काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

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