॥२७९॥ 'strīratnam' may be construed with 'parasya',—the sense being 'how can you bear the idea that the jewel among women belongs to another'. But such a construction is not possible, [the term 'parasya' having been already cons- trued with 'utkarṣam'] (17) [Example of the 'Misplaced.']— 'His command is borne by Indra on his head ; the sciences constitute his efficient organ of vision ; his devo- tion rests in Shiva, the lord of beings ; and beautiful Laṅkā is his residence ; and his birth is in the family of Brahmā ; thus, then, no such other bridegroom could be found :—only if he were not Rāvaṇa (the Terrible) ! But wherein can all good qualities be found ?' The sentence should have ended with 'only if he were not Rāvaṇa'. [As what is meant is that this single disqualification nullifies all the aforesaid qualifications, and as such puts him out of court as a suitable bridegroom. This sense is prevented by the subsequent clause—'wherein &c.'—which is a sort of a palliative excuse for the presence of a single disqualification as against a large number of qualifications. which tends to indicate the suitability of Rāvaṇa]. (18) [Example of the 'Mismatched']— 'Intelligence is adorned by learning, illiteracy by frivolity, woman by lasciviousness, the river by water,

CHAPTER VII 255 अत्र श्रुतादिभिरुत्कृष्टैः सहचरितैर्व्यसनमूर्खतयोर्निकृष्टयोर्भिन्नत्वम् । (१९) लग्नं रागावृताङ्ग्या० ॥२८०॥ इत्यत्र विदितं तेस्त्वित्यनेन श्रीस्तस्मादपसरतीति विरुद्धं प्रकाश्यते ॥ (२०) प्रयत्नपरिबोधितः स्तुतिभिरद्य शेषे निशा- मकेशवमपाण्डवं भुवनमद्य निःसोमकम् । इयं परिसमाप्यते रणकथाद्य दोःशालिना- मपैतु रिपुकाननातिगुरुरद्य भारो भुवः ॥२८१॥ अत्र ‘शयितः प्रयत्नेन बोध्यसे’ इति विधेयम् । यथा वा the night by the moon, steadiness by calmness, and king- ship by policy.’ Here the excellent things, ‘Learning’ and the rest are wrongly associated with such inferior things as ‘illi- teracy’ and ‘frivolity’. (19) In the verse ‘lagnam rāgāvṛtāṅgyā’ (see above, stanza No. 241) we have an example of ‘Repugnant Implication’, as the clause ‘might be known to you’ implies that the Goddess of wealth is going to depart from the king. (20) [Example of ‘Improper Predication’]— ‘Prayatnaparibodhitaḥ &c., &c.’ ‘To-night you will sleep so soundly that you will be awakened with great effort by means of eulogising songs ; the world is going to be deprived to-day of Kṛṣṇa, of Pāṇḍavas and of the entire Somaka-tribe ; thus to-day is going to be finished all talk of war among the Kṣattriyas ; may the burden of the forest of our enemies depart to-day from the surface of the earth !’ The right form of predication would have been ‘when asleep it will be with great effort that you will be awakened.’ [With stress upon ‘effort’, which is lost when ‘prayatna’ is made the subordinate factor in the compound prayatna-paribodhitaḥ].

256 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA वाताहारतया जगद्विषधरैराश्वास्य निःशेषितं ते ग्रस्ताः पुनरभ्रतोयकणिकातीव्रव्रतैर्बर्हिभिः । तेपि क्रूरचमूरुचर्मवसनैर्नीताः क्षयं लुब्धकैर्- दम्भस्य स्फुरितं विदन्नपि जनो जाल्मो गुणानीहते॥२८२॥ अत्र वाताहारादित्रयं व्युत्क्रमेण वाच्यम् ॥ (२१) अरे रामाहस्ताभरण भसलश्रेणिशरण स्मरक्रीडाव्रीडाशमन विरहिप्राणदमन । Another example of the same ‘(defect of improper predication’ when the impropriety consists in the wrong order of the things spoken of)— ‘The world was emptied by the snakes, who inspired confidence by living upon air; the snakes themselves were devoured by peacocks undergoing the difficult penance of living on rain-drops from the clouds; these latter again were consigned to destruction by the fowlers clad in deer-skin;—even knowing the effects of religious hypocrisy, foolish people expect to find excellent qualities (in such persons)’. The three things mentioned here should have been mentioned in the reverse order. [The austerities should have been mentioned in the ascending scale: the less difficult coming before the more difficult; in the passage however the most difficult austerity, living upon air, has been mentioned first, and the least difficult, wearing of deer-skin, comes last; this spoils the effect of the climax.] (21) [Example of the ‘Improper (unsuitable) Adjunct’]— ‘O my friend, the Blue Lotus—who is an ornament for the hands of women, and the shelter of the line of black bees, who serves to suppress all modesty during love-

CHAPTER VII 257 सरोहंसोत्तंस प्रचलदल नीलोत्पल सखे सखेदोऽहं मोहं श्लथय कथय क्वेन्दुवदना ॥२८३॥ अत्र 'विरहिप्राणदमन' इति नानुवाद्यम् ॥ (२२) लग्नं रागावृताङ्गचेत्यादि ॥२८४॥ अत्र 'विदितं तेस्तु' इत्युपसंहृतोपि तेनेत्यादिना पुनरुपात्तः ॥ (२३) हन्तुमेव प्रवृत्तस्य स्तब्धस्य विवरैषिणः । यथास्य जायते पातो न तथा पुनरुन्नतिः ॥२८५॥ अत्र पुंव्यञ्जनस्यापि प्रतीतिः ॥ dalliance, who destroys the lives of separated lover, who is an ornament of the best of lakes, and whose petals are moving ! I am grief-stricken ; remove my bewilderment and tell me where the moon-faced one is.’ Here the adjunct ‘who destroys the lives of separated lovers’ is highly improper. [As one who does this can never be expected to help the lover in his difficulties, and it is such help that the speaker is seeking.] (22) In the verse ‘Lagnam rāgāvṛtāṅgyā’ &c.’ (see above, stanza No. 241) though the statement is ‘concluded’ at the clause ‘be it known to you,’—yet it is resumed again in the clause ‘by him &c.’ [So this is an example of the ‘resuming of the concluded]. (23) [Example of the ‘Indecorous’]. ‘Hantumeva pravṛttasya Stabdhasya vivaraiṣiṇaḥ Yathāsya jāyate pāto Na tathā punarunnatiḥ.’ ‘An evil person being always arrogant, bent upon mischief, given to fault-finding,—his fall, when it comes, is such that he can never rise again.’ 17

258 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA यत्रैको दोषः प्रदर्शितस्तत्र दोषान्तराण्यपि सन्ति तथापि तेषां तत्राप्रकृतत्वात्प्रकाशनं न कृतम् ।।५५-५७।। कर्णावतंसादिपदे कर्णादिध्वनिनिर्मितिः । संनिधानादिबोधार्थम् अवतंशादीनि कर्णाद्याभरणान्येवोच्यन्ते । तत्र कर्णादि- शब्दाः कर्णादिस्थितिप्रतिपत्तये । यथा अस्याः कर्णावतंसेन जितं सर्वं विभूषणम् । तथैव शोभतेत्यर्थमस्याः श्रवणकुण्डलम् ।।२८६।। The words used here have an implication which points to the male organ (and thus this becomes 'indecorous'). Though in several cases, a verse that has been cited as an example of a certain defect, contains other defects also, yet these latter have not been pointed out, as not being quite pertinent to the context. 55-57. In such expressions as 'Karṇāvataṁsa' and the like, the introduction of the term 'karṇa' is for the purpose of expressing proximity. Such words as 'avataṁsa' and the like denote the ear-ring itself; the addition of the term 'karṇa' 'ear' (in the compound 'karṇāvataṁsa') serves the purpose of expressing proximity [and hence it cannot be regarded as 'redundant']. Examples of such use are found in the following verses— ' Asyāḥ karṇāvataṁsena Jitaṁ sarvaṁ vibhūṣaṇam Tathaiva śobhatetyartham Asyāḥ śravaṇakuṇḍalam.

CHAPTER. VII 259 अपूर्वमधुरामोदप्रमोदितदिशस्ततः । आययुर्भृङ्गमुखराः शिरःशेखरशालिनः ॥२८७॥ अत्र कर्णश्रवणशिरःशब्दाः संनिधानप्रतीत्यर्थाः ॥ विदीर्णाभिमुखारातिकराले संगरान्तरे । धनुर्ज्याकिणचिह्नेन दोष्णा विस्फुरितं तव ॥२८८॥ अत्र धनुःशब्द आरूढत्वावगतये ॥ Apūrvamadhurāmoda-Pramoditadishastataḥ Āyayurbhṛiṅgamukharāḥ shiraḥshekharashālinaḥ. ‘By her ear-ornament on the ear, all ornament has been subdued ; similarly does excellently shine her ear-ring in the ear :—The men came forward, rendering all the direc- tions fragrant with excellent perfumes, with bees humming about them, and wearing crown-jewels on their heads.’ Here the terms ‘karṇa’, ‘shravaṇa’ and ‘shiraḥ’ (when the terms ‘avataṁsa’, ‘kuṇḍala’ and ‘shekhara’ denote respectively, the ear-ornament, the ear-ring and the head-ornament), serve the purpose of expressing proximity (i.e., the fact of the ornament being actually worn on the occasion spoken of). Similarly in the following verse— ‘Vidīrṇābhimukhārātikarāle saṅgarāntare Dhanurjyākiṇacihnena doṣṇā visphuritaṁ tava’, ‘Throbbing was thy arm, hardened by the marks made by the bow-string of thy bow, and terrible through the rending of opponents during battle ’;—the addition of the term ‘dhanuḥ,’ ‘bow’ (when ‘jyā’ itself denotes the bow-string) serves to indicate the fact of the string being placed upon the bow. (That the addition of the term ‘bow’ is meant to

260 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अन्यत्र तु ज्याबन्धनिष्पन्दभुजेन यस्य विनिश्वसद्वक्त्रपरंपरेण । कारागृहे निर्जितवासवेन लङ्केश्वरेणोषितमा प्रसादात् ॥२८९॥ इत्यत्र केवलो ज्याशब्दः । प्राणेश्वरपरिष्वङ्गविभ्रमप्रतिपत्तिभिः । मुक्ताहारेण लसता हसतीव स्तनद्वयम् ॥२०९॥ अत्र मुक्तानामन्यरत्नामिश्रितत्वबोधनाय मुक्ताशब्दः । convey this additional idea is shown by the fact that) in other cases (where no such idea is meant to be conveyed), we find the term ‘jyā’, ‘bow-string,’ used alone by itself ; e.g., in the following— ‘Jyābandhaniṣpandabhujena yasya Viniśvasadvaktraparaṁpareṇa Kārāgṛhe nirjitavāsavena Laṅkeśvareṇoṣitamāprasādāt.’ ‘In whose prison, there lived, till propitiation, the king of Laṅkā, the subduer of Indra, who had his arms paralysed by being tied up with the bowstring, and the line of his mouths panting.’ In the following.— ‘Prāṇeśvarapariṣvaṅgavibhramapratipattibhiḥ Muktāhāreṇa lasatā hasatīva stanadvayam’. ‘The pair of breasts, beautified by the pearl-necklace is smiling as it were, under the consciousness of the joys of the embrace of her lover;’—the addition of the term ‘muktā’, ‘pearl’ (when the term ‘hāra’, ‘necklace’, itself signifies the presence of pearls) is meant to express the fact that no other gems were mixed with the pearls in the necklace.

CHAPTER VII 261 सौन्दर्यसंपत् तारुण्यं यस्यास्ते ते च विभ्रमाः । षट्पदान् पुष्पमालेव कान् नाकर्षति सा सखे ॥२९१॥ अत्रोत्कृष्टपुष्पविषये पुष्पशब्दः । निरुपपदो हि मालाशब्दः पुष्पस्रजमेवाभिधत्ते ॥ स्थितेष्वेतत्समर्थनम् ॥ ५८ ॥ न खलु कर्णावतंसादिवज्जघनकाञ्चीत्यादि क्रियते । जगाद मधुरां वाचं विशदाक्षरशालिनीम् ॥२९२॥ Similarly in the following— ‘ Saundaryasampat tāruṇyaṁ yasyāste te cha vibhramāḥ Ṣaṭpadān puṣpamāleva kān nākarṣati sā sakhe . ‘ She who is endowed with a richness of beauty, youth and excellent graces,—whom does she not captivate, O Friend ! in the same manner as a flower-garland attracts the bees ?’— The term ‘ puṣpa ’ ‘ flower ’, has been added in the sense of excellent flowers,—the word ‘ mālā ’ ‘ garland ’, without a prefix, denoting merely a string of flowers (without any idea of the quality of the flowers strung). This is a justification of only such instances as are actually found (in standard works). 58. It is not meant to justify such usage by modern writes) ; so that it would not be right to use such expressions as ‘ jaghanakāñchī ’, on the analogy of the expression ‘ Karṇāvataṁsa ’ (justified above p. 258). In such expressions as ‘ jagāda madhurāṁ vāchaṁ vishadākṣarashālinīm ’ (‘ uttered a speech, sweet and clearly worded ’), it is not right

262 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA इत्यादौ क्रियाविशेषणत्वेपि विवक्षितार्थप्रतीतिसिद्धौ “गतार्थस्यापि विशेष्यस्य विशेषणदानार्थं क्वचित्प्रयोगः कार्यः” इति न युक्तम् । युक्तत्वे वा चरणत्रपरित्राणरहिताभ्यामपि द्रुतम् । पादाभ्यां दूरमध्वानं व्रजन्नेष न खिद्यते ॥२९३॥ इत्युदाहार्यम् ॥५८॥ to justify (as Vāmana has done) the addition of the noun ‘vācham’, ‘speech’, [which would appear to be superfluous on the ground of the verb ‘jagāda’ ‘uttered’, itself denoting the ‘uttering of speech’], on the ground that ‘even though the sense of the noun may have been obtained already, it is added for the purpose of adding qualifying epithets to it’; because the purpose sought to be served by the adding of these epithets could be more easily served by the use of adverbs (qualifying the verb itself) ; [So that the addition of the noun should not be necessary, even for that purpose]. [The expression with the adverbs could appear in the form ‘jagāda madhuraṁ vidvān viśadākṣaraśālī cha]. As an example of the propriety of the justification suggested by Vāmana we have (not the aforesaid sentence cited by him, but) the following— ‘Charaṇatraparitrāṇarahitābhyāmapi drutam Pādābhyāṁ dūramadhvānaṁ vrajanneṣa na khidyate. ‘He is not fatigued even when he walks long distances swiftly with feet deprived of shoes.’—[Where the purpose served by the addition of adjectival epithets to the noun ‘charaṇa’ is such as could not be served by the addition of any adverbial expressions]. 58.

CHAPTER VII 263 ख्यातेऽर्थे निर्हेतोरदुष्टता यथा चन्द्रं गता पद्मगुणान्न भुङ्क्ते पद्माश्रिता चान्द्रमसीमभिख्याम् । उमामुखं तु प्रतिपद्य लोला द्विसंश्रयां प्रीतिमवाप लक्ष्मीः ॥२९४॥ अत्र रात्रौ पद्मस्य संकोचः दिवा चन्द्रमसश्च निष्प्रभत्वं लोकप्रसिद्धमिति ‘न भुङ्क्ते’ इति हेतुं नापेक्षते ॥ अनुकरणे तु सर्वेषाम् । सर्वेषां श्रुतिकटुप्रभृतीनां दोषाणाम् । यथा मृगचक्षुषमद्राक्षमित्यादि कथयत्ययम् । पश्यैष च गवित्याह सूत्रामार्णं यजेत च ॥२९५॥ In cases where what is stated is a well-known fact, ‘inconsequentiality’ is not a defect. As an example we have the following— ‘Located in the Moon, grace does not imbibe the qualities of the lotus ; and when located in the lotus, it partakes not of the beauty of the Moon ; but when it rested in Umā’s face, the fickle grace obtained the charm belonging to both (Moon and Lotus).’ The statement that grace ‘does not imbibe &c. &c.’ does not need an explanation ; as it is well-known that the lotus is closed up during the night, and the Moon is lustreless during the day. In imitation, all the defects (cease to be defects). ‘All the defects’—‘unmelodiousness’ and the rest. As examples we have the following— ‘Mṛgachakṣuṣamadrākṣamityādi kathayatyayam Pashyaiṣa cha gavityāha sūtrāmāṇaṁ yajeta cha.’ ‘He says “I saw the fawn-eyed one’ and so forth ; he says “see the cow” and also “offer sacrifices to Indra.”’

264 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA वक्त्राद्यौचित्यवशाद्दोषोपि गुणः क्वचित्क्वचिन्नोभौ ॥५९॥ वक्तृप्रतिपाद्यव्यङ्ग्यवाच्यप्रकरणादीनां महिम्ना दोषोपि क्वचिद्गुणः क्वचिन्न दोषो न गुणः । तत्र वैयाकरणादौ वक्तरि प्रतिपाद्ये च रौद्रादौ च रसे व्यङ्ग्ये कष्टत्वं गुणः । क्रमेणोदाहरणम्— दीधीङ्वेवीङ्समः कश्चिद्गुणवृद्ध्योर्भाजनम् । क्विप्प्रत्ययनिभः कश्चिद्यत्र संनिहिते न ते ॥२१६॥ [ (a) ‘Mṛgachakṣuṣam’ is unmelodious ;—(b) ‘gaviti’ is ungramma- tical ;—and (c) ‘sūtrāmāṇam’ is unconventional; but being only reproductions of what has been said by another person, they do not constitute defects in the reproduction.] By virtue of the special character of the speaker and the rest, sometimes a defect becomes an excellence, and sometimes it is neither the one nor the other. · 59. By virtue of the importance attaching to the character of —(a) the speaker, (b) the person spoken to, (c) the meaning suggested, (d) the thing described, (e) the context and so forth,—a defect sometimes becomes an excellence ; and in certain cases it is neither a defect nor an excellence. For instance, when a grammarian is the person speak- ing, or the person spoken to,—or when the passion of ‘Fury’ forms the suggested meaning,—the Harshness of words becomes an excellence. Examples in order :— (a) ‘Dīdhīṅvevīṅsamaḥ kashchid Guṇavṛddhyorabhājanam Kvippratayanibhaḥ kashchid Yatra sannihite na te.’

CHAPTER VII 265 यदा त्वामहमद्राक्षं पदविद्याविशारदम् । उपाध्यायं तदास्मारं समस्प्राक्षं च संमदम् ॥२९७॥ अन्त्रप्रोतबृहत्कपालनलकक्रूरक्वणत्कङ्कण- प्रायप्रेङ्खितभूरिभूषणरवैराघोषयन्त्यम्बरम् । पीतच्छर्दितरक्तकर्दमघनप्राग्भारघोरोल्लस- द्व्यालोलस्तनभारभैरववपुर्दर्पोद्धतं धावति ॥२९८॥ ‘ Like the roots “ dīdhīṅ ” and “ vevīṅ ”, some people are not amenable to excellence and prosperity (eṅ and ai, changes, to which the said roots are not subject) ; others again are like the “ kvip ” affix, by virtue of whose proxi- mity, the said two things (excellence and prosperity) do not exist. [Here since the speaker is a grammarian, the obscurity attaching to the expressions becomes an excellence.] (b) ‘ Yadā tvāmahamadrākṣaṁ Padavidyāviśāradaṁ Upādhyāyaṁ tadāsmārṣaṁ Samasprākṣaṁ cha sammadam.’ ‘ When I saw you well-versed in grammatical lore, I was reminded of my own teacher and became elated with joy ’. [The person spoken to being a grammarian, obscurity is an excellence.] (c) ‘ Āntraprotabṛhatkapālanalakakrūrakvaṇatkaṅkaṇa— Prāyapreṅkhitabhūribhūṣaṇaravairāghoṣayantyambaram Pītachcharditaraktakardamaghanaprāgbhāraghorollasad- Vyālolastanabhārabhairavavapurdarpoddhataṁ dhāvati ’. ‘ She is rushing forward with proud arrogance, filling the atmosphere with the jingling of her dangling ornaments consisting of sculls and thighbones strung on the entrails,— her body appearing frightful on account of her dangling

266 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA वाच्यवशाद्यथा मातङ्गाः किमु वल्गितैः किमफलैराडम्बरैर्जम्बुकाः सारङ्गा महिषा मदं व्रजथ किं शून्येषु शरा न के । कोपाटोपसमुद्भटोत्कटसटाकोटेरिभारेः पुरः सिन्धुध्वानिनि हुङ्कृते स्फुरति यत् तद्गर्जितं गर्जितम् ॥२९९॥ अत्र सिंहे वाच्ये परुषाः शब्दाः ॥ प्रकरणवशाद्यथा ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────── breasts bespattered with the muddy blood that she has drunk and vomited.’ [The passion of disgust being suggested here, the harshness of the words becomes a source of excellence.] (d). The following is an example where the defect (of Harshness) becomes an excellence by virtue of the character of the thing described.— ‘Mātaṅgāḥ kimu valgitaiḥ kimaphalairāḍambarairjambukāḥ Sāraṅgā mahiṣā madam vrajata kim shūnyeṣu shūrā na ke Kopāṭopasamudbhaṭotkaṭasaṭākoṭeribhāreḥ puraḥ Sindhudhvānini huṅkṛte sphurati yat tad garjitam garjitam’ ‘O elephants, what of your cries ! O jackals, what of these useless struttings ! O deer and buffaloes, wherefore are you so proud ? Who is not brave, in solitude ? Roaring would be real roaring, only in the presence of the ocean-like rumble of the lion with his name ruffled in anger.’ In the latter half of this verse, the lion being the thing described, the harsh-sounding words are a source of excellence. (e) The following is an example of a defect becoming an excellence, by virtue of the context or occasion.

CHAPTER VII 267 रक्ताशोक कृशोदरी क्व नु गता त्यक्त्वानुरक्तं जनं नो दृष्टेति मुधैव चालयसि किं वातावधूतं शिरः । उत्कण्ठाघटमानषट्पदघटासंघट्टदष्टच्छद- स्तत्पादाहतिमन्तरेण भवतः पुष्पोद्गमोयं कुतः ॥३००॥ अत्र शिरोधूननेन कुपितस्य वचसि ॥ क्वचिन्नीरसे न गुणो न दोषः । यथा ‘Raktāśoka kṛśodarī kva nu gatā tyaktvānuraktaṁjanam No dṛṣṭeti mudhaiva chālayasi kiṁ vātāvadhūtaṁ śiraḥ Utkaṇṭhāghaṭamānaṣaṭpadaghaṭāsaṅghaṭṭa- daṣṭachchhadas- Tatpādāhatimantareṇa bhavataḥ puṣpod- gamoyaṅkutaḥ.’ ‘O red Ashoka tree, whereto has the slender-waisted one gone, leaving her lover ?—Why do you dishonestly shake your wind-blown head as if denying your having seen her ?—Without the touch of her feet, whence could there appear in you these blossoms, which have their petals bitten off by the swarms of black bees hovering round in their anxiety (to get at the flowers)’. The latter half of the verse is spoken by the speaker on an occasion when he has become enraged by the dis- honest behaviour of the tree shaking its head, [and hence the harshness of the words used is an excellence]. -- In some cases, where there is no Passion depicted, Harshness is neither a defect nor an excellence. For example—

268 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA शीर्णघ्राणाङ्घ्रिपाणीन् व्रणिभिरपघनैर्घर्घरार्यक्तघोषान् दीर्घाघ्रातानघौघैः पुनरपि घटयत्येक उल्लाघयन् यः । घर्मांशोस्तस्य वोन्तर्द्विगुणघनघृणानिघ्ननिर्विघ्नवृत्तेर् दत्तार्घाः सिद्धसंघैर्विदधतु घृणयः शीघ्रमंहोविघातम् ॥३०१॥ अप्रयुक्तनिहतार्थौ श्लेषादावदुष्टौ । यथा येन ध्वस्तमनोभवेन बलिजित्कायः पुरा स्त्रीकृतो यश्चोद्वृत्तभुजङ्गहारवलयोगङ्गां च योधायत् । ' Shīrṇaghrāṇāṅghripāṇīn vraṇibhirapagha- nairghargharāvyaktaghoṣān Dīrghāghrātānaghoghaiḥ punarapi ghaṭayat- yeka ullāghayan yaḥ Gharmāṁśostasya vontardviguṇaghanaghṛṇā- nighnanirvighnavṛtter Dattārghāḥ siddhasaṅghairvidadhatu ghṛṇayaḥ shīghramambhovighātam.' 'May the rays of the sun, to whom water-offerings are made by the hosts of gods, bring about the destruction of your sins ;--the sun who restores and rejuvenates the bodies of lepers which, beset with hosts of sins, have the nose, legs and hands shattered and ulcerated, and whose voice is indistinct; and whose disposition is affected by doubly intensified pity.' [Here since no Passion of any kind is meant to be described, the high-sounding words do not constitute either a defect or an exce- llence.] 'Unconventionality' and 'Suppression of Meaning' are not defective in passages where we have the figure of Paronomasia. For instance, in the following verse :— 'Yena dhvastamanobhavena balijitkāyaḥ purāstrīkṛto Yashchodvṛttabhujangahāravalayogangāṁ cha yodhārayat

CHAPTER VII 269 यस्याहुः शशिमच्छिरोहर इति स्तुत्यं च नामामराः पायात्स स्वयमन्धकक्षयकरस्त्वां सर्वदोमाधवः ॥३०२॥ अत्र माधवपक्षे शशिमदन्धकक्षयशब्दावप्रयुक्तनिहतार्थौ ॥ अश्लीलं क्वचिद्गुणः । यथा सुरतारम्भगोष्ठ्याम् “द्व्यर्थैः पदैः पिशुनयेच्च रहस्यवस्तु” इति कामशास्त्रस्थितौ Yasyāhuḥ shashimachchhirohara iti stutyaṁ cha nāmāmarāḥ Pāyāt sa svayamandhakakṣayakarastvāṁ sarvadomādhavaḥ. (A) (Applied to Kṛṣṇa)—‘May the all-giving husband of Lakṣmī protect you !—He who has destroyed the de- mon Shakaṭa, and himself unborn, conquered Balī, assumed a female form, subdued the serpent Kālīya ; in whom all sound becomes merged, who upheld the mountain and the earth, whose praiseworthy name the gods declare to be ‘the chopper of the head of Rāhu’, and who established the residence of the Andhaka race.’ (B) (Applied to Shiva)—‘May the husband of Umā ever protect you !,—He, the destroyer of the mind-born Love-god, who turned into an arrow the body of Viṣṇu (the subduer of Balī), who has large serpents as his necklets and bangles, bears the Gaṅgā, and the moon also on his forehead, whose praiseworthy name declared by the gods is ‘Hara’, and who destroyed the demon Andhaka’. In this verse the terms ‘shashimat’ and ‘andhakaṣaya’ are ‘unconventional’, when applied to Kṛṣṇa (but are not regarded as defective). The ‘Indecorous’ is an excellence in certain cases ; for instance, in conversations leading upto sexual dalliance ; in accordance with the dictum of the Science of Erotics that ‘secret matters are to be concealed by means of words with double meanings’;—e. g., in the following verse—