काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

CHAPTER V 139
पदानामन्वितैः पदार्थैरन्वितानामेव संकेतो गृह्यते इति विशिष्टा
एव पदार्था वाक्यार्थः ।
न तु पदार्थानां वैशिष्ट्यम् ।
by the corresponding generic character (a notion of the
particular being impossible without that of the corrrespond-
ing universal); and this for the simple reason that those
word-meanings that are inter-related are always of the
said character (i. e., the particular over-shadowed by the
universal).”
According to this view also, the subject of Conven-
tion is only such word-meaning as appears in a particular
form, but over-shadowed by the corresponding universal; from
which it follows that when a word occurs in a sentence,
what is denoted by it forms part of the denotation of the
sentence as a whole, and as such what it expresses is some-
thing that is very much restricted to an extremely specific
form (in which it is correlated to the other words of the
particular sentence) and this very specific form which is
expressed by the word, not being the subject of convention
(which appertains to particulars only as overshadowed by
universals), cannot be regarded as directly ‘denoted’
by the word. And thus when the ordinary meaning of a
word also cannot be ‘denoted’ by it, it is a far cry to
what we hold to be the objects of ‘suggestion,’ which
are totally different from the direct meaning of the words
employed;—e. g., in the verse ‘The Sandal paint over
thy breasts is entirely rubbed of...thou hast not gone to
that wretched man,’ what is ‘suggested’ is that the person
addressed has gone to the man, while the direct meaning
of the words is quite the opposite.
Thus it is found that—(a) according to the ‘Abhi-
hitānvayavāda’, what is ‘denoted’ by the word is some-