काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

अस्य धुरं सुतरामुपमेयमेव वोढुं प्रौढमिति कैमर्थ्येन यत् उपमानमाक्षिप्यते यदपि तस्यैवोपमानतया प्रसिद्धस्य उपमा- नान्तरविवक्षयानादरार्थमुपमेयभावः कल्प्यते तत् उपमेयस्योप- मानप्रतिकूलवर्तित्वात् उभयरूपं प्रतीपम् । क्रमेणोदाहरणम्— लावण्यौकसि सप्रतापगरिमण्यग्रेसरे त्यागिनां देव त्वय्यवनीभरक्षमभुजे निष्पादिते वेधसा । इन्दुः किं घटितः किमेष विहितः पूषा किमुत्पादितं चिन्तारत्नमदो मुधैव किममी सृष्टाः कुलक्ष्माभृतः ॥५५३॥ एएहि दाव सुन्दरि कण्णं दाऊण सुणसु वअणिज्जं । तुब्झ मुहेण किसोअरि चंदो उअमिज्जइ जणेण ॥५५४॥

CHAPTER X 453 अत्र मुखेनोपमीयमानस्य शशिनः स्वल्पतरगुणत्वात् उपमित्यनिष्पत्त्या ‘वअणिज्जं’ इति वचनीयपदाभिव्यङ्ग्य- स्तिरस्कारः । क्वचित्तु निष्पन्नैवोपमितिक्रिया अनादरनिबन्धनम् । यथा गर्वमसंवाह्यमिमं लोचनयुगलेन किं वहसि मुग्धे । सन्तीदृशानि दिशि दिशि सरस्सु ननु नीलनलिनानि ॥ ५५५ ॥ इहोपमेयीकरणमेवोत्पलानामानादरः । अनयैव रीत्या यत् असामान्यगुणयोगात् नोपमानभावमपि अनुभूतपूर्वि तस्य तत्कल्पनायामपि भवति प्रतीपमिति प्रत्ये- तव्यम् । यथा to hear the calumny that is spreading : O slender-waisted one, people are comparing the Moon to your face !’ The idea here is that the Moon which is compared to the face being possessed of inferior qualities, the com- parison is not correctly accomplished, and this contempt (for the Moon) is suggested by the word ‘calumny’. In some cases, the contempt is indicated by a com- parison that is correctly accomplished. For instance, in the following— ‘O deluded one, wherefore do you entertain bound- less pride on account of your eyes ? There are in the lakes on all sides, blue lotuses which are like them’. Here the contempt for the lotuses consists in their being made the objects compared. In the same manner, when an object, possessed of a unique property, not belonging to any other thing, and hence never recognised as similar (i.e., bearing comparison) to anything,—is represented as an object to which someth- ing is compared,—this also is to be regarded as an instance of the figure, Converse. For instance, in the following.—

454 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अहमेव गुरुः सुदारुणानाम् इति हालाहल तात मा स्म दृप्यः । ननु सन्ति भवादृशानि भूयो भुवनेस्मिन् वचनानि दुर्जनानाम् ॥५५६॥ अत्र हालाहलस्योपमानत्वमसंभाव्यमेवोपनिबद्धम् ॥ प्रस्तुतस्य यदन्येन गुणसाम्यविवक्षया । ऐकात्म्यं बध्यते योगात्तत्सामान्यमिति स्मृतम् ॥ १३४ ॥ अतादृशमपि तादृशतया विवक्षितुं यत् अप्रस्तुतार्थेन संपृक्तमपरित्यक्तनिजगुणमेव तदेकात्मतया निबध्यते तत् समानगुणनिबन्धनात् सामान्यम् । ‘ O Poison, don't you, my friend, be puffed up at the idea that you are the greatest of terrible things : verily there abound in this world the words of the wicked, which are just as terrible as yourself ’. Here the Poison is represented as the object compared to, and this character of it is something entirely inconceivable. 133. LV. Sāmānya—Identification. Where, with a view to delineate the presence of common properties, the object described is represented as identical with another, through its connection with this latter,—it is held to be Identification. 134. When the speaker desires to describe an object as similar to another, to which it is not really similar,—and represents it, through its connection with that object, as identical with it,—though not renouncing its own quali- ties,—it is Identification, ‘ Sāmānya ’;—so called because it is based upon the presence of identical (samāna) properties. Example— ‘ The women repining for their lovers,—having

CHAPTER X 455 उदाहरणम्— मलयजरसविलिप्ततन्वो नवहारलताविभूषिताः सिततरदन्तपत्र कृतवक्त्ररुचो रुचिरामलांशुकाः । शशभृति विततधाम्नि धवलयति धरामविभाव्यतां गताः । प्रियवसतिं प्रयान्ति सुखमेव निरस्तभियोभिसारिकाः ।।५५७।। अत्र प्रस्तुततदन्ययोरन्यूनतानतिरिक्ततया निबद्धं धवलत्वमे- कात्मताहेतुः । अत एव पृथग्भावेन न तयोरुपलक्षणम् । यथा वा वेत्रत्वचा तुल्यरुचां वधूनां कर्णाग्रतो गण्डतलागतानि । भृङ्गा सहेलं यदि नापतिष्यन् कोवेदयिष्यन्नवचम्पकानि ।।५५८।। अत्र निमित्तान्तरजनितापि नानात्वप्रतीतिः प्रथमप्रतिपन्नम- भेदं न व्युदसितुमुत्सहते प्रतीतत्वात्तस्य प्रतीतेश्च बाधायोगात् ।। their body smeared with sandal-paint, adorned with new pearl-necklaces, their faces shining through white paint, and clothed in clean white clothes,—become un- distinguishable when the moon with its rays has whitened the Earth, and thus proceed to the house of their lovers comfortably and fearlessly'. Here the ground of identification consists in the quality of whiteness, which is represented as being of the same degree as—neither more nor less than,—that in the object described (the women) and the other thing (moonlight); and for this reason the two objects themselves are not recognised as distinct. Another example— 'Who could have recognised the champaka-flowers hanging from their ears over the cheeks of young women, with complexion like the cane-bark,—if the black bees had not gracefully hovered over them?' Here the cognition of difference, though produced by other causes (the hovering of the bees), is not able to

456 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA विना प्रसिद्धमाधारमाधेयस्य व्यवस्थितिः । एकात्मा युगपद्वृत्तिरेकस्यानेकगोचरा ॥ १३५ ॥ अन्यत् प्रकुर्वतः कार्यमशक्यस्यान्यवस्तुनः । तथैव करणं चेति विशेषस्त्रिविधः स्मृतः ॥ १३६ ॥ प्रसिद्धाधारपरिहारेण यत् आधेयस्य विशिष्टा स्थितिर- भिधीयते स प्रथमो विशेषः । उदाहरणम्— दिवमप्युपयातानामाकल्पमनल्पगुणगणा येषाम् । रमयन्ति जगन्ति गिरः कथमिव कवयो न ते वन्द्याः ॥५५९॥ shake off the identity perceived before (the mention of the distinguishing bees) ; for the simple reason that this identity has been recognised, and what has been recog- nised once cannot be completely set aside. 134. LVI—Visheṣa—Extraordinary. (a) When the contained is represented as existing without its recognised container,—(b) when one thing is represented as subsisting, in the same form, and at the same time, in several things ;—and (c) where, while a person is engaged in the doing of one thing, he is described as accomplishing, in the same manner, a different thing, which (in reality) is not capable of being accomplished (by that same effort) ;—it constitutes what has been described as the figure Extraordinary with its three varieties. 135-36. (a) When the recognised container or receptacle of a thing, is omitted, and the contained is described as subsisting in a peculiar manner (i. e., without a receptacle),—it is the first variety of the Extraordinary.

CHAPTER X 457 एकमपि वस्तु यत् एकेनैव स्वभावेन युगपदनेकत्र वर्तते स द्वितीयः । उदाहरणम्— सा वसइ तुज्झ हिअए सा चिअ अच्छीसु सा अ वअणेसु । अम्हारिसाण सुन्दर ओसासो कत्थ पावाणं ॥५६०॥ यदपि किंचिद्रभसेन आरभमाणस्तेनैव यत्नेनाशक्यमपि कार्यान्तरमारभते सोपरो विशेषः । उदाहरणम्— स्फुरदद्भुतरूपमुत्प्रतापज्वलनं त्वां सृजतानवद्यविद्यम् । विधिना ससृजे नवो मनोभूर्भुविसत्यं सविता बृहस्पतिश्च ॥५६१॥ यथा वा Example— ‘Wherefore should the poets not be regarded as objects of reverence,—whose words, grand with infinite beauty, continue to rejoice the worlds, to the very end of the cycle, even after the poets themselves have departed to heaven?’ (b) When a single thing is described as subsisting in the same form, in several things simultaneously,—it is the second kind of the Extraordinary. Example— ‘She resides in your heart, in your eyes and in your words; where can there be any room for wretched beings like myself?’ (a) It is another kind of the Extraordinary where a person, proceeding in a hurry to do something, is des- cribed as accomplishing another thing, which is not capable of being accomplished by the same effort. Ex- ample— ‘When the Creator was creating you, with your res- plendent form, dazzling glory and flawless learning,— he actually created a new Love-god, a new Sun and a new Bṛhaspati on the Earth’.

458 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA गृहिणी सचिवः सखी मिथः प्रियशिष्या ललिते कलाविधौ । करुणाविमुखेन मृत्युना हरता त्वां बत किं न मे हृतम् ॥५६२॥ सर्वत्र एवंविधविषयेऽतिशयोक्तिरेव प्राणत्वेनावतिष्ठते तां विना प्रायेणालंकारत्वायोगात् । अत एवोक्तम् "सैषा सर्वत्र वक्रोक्तिरनयार्थो विभाव्यते । यत्नोऽस्यां कविना कार्यः कोऽलंकारोऽनया विना ॥ इति ॥ स्वमुत्सृज्य गुणं योगादत्युज्ज्वलगुणस्य यत् । वस्तु तद्गुणतामेति भण्यते स तु तद्गुणः ॥ १३७॥ वस्तु तिरस्कृतनिजरूपं केनापि समीपगतेन प्रगुणया स्वगुण- संपदोपरक्तं तत्प्रतिभासमेव यत्समासादयति स तद्गुणः । तस्या- प्रकृतस्य गुणोऽत्रास्तीति । Another example of the same— ‘When cruel Death deprived me of you—who were my wife, counsellor, confidante and beloved pupil in the graceful arts,—oh ! what is there that he did not deprive me of ?’ In all these cases (of the Extraordinary), artistic ex- pression forms the very essence ; as without it they would almost cease to be ornamental (figures of speech) at all. It is for this reason that the following statement has been made (by Bhāmaha and others)—‘Artistic expression is present everywhere ; it is by this that meanings become beautified ; it is on this that the poet should concentrate his effort ; what figure of speech can there be without this ?’ 136. LVII—Tadguṇa,—Quality borrowing. When a thing, through contact with another possessed of extremely brilliant qualities, renounces its own quality and takes up the qualities of that other thing,—it is Quality-borrowing. 137.

CHAPTER X 459 उदाहरणम्-- विभिन्नवर्णा गरुडाग्रजेन सूर्यस्य रथ्याः परितः स्फुरन्त्या । रत्नैः पुनर्यत्र रुचा रुचं स्वामानिन्यिरे वंशकरीरनीलैः ॥५६३॥ अत्र रवितुरगापेक्षया गरुडाग्रजस्य तदपेक्षया च हरिन्म- णीनां प्रगुणवर्णता ॥१३७॥ तद्रूपाननुहारश्चेदस्य तत् स्यादतद्गुणः । यदि तु तदीयं वर्णं संभवन्त्यामपि योग्यतायाम् इदं न्यूनगुणं न गृह्णीयात् तदा भवेदतद्गुणो नाम । When a thing, on contact with another thing, has its own character obscured by the superiority of the brilliant qualities of the other, and acquires a semblance of that thing, it is the figure Quality-borrowing, ‘Tadguṇa’— so called because there is borrowing of the quality (‘guṇa’) of that, (‘tat’), the thing other than the one described. Example— ‘The sun’s horses, having their colour altered by the wide-spreading splendour of Aruṇa, (the Sun’s charioteer, the brother of Garuḍa), were brought back to their own colour by the gems, green like the bamboo-sprout’. Here the green gems are described as possessed of more brilliant qualities than Aruṇa, whose qualities are more brilliant than those of the Sun’s horses. LVIII.—Atadguṇa—Non-borrowing of Qualities. If, however, there is no absorbing by the one from the other, it is the Non-borrowing of qualities. In a case, where the thing with inferior qualities does not absorb the form of the other thing,—even when such absorption is possible,—then it is the figure named ‘Non-borrowing of Qualities’. II-11

460 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA उदाहरणम्— धवलोसि जहवि सुन्दर तह वि तुए मज्झ रञ्जिअं हिअअं । राअभरिअवि हिअए सुहअ णिहित्तो ण रत्तोसि ॥५६४॥ अत्रातिरक्तेनापि मनसा संयुक्तो न रक्ततामुपगत इत्यतद्गुणः । किंच तदिति अप्रकृतम् अस्येति च प्रकृतमत्र निर्दिश्यते । तेन यत् अप्रकृतस्य रूपं प्रकृतेन कुतोपि निमित्तात् नानुविधीयते सोतद्गुण इत्यपि प्रतिपत्तव्यम् । यथा गाङ्गमम्बु सितमम्बु यामुनं कज्जलाभमुभयत्र मज्जतः । राजहंस तव सैव शुभ्रता चीयते न च न चापचीयते ॥५६५॥ Example— ‘Though you are yourself white (fair), yet you have made my heart red (affected by love) ; but though enshrined in my heart which is full of redness (love), you have not been reddened (made to love)’. Here the expression of the idea that ‘though the man, even in contact with very much reddened mind, has not become red’ involves the figure of ‘Non-borrowing of Qualities’. In the text, the pronoun ‘tat’, (‘the one’) may stand for the object other than the one described, and ‘asya’, (‘the other’) for the object described ; so that the defini- tion may also be taken to mean that when, for some reason the character of the other object is not absorbed by the object described, then it is the Non-borrowing of Qualities. For example— ‘O Chief of Swans, when you dip into the white water of the Gangā, or in the black water of the Yamunā, your own whiteness becomes neither increased nor de- creased’.

CHAPTER X 461 यद्यथा साधितं केनाप्यपरेण तदन्यथा ॥ १३८ ॥ तथैव यद्विधीयेत स व्याघात इति स्मृतः । येनोपायेन यत् एकेनोपकल्पितम् तस्यान्येन जिगीषुतया तदुपायकमेव यत् अन्यथाकरणम् स साधितवस्तुव्याहतिहेतुत्वात् व्याघातः । उदाहरणम्— दृशा दग्धं मनसिजं जीवयन्ति दृशैव याः । विरूपाक्षस्य जयिनीस्ताः स्तुवे वामलोचनाः ॥ ५६६॥ सेष्टा संसृष्टिरेतेषां भेदेन यदिह स्थितिः ॥ १३९ ॥ एतेषां समनन्तरमेवोक्तस्वरूपाणां यथासंभवमन्योन्यनिर- LIX.—Vyāghāta—Frustration. When one thing, which has been accomplished, in one way, by one person, is turned otherwise in that same way, by another,—that is called 'Frustration'. One man having accomplished a certain object by a certain means,—if that same object is made, by that same means, to become otherwise, by another person,—it is the figure ‘Frustration’, ‘Vyāghāta’;—so called because it is based upon the frustration (vyāhati) of something that has been accomplished. Example— ‘We eulogise the women who revivify, by their glances, the Love-god, who was burnt by Shiva, by his glance,—and who are thus superior to this latter god’. LX.—Saṁsṛṣṭi—Collocation of Figures. When these (figures) are present, distinctly from one another, it is Collocation. 138-39. When the figures of speech described above are present,—as far as possible independently of one ano- ther,—in one substratum,—either (a) in the word or (b)

462 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA पेक्षतया यत् एकत्र शब्दभागे एव अर्थविषये एव उभयत्रापि वा अवस्थानम् सा एकार्थसमवायस्वभावा संसृष्टिः । तत्र शब्दालंकारसंसृष्टिर्यथा वदनसौरभलोभपरिभ्रमद्भ्रमरसंभ्रमसंभृतशोभया । चलितया विदधे कलमेखलाकलकलोलकलोलदृशान्यया ॥५६७॥ अर्थालंकारसंसृष्टिस्तु लिम्पतीव तमोऽङ्गानि वर्षतीवाञ्जनं नभः । असत्पुरुषसेवेव दृष्टिर्विफलतां गता ॥५६८॥ पूर्वत्र परस्परनिरपेक्षौ यमकानुप्रासौ संसृष्टिं प्रयोजयतः उत्तरत्र तु तथाविधे उपमोत्प्रेक्षे । in the meaning or (c) in both,—it is called ‘Collocation’, because it consists in the co-existence of several in one thing. (a) In the following we have the Collocation of two verbal figures of speech— ‘Vadanasaurabhalobhaparibhramad- bhramarasambhramasambhṛtaśobhayā Chalitayā vidadhe kalamekhalā kalakalo lakaloladṛśānyayā.’ ‘The sweet sound of the girdle-zone was produced by another woman, with her eyes tremulous by reason of her hanging locks tossing about, and her beauty enhanced by the flurry caused by the black bees hovering about her, having been attracted by the sweet fragrance of her mouth’. (b) The Collocation of an Ideal and a Verbal Figure of Speech, we have in the verse— ‘Limpatīva tamoṅgāni etc.’ (see above, stanza No. 417). In the former verse (a) we have the Collocation brought about by the verbal figures Alliteration and Chime, which

CHAPTER X 463 शब्दार्थालंकारयोस्तु संसृष्टिः । सो णत्थि एत्थ गामे जो एअं महमहन्तलाअण्णं । तरुणाण हिअअलूंड़िं परिसक्कन्तीं णिवारेइ ॥५६९॥ अत्रानुप्रासो रूपकं चान्योन्यानपेक्षे । संसर्गश्च तयोरेकत्र वाक्ये छन्दसि वा समवेतत्वात् ॥१३९॥ अविश्रान्तिजुषामात्मन्यङ्गाङ्गित्वं तु संकरः । एते एव यत्रात्मनि अनासादितस्वतन्त्रभावाः परस्परम् अनुग्राह्यानुग्राहकतां दधति स एषां संकीर्यमाणस्वरूपत्वात् संकरः । stand independent of each other ; and in the latter (b), by the two ideal figures, Simple and Poetic Fancy, stand- ing independently of each other. (c) As an example of the Collocation of a Verbal and Ideal figure of speech, we have the following— ‘So ṇatthi ettha gāme jo eaṁ mahamahantalāaṇṇaṁ. Taruṇāṇa hiaalūḍiṁ parisakkantīṁ ṇivārei.’ ‘There is no one in this village who could restrain this young woman loitering about with her exuberant charm, captivating the hearts of young men’. Here we have Alliteration and Metaphor, indepen- dently of each other, and there is connection between these,—as they both occur in the same sentence or the same verse. 139. LXI.—Saṅkara.—Commixture. (a) When, however, there is a relation of subserviency among the said figures of speech, which are incapable of independent existence by themselves,—then it is Commixture.

464 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA उदाहरणम्-- आत्ते सीमन्तरत्ने मरकतिनि हृते हेमतातङ्कपत्रे लुप्तायां मेखलायां झटिति मणितुलाकोटियुग्मे गृहीते । शोणं बिम्बोष्ठकान्त्या त्वदरिमृगदृशामित्वरीणामरण्ये राजन् गुञ्जाफलानां स्रज इति शबरा नैव हारं हरन्ति ॥५७०॥ अत्र तद्गुणमपेक्ष्य भ्रान्तिमत्ता प्रादुर्भूतम् तदाश्रयेण च तद्गुणः सचेतसां प्रभूतचमत्कृतिनिमित्तमित्यनयोरङ्गाङ्गिभावः । यथा वा When these same figures, incapable of attaining inde- pendent existence by themselves, bear to one another the relation of helper and helped (i. e., when one helps to sustain the other), it is Commixture, 'Saṅkara';—so called because it involves a mixing up of the figures. Example—'O King, when the wives of your enemies are wandering about in the forest, the foresters wrest from them emerald crown-jewel, take away the golden ear-ornament, snap away the girdle-zone and quickly remove the jewelled anklets; but on seeing the necklace of pearls, which has become reddened by the reflection of the red colour of their Bimba-like lips, they take it to be only a string of red berries and therefore do not take it'. Here the figure 'Illusion' appears as based upon 'Quality-borrowing', and vice versa; and this comming- ling of the two figures is felt by persons possessed of poetic sensibility to be extremely charming; and hence it is found that there is 'mutual subserviency' between the two.

CHAPTER X 465 जटाभाभिर्भाभिः करधृतकलङ्काक्षवलयो वियोगिव्यापत्तेरिव कलितवैराग्यविशदः । परिप्रेङ्खत्तारापरिकरकपालाङ्किततले शशी भस्मापाण्डुः पितृवन इव व्योम्नि चरति ॥५७१॥ उपमा रूपकम् उत्प्रेक्षा श्लेषश्चेति चत्वारोत्र पूर्ववत् अङ्गाङ्गिंतया प्रतीयन्ते । कलङ्क एवाक्षवलयमिति रूपकपरिग्रहे करधृतत्वमेव साधक- प्रमाणतां प्रतिपद्यते । अस्य हि रूपकत्वे तिरोहितकलङ्करूपम् Another example of the same— ‘ Jaṭābhābhirbhābhiḥ karadhṛtakalaṅkākṣabalayo Viyogivyāpatteriva kalitavairāgyavishadaḥ Paripreṅkhattārāparikarakapālāṅkitatale Shashī bhasmāpāṇḍuḥ pitṛvana iva vyomni charati ’. ‘ The Moon roams in the sky, which has its surface marked by skulls in the shape of the moon and stars, as if it were in a crematorium,—shining, as he does, with the colour of the knotted hair,—wearing in his hand (rays) the bracelet of rosary-beads, in the shape of the black mark,—having attained the purity (whiteness) of dis- passion (freedom from redness) consequent upon the trouble brought upon separated lovers (the destruction of the objects of sense),—and is white like (with) ashes ’. Here the four Figures, Simile, Metaphor, Poetical Fancy, and Pun appear, as in the foregoing verse, to be ‘ mutually subservient ’. When we expound the expression ‘ Kalaṅkākṣabalaya ’ as ‘ Kalaṅka eva akṣabalayam ’, (the black mark itself being ‘the bracelet of rosary-beads ’), and as such involving the figure of Metaphor,—the n the fact of ‘ being held in the hand (rays) ’ is to be regarded as the basis justifying that

466 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA अक्षवलयमेव मुख्यतयावगम्यते तस्यैव च करग्रहणयोग्यतायां सार्वत्रिकी प्रसिद्धिः। श्लेषच्छायया तु कलङ्कस्य करधारणम् असदेव प्रत्यासत्त्या उपचर्य योज्यते शशाङ्केन केवलं कलङ्कस्य मूर्त्यैव उद्वहनात्। कलङ्कोक्षवलयमिवेति तु, उपमायां कलङ्कस्य, उत्कटतया प्रतिपत्तिः। न चास्य करधृतत्वं तत्त्वतोस्तीति मुख्येप्युपचार एव शरणं स्यात्। एवंरूपश्च संकरः शब्दालंकारयोरपि परिदृश्यते। यथा Metaphor ; and in this Metaphor it is the 'bracelet of rosary-beads' which appears as the predominant factor, entirely hiding from view the 'black mark' ; as it is the bracelet (and not the black mark) that is universally known as 'Karadhṛta', 'worn in the hand'; this latter factor, of being 'Karadhṛta',—though really not present in the case of the black mark—is imposed upon it figuratively, through the force of the Pun (upon the word 'kara', which means both hand and rays) aided by the proximity (of the lunar disc),—since it is only on his disc that the Moon wears the black mark. If, on the other hand, the expression 'Kalaṅkākṣabalaya' is expounded as 'Kalaṅkaḥ akṣabalayam iva', ('the black mark which is like the bracelet of rosary-beads'),—thus involving a Simile (not a Metaphor),—then it is the 'black mark' that comes to be recognised most obtrusively (as the principal factor) ;—but even so, as it is not possible for this mark to be 'karadhṛta' (worn in the hand),—if it is the predominant factor, for the application of this epithet, it would have to be dependent entirely upon the said figurative indication (based upon Pun). Commixture of this kind is met with between verbal figures also. As for example, in the following—

CHAPTER X 467 राजति ततीयमभिहतदानवरासातिपातिसारावनदा । गजता च यूथमविरतदानवरा सातिपाति सारा वनदा ॥५७२॥ अत्र यमकामनुलोमप्रतिलोमश्च चित्रभेदः पादद्वयगते परस्परापेक्षे । एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावादनिश्चयः ॥ १४० ॥ द्वयोर्बहूनां वा अलंकाराणामेकत्र समावेशेपि विरोधात् न यत्र युगपदवस्थानम् न चैकतरस्य परिग्रहे साधकम् तदितरस्य वा परिहारे बाधकमस्ति येनैकतर एव परिगृह्येत स निश्चया- भावरूपो द्वितीयः संकरः समुच्चयेन संकरस्यैवाक्षेपात् । ‘ Rājati tatīyamabhihatadānavarāsātipātisārāvanada Gajatā cha yūthamaviratadānavarā sātipāti sārā vanadā.’ ‘ This place is glorious, where the roaring of demons has been subdued and which is adorned with fast-flowing murmuring rivers ; and this elephant-herd protects itself, glorious with the uninterrupted flow of the ichor, powerful and destroying the forest ’. Here Chime and the Fanciful with convertible parts, are contained in the two feet, and are dependent upon each other. (b) When there is no reason in support of, nor any objection against, the recognition of any one (to the exclusion of the likely figures), there is Uncertainty (which forms the second variety of Commixture). 140. When two or more figures of speech are found toge- ther, and by reason of incompatibility, all of them cannot be admitted simultaneously,—nor is there any reason for accepting any one of them, nor is there any objection against the exclusion of others, by virtue of which any one only could be admitted,—then there is

468 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA उदाहरणम्— जह गहिरो जह रअणणिब्भरो जह अ णिम्मलच्छाओ । तह किं विहिणा एसो सरसवाणीओ जलणिही ण किओ ॥५७३॥ अत्र समुद्रे प्रस्तुते विशेषणसाम्यादप्रस्तुतार्थप्रतीतेः किमसौ समासोक्तिः किम् अब्धेरप्रस्तुतस्य मुखेन कस्यापि तत्समगुणतया प्रस्तुतस्य प्रतीतेः इयमप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा इति संदेहः । यथा वा नयनानन्ददायीन्दोर्बिम्बमेतत्प्रसीदति । अधुनापि निरुद्धाशमविशीर्णमिदं तमः ॥५७४॥ अत्र किं कामस्योद्दीपकः कालो वर्तते इति भङ्ग्यन्तरेणा- भिधानात् पर्यायोक्तम् । उत वदनस्येन्दुबिम्बतया अध्यवसानात् Uncertainty; and this is to be regarded as the second variety of Commixture;—this being the implication of the collective particle ‘cha’ (in the text), which is meant to connect the ‘commixture’ with the present text. For example, in the following verse—‘Hot is it that the ocean was not made sweet-watered, by the Creator, as it was made deep, rich in gems and bright ?’ Here it is uncertain what figure is meant to be expressed ; either (a) Modal Metaphor—involving the recognition of an object not meant to be described (the King), when what is actually described is the Ocean,—or (b) Indirect Descrip- tion, involving the recognition of the object to be described (the King), through the mention of an object not meant to be described (the Ocean), which the former resembles. Or, another example (of Uncertainty), in the following verse.— ‘This disc of the moon, which is a source of joy to the eye, is shining; and yet even now this darkness, pervading all quarters, stands unpierced’.

CHAPTER X 469 अतिशयोक्तिः किं वा । एतदिति वक्त्रं निर्दिश्य तद्रूपारोपवशात् रूपकम् । अथवा तयोः समुच्चयविवक्षायां दीपकम् । अथवा तुल्य- योगिता । किमु प्रदोषसमये विशेषणसाम्यादाननस्यावगतौ समा- सोक्तिः । आहोस्वित् मुखनैर्मल्यप्रस्तावात् अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा इति बहूनां संदेहादयमेव संकरः । यत्र तु न्यायदोषयोरन्यतरस्यावतारः तत्र एकतरस्य निश्चयात् न संशयः ॥ न्यायश्च साधकत्वम् अनुकूलता दोषोपि बाधकत्वं प्रति- कूलता । तत्र Here it is Uncertain, whether what is meant is—(a) the indirect assertion of the fact that ‘ the time favourable for the manifestation of love has arrived ’,—thus involving the Figure of Periphrasis ;—or (b) the recognition of the Face of the girl as the Moon,—thus involving the figure Hyperbole ;—or (c) the imposition of the character of the Moon upon the Face, referred to by the pronoun ‘this ,— thus involving the figure of Metaphor ;—or (d) the com- bination of both (Face and Moon),—thus involving the figure of Illuminator)—or (e) the figure of Equal Pairing (both Face and Moon being meant to be described) ; —or (f) the cognition of the face, through common quali- fications and the mention of the evening-time,—thus involving the figure of Modal Metaphor ;—or (g) the in- troduction of the description of the face,—thus involving the figure of Indirect Description. Thus, there being an uncertainty pertaining to several figures, this is an instance of the Uncertain Commixture. In cases where there are reasons for or against the admission of any one of the figures involved, there is certainty with regard to that one ; so that in that case there is no uncertainty.

470 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA सौभाग्यं वितनोति वक्त्रशशिनो ज्योत्स्नेव हासद्युतिः ॥५७५॥ इत्यत्र मुख्यतया अवगम्यमाना हासद्युतिर्वक्त्रे एवानुकूल्यं भजते इत्युपमायाः साधकम्। शशिना तु न तथा प्रतिकूलेति रूपकं प्रति तस्या अबाधकता। वक्त्रेन्दौ तव सत्ययं यदपरः शीतांशुरभ्युद्यतः ॥५७६॥ इत्यत्रापरत्वमिन्दोरनुगुणं न तु वक्त्रस्य प्रतिकूलमिति रूपकस्य साधकतां प्रतिपद्यते न तूपमाया बाधकताम्। राजनारायणं लक्ष्मीस्त्वामालिङ्गति निर्भरम् ॥५७७॥ The term ‘nyāya’ (in the text) stands for reasons for, that is, favourable to, something ; and ‘doṣa’ for reasons against, opposed to, something. (a) In the following passage—‘ the brightness of the smile like moonlight, lends gracefulness to the face-moon’, —what is recognised as the predominant factor is the ‘brightness of smile.’, and this is favourable to the des- cription being applicable to the face ; and hence it serves as the reason for the definite recognition of the figure of Simile (in the expression ‘face-moon’); and as regards the application of the description to the moon, also, the said circumstance (of the brightness of Simile being the predominant factor) is not altogether unfavourable ; and hence it cannot be regarded as a reason for the admission of the figure of Metaphor (in the same expression ‘Face- moon’.)— (b) But in the passage—‘ that this other moon should appear while your face-moon is already present’,—the epithet ‘other’ is favourable to the moon being taken as the object described, but not entirely unfavourable to the

CHAPTER X 471 इत्यत्र पुनरालिङ्गनमुपमां निरस्यति सदृशं प्रति परप्रेयसी- प्रयुक्तस्यालिङ्गनस्यासंभवात् । पादाम्बुजं भवतु नो विजयाय मञ्जु- मञ्जीरशिञ्जितमनोहरमम्बिकायाः ॥५७८॥ इत्यत्र मञ्जीरशिञ्जितम् अम्बुजे प्रतिकूलम् असंभावादिति रूपकस्यबाधकम् न तु पादेनुकूलमित्युपमायाःसाधकमभिधयते विध्युपमर्दिनो बाधकस्य तदपेक्षयोत्कटत्वेन प्रतिपत्तेः ॥ एवमन्यत्रापि सुधीभिः परीक्ष्यम् ॥१४०॥ face being so taken; and hence it becomes a reason for the admission of Metaphor, but not a reason against that of Simile. (c) In the passage—'The Goddess of Wealth firmly embraces you, the King-Viṣṇu',—the mention of 'em- bracing' excludes the Simile, as it is not possible (right) for the wife of one person to 'embrace' another who may be similar to him. (d) In the passage—'may the lotus-feet of Ambikā, lovely on account of the jingling of the anklets, ordain your victory',—the 'jingling' is unfavourable to the description applying to the lotus whose jingling is impossible and as such, it is a reason against the admission of Metaphor; we do not regard it as a reason for the admission of the Simile, on the ground of its being favourable to its apply- ing to the feet,—because the fact of its being a negative reason against (Metaphor) is more obtrusively recognised than that of its being an affirmative reason for Simile. Similar deductions may be made by the learned in other cases also.