काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

एकस्मिन् समासे भिन्ने वा समासे समासासमासयोर्वा नाम्नः प्रातिपदिकस्य न तु पदस्य सारूप्यम् । उदाहरणम् सितकरकररुचिरविभा विभाकराकार धरणिधर कीर्तिः । पौरुषकमला कमला सापि तवैवास्ति नान्यस्य ॥ ३५९ ॥ तदेवं पञ्चधा मतः ॥ ८२ ॥ अर्थे सत्यर्थभिन्नानां वर्णानां [सा पुनः श्रुतिः । यमकम् । समरसमरसोयमित्यादावेकेषामर्थवत्त्वे अन्येषामनर्थकत्वे भिन्नार्थानामिति न युज्यते वक्तुम् इति अर्थे सतीत्युक्तम् । सेति सरोरस इत्यादिवैलक्षण्येन तेनैव क्रमेण स्थिता ।

CHAPTER IX 325 पादतद्भागवृत्ति तद्यात्यनेकताम् ॥ ८३ ॥ प्रथमो द्वितीयादौ द्वितीयस्तृतीयादौ तृतीयश्चतुर्थे प्रथम- स्त्रिष्वपीति सप्त । प्रथमो द्वितीये तृतीयश्चतुर्थे प्रथमश्चतुर्थे द्वितीयस्तृतीये, इति द्वे । तदेवं पादजं नवभेदम् । अर्धावृत्तिः श्लोकावृत्तिश्चेति द्वे । uniform’), the letters ‘sa-ma-ra’, when occurring first, have the sense of ‘war’, but when repeated, the same letters have no sense, (as they form part of the compound ‘samarasaḥ’); so that it is not right to say that Chime consists in the repetition of letters with a different meaning.” ‘Sā’, ‘in the same order’,—this is meant to exclude such repetition, as in ‘sarorasa’ (where the consonants are not repeated in the same order). As occurring in the several feet of a verse or in several parts thereof,—it becomes manifold. 83. (1) The first foot repeated in the second foot, (2) the first foot repeated in the third foot, (3) the first foot repeated in the fourth foot;—(4) the second foot repeated in the third foot, (5) the second foot repeated in the fourth foot;—(6) the third foot repeated in the fourth, —and (7) the first foot repeated in all the other three feet.— These make seven varieties.—Then there are two varie- ties—viz:—(8) the repetition of the first foot in the second foot, and that of the third in the fourth foot—and (9) the repetition of the first foot in the fourth and that of the second in the third.—Thus there are nine varieties of Chime as occurring in the several feet of a verse.—In addition to these there are two varieties—viz.,—(10) the repetition of one half of the verse and (11) the repetition of the entire verse.

द्विधा विभक्ते पादे प्रथमादिपादादिभागः पूर्ववत् द्विती- यादिपादादिभागेषु अन्तभागोऽन्तभागेष्विति विंशतिर्भेदाः श्लोकान्तरे हि नासौ भागावृत्तिः । त्रिखण्डे त्रिंशत् चतुःखण्डे चत्वारिंशत् । प्रथमपादादिगतान्त्यार्धादिभागो द्वितीयपादादिगते आद्यार्धादिभागे यम्यते इत्याद्यन्वर्थतानुसरणेनानेकभेदम् । अन्ता- दिकम् । आद्यन्तिकम् । तत्समुच्चयः । मध्यादिकम् । आदिमध्यम् ।

CHAPTER IX 327 अन्तमध्यम् । मध्यान्तिकम् । तेषां समुच्चयः । तथा तस्मिन्नेव पादे आद्यादिभागानां मध्यादिभागे अनियते च स्थाने आवृत्ति- रिति प्रभूततमभेदम् । तदेतत्काव्यान्तर्गण्डभूतम् इति नास्य भेदReach/भेदलक्षणं कृतम् । दिङ्मात्रमुदाह्रियते । सन्नारीभरणोमायमाराध्य विधुशेखरम् । सन्नारीभरणोमायस्ततस्त्वं पृथिवीं जय ॥३६०॥ विनायमेनो नयतासुखादिना विना यमेनोऽनयता सुखादिना । महाजनोदीयत मानसादरं महाजनोदी यतमानसादरम् ॥३६१॥ foot,—(8) the combination of the last three.—Similarly there can be repetition of the first and other parts in the middle, and other parts of the same foot,—or again, the repetition may be without any fixed order, any part of one foot being repeated in any part of another ; and so forth, there would be many varieties. All this however is a mere excrescence in the body of poetry ; and hence any detailed definition of these varieties has not been attempted ; examples also we are citing of only a few kinds.— (1) Sannārībharaṇomāyastatastvaṁ pṛthivīṁ jaya.’ ‘ Having worshipped the Moon-crested God, who has obtained the jewel of pure women, may you win the earth,—you, who are free from deceit and in whose battle your enemy’s elephants have perished.’ (2) ‘ Vināyameno nayatāsukhādinā Vinā yamenonayatā sukhādinā Mahājanodīyata mānasādaraṁ Mahājanodī yatamānasādaram.

328 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA स त्वारम्भरतोवश्यमबलं विततारवम् । सर्वदा रणमानैषीदवानलसमस्थितः ॥३६२॥ सत्त्वारम्भरतोवश्यमवलम्बिततारवम् । सर्वदारणमानैषी दवानलसमस्थितः ॥३६३॥ अनन्तमहिमव्याप्तविश्वां वेधा न वेद याम् । या च मातेव भजते प्रणते मानवे दयाम् ॥३६४॥ यदानतो यदा नतो नयात्ययं न यात्ययम् । शिवेहितां शिवे हितां स्मरामितां स्मरामि ताम् ॥३६५॥ ‘The soul-bird, great and destructive of the annoyers of the good, was estranged from the mind by the Death- god, who carries away people without fault, devours life and strips off all pleasure.’ (3) ‘Satvāraṁbharatovashyam— abalaṁ vitatāravam Sarvādāraṇamānaiṣī— davānalasamasthitaḥ. Sattvāraṁbharatovashyam— avalambitatāravam Sarvadāraṇamānaiṣī davānālasamasthitaḥ.’ ‘The king, quick in action, devoted to Viṣṇu, always acting rightly, anxious to reach the heart of the people, and resembling the Submarine Fire,—always brought his enemies to battle, who were weak and noisy, who had not been subdued and hence resembled trees still standing upright.’ (4) vedhā na veda yām Yā cha māteva bhajate praṇate mānave dayām (5) ‘Yadānatoyadānato nayātyayaṁ na yātyayam Shivehitāṁ shive hitāṁ smarāmitāṁ smarāmi tām.’ (4) ‘I meditate upon Pārvatī,—whose immanent

CHAPTER IX 329 सरस्वति प्रसादं मे स्थितिं चित्तसरस्वति । सर स्वति कुरु क्षेत्रकुरुक्षेत्रसरस्वति ॥३६६॥ ससार साकं दर्पेण कन्दर्पेण ससारसा । शरन्नवाना बिभ्राणा नाबिभ्राणा शरन्नवा ॥३६७॥ मधुपराजिपराजितमानिनीजनमनःसुमनःसुरभि श्रियम् । अभृत वारितवारिजविप्लवं स्फुटितताम्रतताम्रवणं जगत्॥३६८॥ majesty even Brahmā cannot fathom, and who, like a mother, bestows her grace upon devoted man.’ (5) ‘I meditate upon Her who was sought after by Shiva,—by bowing to whom man, being auspiciously favoured by Her who is ever favourable to us, never goes beyond the bounds of propriety.’ (6) ‘Sarasvati prasādaṁ me sthitiṁ chittasarasvati Sara svati kuru kṣetrakurukṣetrasarasvati.’ ‘O Sarasvatī, who art in the body, like the river Sarasvatī in Kurukṣetra ! Be propitiated and make the ocean of my heart thy splendid abode. (7) ‘Sasāra sākaṁ darpeṇa kandarpeṇa sasārasā Sharannavānā bibhrāṇā nāvibhrāṇā sharannavā ‘The excellent autumn, accompanied by the lotus and fresh-looking carts, conducive to the ripening of the long grass, not devoid of the song of birds, slunk away along with the arrogant Love-god.’ (8) ‘Madhuparājiparājitamāninī- janamanaḥsumanaḥ surabhi shriyam Abhṛta vāritavārijaviplavaṁ Sphuṭitatāmratatāmravaṇaṁ jagat.’ ‘The world acquired resplendence,—bearing the sweet fragrance of the flower-like hearts of love-quarrelled women subjugated by the appearance of lines of black

330 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA एवं वैचित्र्यसहस्रैः स्थितमन्यदुन्नेयम् ॥८३॥ वाच्यभेदेन भिन्ना यद् युगपद्भाषणस्पृशः । श्लिष्यन्ति शब्दाः श्लेषोसावक्षरादिभिरष्टधा ॥ ८४ ॥ 'अर्थभेदेन शब्दभेद': इति दर्शने 'काव्यमार्गे स्वरो न गण्यते' इति च नये वाच्यभेदेन भिन्ना अपि शब्दा यत् युग- पदुच्चारणेन श्लिष्यन्ति भिन्नं स्वरूपमपह्नुवते स श्लेषः । स च वर्णपदलिङ्गभाषाप्रकृतिप्रत्ययविभक्तिवचनानां भेदादष्टधा । bees, discontinuing the destruction of the lotus and ad- orned with blossoming, tawny and wide-expanding mango- groves.' In the above manner, we may deduce the examples of endless varieties of Chime. 83. (IV) When words that are different by reason of the difference in their denotations coalesce (become identified) through the sameness of their pronunciation, it is a case of Coalescence or Pun; and through Letter and other factors, it is of eight kinds. 84. There is the theory that words having different meanings must be regarded as different,—and also that in poetry, accents do not count ; and in accordance with the former theory, even though two words may be the same in their verbal form, yet they are regarded as different and in accordance with the latter, when these words (though differently accented, by reason of their meanings) come to be pronounced in exactly the same manner, they are regarded as ‘coalescing’, i.e., as having their differences undiscernible ;—and when this happens, it is a case of Coalescence, Pun. This Pun is of eight kinds, as based upon the eight different factors of (1) letters, (2) words, (3) gender, (4)

CHAPTER IX 331 क्रमेणोदाहरणम्— अलंकारः शङ्काकरनरकपालं परिजनो विशीर्णाङ्गो भृङ्गी वसु च वृष एको बहुवयाः । अवस्थेयं स्थाणोरपि भवति सर्व्वामरगुरोर्- विधौ वक्रे मूर्ध्नि स्थितवति वयं के पुनरमी ॥३६९॥ पृथुकार्तस्वरपात्रं भूषितनिःशेषपरिजनं देव । विलसत्करेणुगहनं संप्रति सममावयोः सदनम् ॥३७०॥ भक्तिप्रह्वविलोकनप्रणयिनी नीलोत्पलस्पर्धिनी ध्यानालम्बनतां समाधिनिरतैर्नीतेहितप्राप्तये । dialect, (5) crude forms, (6) affixes, (7) terminations (declensional and conjugational) and (8) number. The following are the examples in this same order :— (1) ‘ Alaṅkāraḥ shaṅkākaranarakapālaṁ parījano Viśīrṇāṅgo bhṛṅgī vasu cha vṛṣa eko bahuvayāḥ Avastheyaṁ sthāṇorapi bhavati sarvāmaraguror Vidhau vakre mūrdhni sthitavati vayaṁ ke punaramī. ‘ For his ornament the fearful human skull ; for his attendant Bhṛṅgī of the broken limbs ; for his property, a single aged bull ;—when such is the condition of even Shiva, the revered of all the gods, when the curved moon (untoward Fate) stands on his head, who are we (that we should not suffer from untoward Fate) ?’ (2) ‘ Pṛthukārtasvarapātraṁ bhūṣitaniḥśeṣaparijanaṁ deva Vilasatkareṇugahanaṁ saṁprati samamāvayoḥ sadanam . (See above stanza No. 306.) (3) and (8) ‘ Bhaktiprahvavilokanapraṇayinī nīlotpalaspardhinī Dhyānālambanatāṁ samādhiniratairnītehitaprāptaye T[-3]

332 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA लावण्यस्य महानिधी रसिकतां लक्ष्मीदृशोस्तन्वती युष्माकं कुरुतां भवार्तिशमनं नेत्रे तनुर्वा हरेः ॥३७१॥ एष वचनश्लेषोपि । महदेसुरसंधम्मे तमवसमासंगमागमाहरणे । हरबहुसरणं तं चित्तमोहमवसरउमे सहसा ॥३७२॥ Lāvaṇyasya mahānidhī rasikatāṁ lakṣmīdṛśostanvatī Yuṣmākaṁ kurutāṁ bhavārtiśamanaṁ netre tanurvā hareḥ. ‘May (a) the eyes or (b) the body of Viṣṇu set at rest your worldly troubles !—(a) the eyes looking tenderly upon devotees, and (a) the body looked upon by persons in humble devotion,—(a) the eyes and (b) the body both vying with the lotus, mediated upon by yogins for the attainment of their highest ends,—the ocean of beauty, and producing charming sensations in the eyes of Lakṣmī.’ (2) Here again we have also the coalescence of the two numbers [Dual and Singular, the form of the various epithets being the same in both numbers ; the Neuter- Dual forms being the same the Feminine-Singular]. (4) ‘Mahadesurasaṁdhamme tamavasamāsaṁgamāgamāharaṇe Harabahusaraṇaṁ taṁ chittamoham- avasaraume sahasā.’ [This couplet, when taken as Sanskrit, means—‘O Umā, who ordains happiness, please safeguard my devo- tion to Vedic studies, which lead to union with the gods, and in proper time destroy the ever-growing delusion of my mind.’—

CHAPTER IX 333 अयं सर्वाणि शास्त्राणि हृदि ज्ञेषु च वक्ष्यति । सामर्थ्यकृदमित्राणां मित्राणां च नृपात्मजः ॥३७३॥ रजनिरमणमौलेः पादपद्मावलोक- क्षणसमयपराप्तापूर्वसंपत्सहस्रम् । प्रमथनिवहमध्ये जातुचित्त्वत्प्रसादाद् अहमुचितरुचिः स्यान्नन्दिता सा तथा मे ॥३७४॥ And when taken as Prakrit, its meaning is as follows— ‘O Consort of Shiva! produce in me a regard for virtue, and destroy my desire for birth and re-birth, which has its source in Tamas!—Thou art my sole refuge; so please remove the delusion of my mind.’— Thus in this case we have the coalescence of the two dialects.] (5) ‘Ayaṁ sarvāṇi shāstrāṇi hṛdi jñeṣu cha vakṣyati Sāmarthyakṛdamitrāṇāṁ mitrāṇāṁ cha nṛpātmajaḥ’. [‘The son of the king shall (a) bear in his heart, and (b) discuss with the learned, all the sciences, and he shall be the (a) strength-giver to his friends and (b) the strength- destroyer of his foes.] (6) ‘Rajanīramaṇamauleḥ pādapadmāvaloka- Kṣaṇasamayaparāptāpūrvasaṁpatsahasram Pramathanivahamadhye jātuchittvatprasādād Ahamuchitaruchiḥ syānnanditā sā tathā me.’ ‘Having obtained a thousandfold splendour on the occasion of looking at the lotus-feet of the Moon-crested God, and having acquired the right devotion through your grace,—may I among Shiva's hosts, (a) become the joy-giver and (b) attain the position of Nandi, their leader!’

334 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA सर्वस्वं हर सर्वस्य त्वं भवच्छेदतत्परः । नयोपकारसांमुख्यमायासि तनुवर्तनम् ॥३७५॥८४॥ भेदाभावात्प्रकृत्यादेर्भेदोपि नवमो भवेत् । नवमोपीत्यपिर्भिन्नक्रमः । उदाहरणम्— योसकृत्परगोत्राणां पक्षच्छेदक्षणक्षमः । शतकोटिदतां बिभ्रद्विबुधेन्द्रः स राजते ॥३७६॥

(7) Sarvasvaṁ hara sarvasya Tvaṁ bhavachchedatatparaḥ Nayopakārasāṁmukhyam Āyāsi tanuvartanam. [This may be construed either (a) as addressed by a devotee to Śhiva, or (b) as addressed by a thief to his son :—(a) ‘O Shiva ! you are the all in all of the entire universe,—addicted to the destruction of the world ; as such you have a body wherefrom emanates all that is conducive to good and virtue’;—(b) ‘O Son, take away all the property of all men ; employ yourself in cutting the walls ; do away with the idea of returning good for good ; and extend your livelihood at the cost of others.’— [Here we have the coalescence (a) of the declensional termination, the vocative, and the conjugational termination, imperative, in the word ‘hara’;—(b) of the conjugational termination, imperative and the declensional termination, the genitive, understood in the word ‘bhava’; also we have (c) the coalescence in the word ‘āyāsi’, of the possessive ending ‘ṇini’ and the conjugational termination, the present.] 84. There is also the ninth kind (of Pun), where there is no difference in the crude form or other factors. The particle ‘api’, ‘also’, is to be construed with ‘navamaḥ’, ‘ninth’.

CHAPTER IX 335 अत्र प्रकरणादिनियमाभावात् द्वावप्यर्थौ वाच्यौ ॥ ननु स्वरितादिगुणभेदाद् भिन्नप्रयत्नोच्चार्याणां तदभा- वादभिन्नप्रयत्नोच्चार्याणां च शब्दानां बन्धेऽलंकारान्तरप्रति- भोत्पत्तिहेतुः शब्दश्लेषोऽर्थश्लेषश्चेति द्विविधोऽप्यर्थालंकारमध्ये परिगणितोऽन्यैरिति कथमयं शब्दालंकारः । Example— ‘ Yosakṛtparagotrāṇāṁ pakṣachchedakṣaṇakṣamaḥ Shatakoṭidatāṁ bibhrad vibhudhendraḥ sa rājate.’ There being no defining factor in the shape of con- text and the rest, this couplet is equally capable of affording . both. the meanings—(a) ‘ The king of the learned is resplendent, being capable of repeatedly destroying in a moment the prosperity of his enemy’s people, and bearing the mark of having given away hundreds of millions’;— (b) ‘ The king of the gods, Indra, is resplendent,—capable of cutting off in a moment, the wings of the great moun- tains, and bearing the character of striking with the thun- derbolt.’ [Here we have a coalescence, where there is no difference in the two cases, in any one of the eight factors mentioned above.—This kind has been called the ‘Abhaṅga-shleṣa’ ‘Unbroken Pun’, on the ground that it does not necessitate the breaking up of the words into its various factors;—the necessity of which breaking up leads to the above-mentioned eight kinds of Pun being called ‘Sabhaṅga-shleṣa’, ‘Broken Pun.’ ] . An objection is raised in this connection :—“‘A com- position consists (a) of words that are pronounceable by diverse ‘ efforts ’ on account of the divergence in their accents, ‘ samāhāra ’ and other qualifications,—and also (b) of words that are pronounceable by similar ‘ efforts ’, by reason of there being no difference in the said qualifi-

336 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA उच्यते—इह दोषगुणालंकाराणां शब्दार्थगतत्वेन यो विभागः सः अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यामेव व्यवतिष्ठते। तथाहि— कष्टत्वादिगाढत्वाद्यनुप्रासादयः व्यर्थत्वादिप्रौढाद्युपमा- दयस्तद्भावतदभावानुविधायित्वादेव शब्दार्थगतत्वेन व्यवस्था- प्यन्ते। cations; in such a composition, ‘coalescence’ serves the purpose of intimating the Simile and such other figures of speech; the ‘Coalescence’ or ‘Pun’ is of two kinds, ‘verbal’ (based upon the forms of words); and ‘ideal’ (based upon the meanings of words); and since both these kinds of Pun have been included by others among ‘Ideal Figures of Speech’, why should it be treated as a verbal figure of speech (as it is done in the present context)?” The answer to the above is as follows :— In the present connection, when we divide defects or excellences or figures of speech into ‘verbal’ and ‘ideal’. such a division is based upon a consideration of concomi- tances, positive and negative. [That is to say, when a certain defect pertains to and is concomi- tant with only the verbal form of words and takes no account of the meaning, it is classed as ‘verbal’; while it if is found to be concom- tant with and pertaining to the meaning of words and is not affected by the verbal forms, then it is classed as ‘ideal’]. For instance, Harshness (defect), Floridity (excellence), Alliteration (figure of speech) and the rest are classed as ‘verbal’, because they are dependent entirely upon the presence or absence of the verbal forms of words; and ‘Irrelevancy’ (defect), Boldness (excellence) and Simile (figure of speech) and the rest are classed as ‘ideal’, be- cause they are dependent entirely upon the presence or

CHAPTER IX 337 स्वयं च पल्लवाताम्रभास्वत्करविराजिता । इत्यभङ्गः प्रभातसंध्येवास्वापफललुब्धेहितप्रदा ॥ ३७७॥ इति सभङ्गः इति द्वावपि शब्दैकसमाश्रयाविति द्वयोरपि शब्दश्लेषत्वमुप- पन्नं न त्वाद्यस्यार्थश्लेषत्वम् । अर्थश्लेषस्य तु स विषयः यत्र शब्दपरिवर्तनेपि न श्लेषत्वखण्डना । यथा absence of the meanings of words. For example, in the following two passages— (a) ‘Svayaṁ cha pallavātāmrabhāsvatkaravirājitā, (b) prabhātasandhyevāsvāpaphalalubdhehitapradā.’ [‘Gaurī—(1) adorned by hands red as the fresh leaf, and (2) fulfilling the desires of persons seeking for results hard to attain,—resembles the morn, which is (1) adorned by the shining sun red like the fresh leaf and fulfills the desires of persons intent upon performing the rites of the early dawn,’ [—we have, in the first an ins- tance of ‘broken pun’. [Since it involves the breaking up of the expression ‘bhāsvatkaravirājitā’ into ‘bhāsvat— kara-virājitā’ in one case, and into ‘bhāsvatka—ravi— rājitā’ in the other], and in the second an instance of the ‘unbroken pun’ [since the pun rests in the word ‘asvāpa’, which retains the same form in both cases and has not got to be broken up]. [The commentators have made a hopeless muddle of this passage, being landed into it by the wrong reading whereby the first passage is spoken of as ‘abhaṅga’ and the second as ‘sabhaṅga’; while, as a matter of fact, the case is just the reverse. The commentators say that ‘asvāpa involves a ‘broken pun’; but in both cases the word retaining the same form,—where is the breaking ?] Since both these puns are based upon the verbal forms of the words, it is only right that they should be regarded as ‘verbal’. It is not possible for even the first half to be regarded as ‘ideal’, because that Pun alone can be regarded

338 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA स्तोकेनोन्नतिमायाति स्तोकेनायात्यधोगतिम् । अहो सुसदृशी वृत्तिस्तुलाकोटेः खलस्य च ॥३७८॥ न चायमुपमाप्रतिभोत्पत्तिहेतुः श्लेषः अपि तु श्लेषप्रति- भोत्पत्तिहेतुरुपमा । तथाहि—यथा ‘कमलमिव मुखं मनोज्ञमेतत्कचतितराम्’ इत्यादौ गुणसाम्ये क्रियासाम्ये उभयसाम्ये वा उपमा । तथा ‘सकलकलं पुरमेत- ज्जातं संप्रति सुधांशुबिम्बमिव’ इत्यादौ शब्दमात्रसाम्येऽपि सा युक्तैव । तथा ह्युक्तं रुद्रटेन as ‘ideal’, where the pun remains unaffected even when the words are changed ; as is the case in the verse— ‘Stokenonnatimāyāti stokenāyātyadhogatim aho susadṛśī vṛttistulākoṭeḥ khalasya cha’] [‘Rising with little and falling with little,—the character of the wicked is exactly like that of the balance-beam’]— [where the Pun remains unaffected even when other synonyms are substituted for the words ‘stokena’, ‘unnatim’ and ‘adhogatim’.] Nor would it be right to regard the instance cited above (‘svayañcha pallavā &c.’, stanza No. 377.) as only serving the purpose of indicating the Semblance of a Simile [as has been held by the objector], for in reality it is the Simile (the similitude between ‘Gaurī’s hands’ and ‘Morn ’) that serves the purpose of indicating the Semblance of the Pun. [It will not be right to urge that “the similitude between ‘Gaurī’s hands’ and the ‘Morn’ resting merely on the fact of the verbal form of certain epithets being applicable to both, it can not be a case of Simile” ; because] even such instances as ‘Sakalakalaṁ purametajjātaṁ saṁprati sudhāṁśubimbamiva’ [‘This city has become sakalakala, full of humming voices, and hence resembles the disc of the Moon which is sakalakala, complete with all its

“स्फुटमर्थालंकारावेतावुपमासमुच्चयौ किं तु । आश्रित्य शब्दमात्रं सामान्यमिहापि संभवतः ॥” इति । न च ‘कमलमिव मुखम्’ इत्यादिः साधारणधर्मप्रयोगशून्य उपमाविषय इति वक्तुं युक्तं पूर्णोपमाया निर्विषयत्वापत्तेः ॥ देव त्वमेव पातालमाशानां त्वं निबन्धनम् । त्वं चामरमरुद्भूमिरेको लोकत्रयात्मकः ॥३७९॥

340 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA इत्यादिः श्लेषस्य चोपमाद्यलंकारविविक्तोस्ति विषय इति । द्वयोर्योगे संकर एव । उपपत्तिपर्यालोचने तु उपमाया एवायं युक्तो विषयः । अन्यथा विषयापहार एव पूर्णोपमायाः स्यात् । न च 'अबिन्दुसुन्दरी नित्यं गलल्लावण्यबिन्दुका' इत्यादौ विरोधप्रतिभोत्पत्तिहेतुः श्लेषः अपि तु श्लेषप्रतिभोत्पत्ति- Deva tvameva pātālamāśānāṁ tvaṁ nibandhanam Tvaṁ chāmaramarudbhūmireko lokatrayātmakaḥ [Which, (a) as addressed to Viṣṇu, means—‘O Viṣṇu, you are the nether region, the bounds of space, and the land of the immortals;—thus centralising in yourself all the three regions’:—and (b) as addressed to the king— ‘O king, you alone are the thorough protector, the ful- filment of all desires; you are also the recipient of the wind flowing from the royal chowries; thus though one, you are threefold’.] ;— If, however, we admit the presence of both the figures here, it will have to be regarded as a case of ‘combina- tion’ of figures. In reality however, on a full review of all the circumstances, the passage in question (‘the face is blooming like the lotus’) must be taken as an ins- tance of Simile; for if it were not so, there could be no instance of the ‘Complete Simile’ at all. [As in the case of Simile, so in the case of Contradic- tion also] some people have held that in certain cases Pun is indicative of the ‘semblance of Contradiction’ also, e.g., in the passage ‘Abindusundarī nityaṁ galallā- vaṇyabindukā.’ (‘She is dripping with loveliness, and is (a) beautiful as the Moon reflected in water (b) beautiful without drops) the Pun contained in the word ‘abindusun- darī’ serves to indicate the ‘semblance of contradiction’ (as between ‘without drops’ and ‘dripping’.)

CHAPTER IX 341 हेतुर्विरोधः । न ह्यत्रार्थद्वयप्रतिपादकः शब्दश्लेषः द्विती- यार्थस्य प्रतिभातमात्रस्य प्ररोहाभावात् । न च विरोधाभास इव विरोधः श्लेषाभासः श्लेषः । तदेवमादिषु वाक्येषु श्लेषप्रति- भोत्पत्तिहेतुरलंकारान्तरमेव । तथा च सद्वंशमुक्तामणिः ॥३८०॥ नाल्पः कविरिव स्वल्पश्लोको देव महान् भवान् ॥३८१॥ अनुरागवती संध्या दिवसस्तत्पुरःसरः । अहो दैवगतिश्चित्रा तथापि न समागमः ॥३८२॥ This, however, is not right ; as here also the case is just the reverse : it is the Contradiction that serves to indicate the ‘semblance of Pun’. And the reason for this lies in the fact that there is in reality no such verbal Pun as has a clear double meaning (which is the necessary element in all Puns), for the second meaning (‘beautiful without drops’) is merely hinted at and is not sufficiently complete or explicit (the epithet ‘beautiful without drops’ not being expressive enough to have any force). Nor is the mere Semblance of Pun a Figure of speech, in the same manner as the Semblance of Contradiction (Apparent Con- tradiction) is. All this leads to the conclusion that in cases like those cited, it is the other figures of speech that are predominant and serve to indicate the mere semblance of Pun. For instance, in the following four passages— (a) ‘Sadvaṁśamuktāmaṇiḥ’—‘The pearl-gem in the noble family [‘growing a nice bamboo’],—(b) ‘Nālpaḥ kaviriva svalpashloko deva mahān bhavān,’—‘O king, you are great, and are not of little fame, like an inferior poet, whose poems are insignificant ;’— (c) ‘Anurāgavatī sandhyā divasastatpurassaraḥ aho daivagatishchitrā tathāpi na samāgamaḥ ;’—

342 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA आदाय चापमचलं कृत्वाहीनं गुणं विषमदृष्टिः । यश्चित्रमच्युतशरो लक्ष्यमभाङ्क्षीन्नमस्तस्मै ॥३८३॥ इत्यादावेकदेशविवर्तिरूपकश्लेषव्यतिरेकसमासोक्तिविरोध- त्वमुचितं न तु श्लेषत्वम् ॥ शब्दश्लेष इति चोच्यते अर्थालंकारमध्ये च लक्ष्यते इति कोयं नयः । किं च वैचित्र्यमलंकार इति य एव कविप्रतिभासं- ‘The evening (girl) is red in the atmosphere (full of love), and the Day (her lover) goes before it (is present before her), and yet such is the curious way of Destiny that the two never meet;’— (d) ‘Ādāya chāpamachalaṁ kṛtvāhīnaṁ guṇaṁ viṣamadṛṣṭiḥ, yashchitramachyutasharo lakṣyamabhāṅkṣīnnamastasmai’. ‘Having taken up the bow immovable (in the shape of the Himālaya mountain), putting to it a string worn out (in the shape of the lord of serpents), and having an arrow which never moved (in the shape of Viṣṇu), the Being with deranged vision (the Three-eyed God, Shiva), shattered his target in a strange manner;—salutation to Him!’;—the Figure that is predominant is, not ‘Pun’, but respectively, (a) Partial Metaphor, (b) Dissimilitude based upon Pun, (c) Modal Metaphor and (d) Contradiction. Then again, the objector calls the Figure in question ‘Verbal Pun’, and yet he includes it among ‘Ideal Figures;’ —what sort of principle is this? Further, a Figure of Speech is only a form of imagery or fancy,—and this imagery can belong to only that (word or idea) which forms the final goal of the poet’s imagi- nation; and it is only this (Word or Idea) that forms the substratum of the Figure of Speech. [So that it cannot be right to say that all Pun is Ideal, as the objector has

CHAPTER IX 343 रम्भगोचरस्तत्रैव विचित्रता इति सैवालंकारभूमिः । अर्थ- मुखप्रेक्षित्वमेतेषां शब्दानामिति चेत् अनुप्रासादीनामपि तथैवेति तेऽप्यर्थालंकाराः किं नोच्यन्ते । रसादिव्यञ्जकस्वरूपवाच्य- विशेषसव्यपेक्षत्वेऽपि ह्यनुप्रासादीनामलंकारता । शब्दगुण- दोषाणामप्यर्थापेक्षयैव गुणदोषता । अर्थगुणदोषालंकाराणां शब्दापेक्षयैव व्यवस्थितिरिति तेऽपि शब्दगतत्वेनोच्यन्ताम् । ‘विधौ वक्रे मूर्ध्नि’ इत्यादौ च वर्णादिश्लेषे एकप्रयत्नोच्चार्य- त्वेऽर्थश्लेषत्वं शब्दभेदेऽपि प्रसज्यतामित्येवमादि स्वयं विचार्यम् ।। held].—It might be argued that—“ The words (in which the Pun rests) always look up to (depend upon) their meanings [so that in the long run, they must be regarded as ideal].”—But the same thing happens in the case of Alliteration and other Figures (which even the objector regards as verbal) ; so that why are not, these also called ‘verbal’ ? As a matter of fact, even though Alliteration and the other verbal figures are dependent upon the mean- ings of words, and also upon all those factors that serve to suggest a Passion or Sentiment and the rest,—yet they are regarded as ‘Figures of Speech’; [and according to the objector, these should have to be regarded as Ideal].— Further, the Excellences and Defects of words also are to be regarded only as bearing upon their meanings [so that according to the objector these should all be regarded as ideal, bearing upon the meaning only]. Further, even those Excellences, Defects and Figures that are regarded (by both parties) as belonging to the meaning or Idea are dependent upon the verbal form of the words ; so that, on the same principle, these latter should be held to belong to the verbal forms only.—Lastly in such passages as ‘vidhau vakre mūrdhni &c.’ (See above stanza No. 369),