काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

482 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
कालपुरुषविध्यादिभेदेपि न तथा प्रतीतिरस्खलितरूपतया
विश्रान्तिमासादयतीत्यसावपि भग्नप्रक्रमतयैव व्याप्तः। यथा
अतिथिं नाम काकुत्स्थात् पुत्रमाप कुमुद्वती ।
पश्चिमाद् यामिनीयामात् प्रसादमिव चेतना ॥५९४॥
अत्र चेतना प्रसादमाप्नोति न पुनरापेति कालभेदः ।
प्रत्यग्रमज्जनविशेषविविक्तमूर्तिः
कौसुम्भरागरुचिरस्फुरदंशुकान्ताः ।
विभ्राजसे मकरकेतनमर्चयन्ती
बालप्रबालविटपप्रभवा लतेव ॥५९५॥
Diversity in Tense, Person, and the Imperative and
other endings interferes with the clear comprehension of
the idea ; so that this also would be included under
‘ Broken Uniformity ’. For example, in the passage—
‘ Atithiṁ nāma kākutsthāt putramāpa kumudvatī, pashchimād
yāminīyāmāt prasādamiva chetanā ’—‘ Kumudvatī obtained
from Kākutstha, the son named ‘ Atithi ’—just as Intellect
obtains enlightenment from the last quarter of the night ’,—
where the verb as applying to the Intellect should be in the
present tense—‘ āpnoti ’,—and not in the past, ‘ āpa ’ ; hence
here we have diversity of tense (which mars the clear
comprehension of the Simile).
And in the following passage—
‘ Pratyagramajjanaviśeṣaviviktamūrtiḥ
kausumbharāgaruchirasphuradamshukāntā
vibhrājase makaraketanamarchayantī
bālaprabālaviṭapaprabhavā lateva ’,
‘ Having the body brightened by a fresh bath and
clothed in a dress coloured red with Kusumbha, while
thou art worshipping the Love-god, thou shinest like a
creeper growing out of the branch of a tree with fresh
leaves ’,—the proper verb with ‘ latā ’ would have
been ‘ vibhrājate ’, in the third person ; and as this would