काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

20 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
नाभिधा गच्छेत् क्षीणशक्तिर्विशेषणे" इति न्यायादित्युपादान-
लक्षणा तु नोदाहर्तव्या । न ह्यत्र प्रयोजनमस्ति न वा रूढि-
रियम् । व्यक्त्यविनाभावित्वात्तु जात्या व्यक्तिराक्षिप्यते ।
यथा क्रियतामित्यत्र कर्ता । कुर्वित्यत्र कर्म । प्रविश पिण्डी-
मित्यादौ गृहं भक्षयेत्यादि च ।
case, is the community), is unable to proceed to the qualified
(which is the Individual).'
This however is not a right example of 'inclusive'
indication ; because in this case, there is neither any
'purpose' (served by the indirect implication, which
could not be got by direct denotation), nor any 'usage'
(and these alone have been declared to be the basis for
indirect implication). What really happens in the case
cited is that the individual is implied by the community
by reason of their invariable concomitance ; just as there
is in the case of the imperative passive form 'kriyatām',
where the agent is implied by reason of his being invariably
concomitant with an action,—or in that of the imperative
word 'kuru', the object is implied by reason of its being
inseparable from every transitive verb,—or in the case of
the word 'praviśa,' 'enter,' which implies the 'house'
to be entered, as what is entered is inseparable from the
act of entering,—or in the case of the word 'piṇḍīm'
'cake' (in the accusative), some such verb as 'eat'
is implied, as without some such transitive verb, there
could be no object.
The expression 'fat Devadatta eats not during the
day' as implying his nocturnal feeding has been regarded
by some people as an example of 'Indication'; but in
this case the nocturnal feeding is not 'indicated' by the words