काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

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