काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

304 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
ओजःप्रभृतीनामनुप्रासोपमादीनां चोभयेषामपि समवायवृत्त्या
स्थितिरिति गड्डलिकाप्रवाहेणैवैषां भेदः” इत्यभिधानमसत् ॥
यदप्युक्तम् “काव्यशोभायाः कर्तारो धर्मा गुणास्तदतिशय-
हेतवस्त्वलंकाराः” इति तदपि न युक्तम् । यतः किं समस्तैर्गुणैः
काव्यव्यवहारः उत कतिपयैः । यदि समस्तैः तत्कथमसमस्त-
गुणा गौडी पाञ्चाली च रीतिः काव्यस्यात्मा ।
अथ कतिपयैः ततः
the rest, may be that while the former subsists by in-
herence, the latter is present only by conjunction; [this may be
true in the case of the Body and its excellences and orna-
ments but (in the case of Passion and its delineation) we
find that both,—excellences like Floridity and the rest, as
well as ornaments, like Simile, Alliteration and the rest—
subsist by inherence only; consequently any distinction
drawn between these two must be regarded as merely
based upon a blind tradition—a case of sheep blindly
following another.”
Then again, some people (Vāmana and his followers),
have stated the distinction in the form that “while Ex-
cellences serve to produce charm in poetry, Ornaments serve
to heighten the charm already produced.”—This also is
not right. Because the questions would arise—Is poetry
to be regarded as such only through the presence of all
the excellences, or through that of a few of these only?
If the former, how could the Gauḍī and Pāñchālī dictions,
which are not possessed of all the excellences, constitute
the ‘soul of Poetry’ (as has been held by Vāmana)?—If,
on the other hand, it is only the presence of a few of the
Excellences that renders Poetry capable of being so re-
garded,—then, it would be permissible to regard as ‘poetry’,