काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

126 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अत्र शङ्कासूयाधृतिस्मृतिश्रमदैन्यविबोधौत्सुक्यानां शबलता ।
एते च रसवदाद्यलंकाराः । यद्यपि भावोदयभावसंधिभाव-
शबलत्वानि नालंकारतया उक्तानि तथापि कश्चित् ब्रूयादि-
त्येवमुक्तम् ।
यद्यपि स नास्ति कश्चिद्विषयः यत्र ध्वनिगुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्ययोः
स्वप्रभेदादिभिः सह संकरः संसृष्टिर्वा नास्ति तथापि प्राधान्येन
व्यपदेशा भवन्तीति क्वचित्केनचिद्व्यवहारः ।
guor (‘offer me the support of your arms’), Depression
(‘Ah, ah’), Determination (‘what a perverted order of
things’), and Longing (‘whither are you going?’),—
(which is ‘subordinate’ to the poet’s regard for the king).
These [(1) Passion, (2) Feeling, (3) Aberration of
Passion, (4) Aberration of Feeling, (5) Manifestation of
Feeling, (6) Conjunction of Feeling and (7) Commixture
of Feeling—as ‘subordinate’ to another Passion or Feel-
ing] are what are known as the Figures of Speech [called
(1) the Sentimental, (2) the Agreeable, (3) the Forcible,
(4) the Quiescent, (5) Manifested Feeling, (6) Conjunct
Feeling and (7) Commingled Feeling respectively].
Though as a matter of fact, ‘Manifested Feeling’,
‘Conjunct Feeling’ and ‘Commingled Feeling’ (the last
three of those just mentioned) have nowhere been spoken
of as ‘Figures’, yet, we have made the above assertion
(including these also) in view of the possibility of some
one describing them as such.
Though there is no single case where there is no
commixture of both ‘Suggestive Poetry’ and ‘Poetry
of Subordinate Suggestion’ and their respective varieties—
where one or the other is the more prominent or where
both are of equal importance [and hence no example can

CHAPTER V 127
जनस्थाने भ्रान्तं कनकमृगतृष्णान्धितधिया
वचो वैदेहीति प्रतिपदमुदश्रु प्रलपितम् ।
कृतालंकाभर्तुर्वदनपरिपाटीषुघटना
मयाप्तं रामत्वं कुशलवसुता न त्वधिगता ॥१२४॥
अत्र शब्दशक्तिमूलानुरणनरूपो रामेण सहोपमानोपमेय-
भावो वाच्याङ्गतां नीतः ।
be cited as a pure unmixed example of any one kind],—yet
we classify the examples as of one or the other, according
as one or the other happens to be the prominent factor ;
and this is done in accordance with the principle that
appellations are applied to things in accordance with what
happens to be their most prominent element.
[ Example of Suggested Figure subservient to the
expressed meaning]—
Janasthāne bhrāntaṁ kanakamṛgatṛṣṇāndhitadhiyā
Vacho vai-dehīti pratipadamudaśru pralapitam
Kṛtā-laṅkābharturvadanaparipāṭīṣughaṭanā
Mayāptaṁ rāmatvaṁ kuśalavasutā na tvadhigatā
‘I wandered among men’s haunts [in the Janasthāna for-
est], with my mind blinded by a miragic solicitude for gold
[by a desire for the golden deer] ;—at every step, with
tearful eyes, I said the words “ Please give me ” [“ O Vai-
dehī ”) ;—enough attempt was made by me at flattering the
meanly rich people [I directed my arrows at the serried heads
of the king of Laṅkā] ;—thus though I attained the position
of Rāma, yet I did not obtain perfect affluence [the mother of
Kuśa and Lava, Sītā].’
Here the similitude between the speaker and Rāma,
which is suggested through the force of the reverberating

128 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
आगत्य संप्रति वियोगविसंष्ठुलाङ्गी
मम्भोजिनीं क्वचिदपि क्षपितत्रियामः ।
एतां प्रसादयति पश्य शनैः प्रभाते
तन्वङ्गि पादपतनेन सहस्ररश्मिः ॥१२५॥ (२)
अत्र नायकवृत्तान्तोऽर्थशक्तिमूलो वस्तुरूपो निरपेक्ष-
रविकमलिनीवृत्तान्ताध्यारोपेणैव स्थितः ॥
वाच्यसिद्ध्यङ्गं यथा
भ्रममर्तिमलसहृदयतां प्रलयं मूर्च्छा तमः शरीरसादम् ।
मरणं च जलदभुजगर्जं प्रसह्य कुरुते विषं वियोगिनीनाम् ॥१२६॥
echo of the words (with double meanings), has been made
subservient to the expressed meaning.
[Since all that the suggested similitude does is to justify the
assertion 'I have attained the position of Rāma'.]
[Example of the 'Suggestion of Fact' being made
subservient to the expressed meaning].
' See, O delicate lady, the Sun, having passed the
night somewhere else, is propitiating the Lotus withered
through separation from him, by falling at her feet.'
Here the fact of the lover (propitiating his lady-love),—
which is suggested by the force of the meaning of the
word,—appears merely as an imposition upon (as lending
additional charm to) the entirely different fact of the Lotus
(blooming on the contact of the Sun's rays).
(3) Example of ' suggestion subservient to the accom-
plishment of the expressed meaning,'—
' The rain (poison) emanating from the serpent-like
clouds forcibly brings about, in ladies separated from

CHAPTER V 129
अत्र हालाहलं व्यङ्ग्यं भुजगरूपस्य वाच्यस्य सिद्धिकृत् ।
यथा वा
गच्छाम्यच्युत दर्शनेन भवतः किं तृप्तिरुत्पद्यते
किं त्वेवं विजनस्थयोर्हतजनः संभावयत्यन्यथा ।
इत्यामन्त्रणभङ्गिसूचितवृथावस्थानखेदालसाम्
आश्लिष्यन् पुलकोत्कराञ्चिततनुर्गोपीं हरिः पातु वः ।।१२७।। (३)
अत्राच्युतादिपदव्यङ्ग्यमामन्त्रणेत्यादिवाच्यस्य ।
एतच्चैकत्र एकवक्तृगतत्वेन अपरत्र भिन्नवक्तृगतत्वेनेत्य-
नयोर्भेदः ॥
अस्फुटं यथा
their lovers, vertigo, apathy, lassitude, insensibility, coma,
stupefaction, physical prostration and death.’
Here the suggestion of ‘poison’ only serves to com-
plete the expressed meaning (serpent) of the term ‘bhujaga.’
Another example—
“O Achyuta (Immovable One), I am going ; is any
satisfaction to be obtained from merely looking at you ?
In fact, if we remain together in this solitary place, wret-
ched people will think quite otherwise ;”—after the cow-
girl signified her depression and languor due to her
futile stay by the special form of address, Kṛṣṇa embraced
her and the hairs on his body were thrilled ;—may Kṛṣṇa,
in this condition, protect you.’
Here the suggestion (of unperturbability) made by
the term ‘achyuta’ (‘looking on’ and so forth) only
serves to help in the fulfilment of what is expressed by
the expression “having signified....form of address.”
The difference between the two examples just cited
lies in the fact that the former consists of the speech
9

130 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अदृष्टे दर्शनोत्कण्ठा दृष्टे विच्छेदभीरुता ।
नादृष्टेन न दृष्टेन भवता लभ्यते सुखम् ।।१२८।। (४)
अत्रादृष्टो यथा न भवसि वियोगभयं च यथा नोत्पद्यते तथा
कुर्या इति क्लिष्टम् ।।
संदिग्धप्राधान्यं यथा
हरस्तु किंचित्परिवृत्तधैर्यश्चन्द्रोदयारम्भ इवाम्बुराशिः ।
उमामुखे बिम्बफलाधरोष्ठे व्यापारयामास विलोचनानि ।।१२९।।५
अत्र परिचुम्बितुमैच्छदिति किं प्रतीयमानं किं वा
विलोचनव्यापारं वाच्यं प्रधानमिति संदेहः ।।
of only one speaker (the poet) while the latter consists
of the speeches of two persons (the poet and the cow-
girl).
(4) Example of the Abstruse Suggestion.
‘ While you are not seen, there is longing to see you,
and when you are seen, there is fear of separation ; there
is no comfort either on seeing you or not seeing you.’
What is sugested here is that ‘ you should act in such
a way that you may not remain unseen and yet there may
be no fear of separation,’—and this is not very clear (abs-
truse).
(5) Example of the suggestion ‘ of doubtful promi-
nence.’—
‘ Śiva, having his equanimity slightly perturbed,
like the ocean at the appearance of the moon, directed
his eyes towards Pārvatī’s face with bimba-like lips.’
Here it is doubtful whether prominence attaches to
the suggested meaning that ‘ he wished to kiss her.’ or to
the expressed meaning that ‘ the eyes were turned towards
the face.’

तुल्यप्राधान्यं यथा
ब्राह्मणातिक्रमत्यागो भवतामेव भूतये ।
जामदग्न्यस्तथा मित्रमन्यथा दुर्मनायते ॥१३०॥ (६)
अत्र जामदग्न्यः सर्वेषां क्षत्रियाणामिव रक्षसां क्षणात् क्षयं
करिष्यतीति व्यङ्ग्यस्य वाच्यस्य च समं प्राधान्यम् ॥
काक्वाक्षिप्तं यथा
मथ्नामि कौरवशतं समरे न कोपात्
दुःशासनस्य रुधिरं न पिबाम्युरस्तः ॥
संचूर्णयामि गदया न सुयोधनोरू
संधिं करोतु भवतां नृपतिः पणेन ॥१३१॥ (७)
अत्र मथ्नाम्येवेत्यादि व्यङ्ग्यं वाच्यनिषेधसहभावेन स्थितम् ॥

132 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
असुन्दरं यथा
वाणीरकुञ्जउड्डीणसउणिकोलाहलं सुणंतीए ।
घरकम्मवावडाए बहुए सीअन्ति अंगाइं ॥१३२॥ (८)
अत्र दत्तसंकेतः कश्चिल्लतागहनं प्रविष्ट इति व्यङ्ग्यात्
सीदन्त्यङ्गानीति वाच्यं सचमत्कारम् ॥
एषां भेदा यथायोगं वेदितव्याश्च पूर्ववत् ॥ ४६ ॥
यथायोगमिति
“व्यज्यन्ते वस्तुमात्रेण यदालंकृतयस्तदा ।
ध्रुवं ध्वन्यङ्गता तासां काव्यवृत्तेस्तदाश्रयात् ॥”
इति ध्वनिकारोक्तदिशा वस्तुमात्रेण यत्रालंकारो व्यज्यते
न तत्र गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यत्वम् ।
(8) Example of the ‘not beautiful’ suggestion—
“When she heard the chatter of parrots flying from
the Vetasa-bower, on account of her being engaged in her
house-hold work, her limbs began to writhe.’
Here the directly expressed meaning—that ‘her limbs
are suffering (from her deep longing for her lover)’ is
more charming than the suggested meaning (that into the
bower has entered a lover with whom she had made an
engagement].
The varieties of these (eight kinds of Poetry of Sub-ordinate
Suggestion should be understood to be, as far as possible,
like those of what has gone before (i. e. Suggestive Poetry).—(46).
‘As far as possible.’—This has been added with a
view to the fact that there is no ‘subordination of
suggestion’ in a case where a Figure is manifested by a
mere Fact;—as has been declared by the author of the
Dhvani in the following passage—“Whenever Figures

CHAPTER V 133
सालङ्कारैर्ध्वनेस्तैश्च योगः ] संसृष्ट्यलङ्कारैः ।
सालंकारैरिति तैरेवालंकारैः अलंकारयुक्तैश्च तैः। तदुक्तं ध्वनिकृता
“स गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यैः सालंकारैः सह प्रभेदैः स्वैः।
संकरसंसृष्टिभ्यां पुनरप्युद्द्योतते बहुधा ॥” इति ।
अन्योन्ययोगादेवं स्याद्भेदसंख्यातिभूयसी ॥ ४७ ॥
of Speech are suggested by a mere Fact, they only serve
the purpose of making it regarded as ‘Suggestive Poetry’;
because the existence of poetry rests upon those
Figures (which, therefore, cannot be regarded as ‘Subor-
dinate’ to the expressed meaning). 46.
There is a combination of ‘Suggestive Poetry, with these
(eight varieties of Poetry of Subordinate Suggestion) (a) as
transformed into ‘Figures’ (the ‘sentimental,’ the ‘agreeable’
and so forth), and also (b) as accompanied (embellished) by
(other) Figures (directly expressed),—this combination being
per subserviency as also per equality.
The term ‘sālaṅkāraiḥ’ is to be expounded as
‘alaṅkāraiḥ’—‘with these as themselves transformed
into, assuming the character of, Figures of speech,’—
and ‘alaṅkārayuktaiḥ,’ ‘with those as embellished by
other figures of speech.’
The following declaration has been made by the author
of the Dhvani :—
‘This (Suggestive Poetry),—combining, per sub-
serviency and per equality, with its own varieties, as also
with the varieties of Poetry of Subordinate Suggestion,
along with the Figure of Speech,—appears in many
forms’.
Thus by mutual combination the number of its varieties
becomes very large.—(47).

134 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
एवमनेन प्रकारेण अवान्तरभेदगणनेतिप्रभूततरा
गणना । तथाहि—शृङ्गारस्यैव भेदप्रभेदगणनायामानन्त्यम् ।
का गणना तु सर्वेषाम् ।
संकलनेन पुनरस्य ध्वनेस्त्रयो भेदाः । व्यङ्ग्यस्य त्रिरूपत्वात् ।
तथाहि—किंचिद्वाच्यतां सहते किंचित्त्वन्यथा । तत्र वाच्यतासहम्
अविचित्रं विचित्रं चेति । अविचित्रं वस्तुमात्रं विचित्रं त्वलंकार-
रूपम् । यद्यपि प्राधान्येन तदलंकार्यं तथापि ब्राह्मणश्रमण-
न्यायेन तथोच्यते । रसादिलक्षणस्त्वर्थः स्वप्नेपि न वाच्यः ।
‘Thus’,—in the manner described,—by counting
all the sub-divisions,—the number becomes very large;
e. g. the varieties of the Erotic Passion itself are endless,—
not to speak of others.
Thus, briefly, of Suggestive Poetry there are three
varieties, there being three kinds of what is suggested
(according as it happens to be a Fact or a Figure or Passion,
Feeling and the rest);—of these again, some (i. e. Figure
and Fact) are such as can be expressed also, while others
(e. g. Passion and the rest) can never be expressed. Of those
that can be also expressed, some are fanciful, while others are
not fanciful; what is not fanciful is the mere fact, and what
is fanciful is the Figure.—Though, in this connection the
Figure (when suggested) is really what is itself embellished
(and hence cannot be called a ‘figure’, ‘embellishment,’
in the exact sense of the term), yet it is called by the name
of ‘figure,’ on the same principle as the Brāhmaṇa, who has
become a mendicant and thereby has ceased to be a real
Brāhmaṇa, is still called a ‘Brāhmaṇa’ in view of his
having formerly been a Brāhmaṇa. Passion and the
rest, however, cannot be regarded even in a dream to

CHAPTER V 135
स हि रसादिशब्देन शृङ्गारादिशब्देन वाभिधीयेत । न चाभि-
धीयते तत्प्रयोगेपि विभावाद्यप्रयोगे तस्याप्रतिपत्तेस्तदप्रयोगेपि
विभावादिप्रयोगे तस्य प्रतिपत्तेश्चेत्यन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां विभा-
वाद्यभिधानद्वारेणैव प्रतीयते इति निश्चीयते ।
तेनासौ व्यङ्ग्य एव । मुख्यार्थबाधाद्यभावान्न पुनर्लक्षणीयः ।
be directly expressed. If these were expressed, they
could be so, either by the (generic) words ‘rasa’
(Passion) and the rest, or by the (particular) words
‘śṛṅgāra’ (erotic) and the rest ; as a matter of fact they
are not so expressed ; as is clear from the facts (a) that
even though these words are used, the Passion and the
rest are not cognised, so long as the excitants (ensuants
and variants) are not mentioned, and (b) that even when
those words are not used, if the excitants (ensuants and
variants) are mentioned, there is due cognition of Passion
and the rest ; and from these two premises—both affir-
mative and negative—it follows that what brings about
the cognition of these latter is the mention of the excitants
(ensuants and variants) (and not any verbal expressions
at all).
It is for this reason that Passion and the rest can be
only suggested, and not even indicated, because the necessary
conditions of Indication,—such as incompatibility of the
primary meaning and so forth—are wanting. Then again,
it has been already explained how there can be no ‘Indica-
tion’ without that kind of ‘suggestion of Fact in which
the expressed meaning is either transformed into some-
thing else or entirely ignored. In that ‘suggestion’
which is based upon the force of the words, the denota-
tion itself being restricted, any other that may be denoted,

136 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अर्थान्तरसंक्रमितवाच्ययोरत्यन्ततिरस्कृतवाच्ययोर्वस्तुमात्ररूपं व्यङ्ग्यं
विना लक्षणैव न भवतीति प्राक् प्रतिपादितम्। शब्दशक्तिमूले
तु अभिधाया नियन्त्रणेनानभिधेयस्यार्थान्तरस्य तेन सहोपमा-
देरलंकारस्य च निर्विवादं व्यङ्ग्यत्वम्।
अर्थशक्तिमूलेपि विशेषे संकेत: कर्तुं न युज्यते इति
सामान्यरूपाणां पदार्थानामाकाङ्क्षा-संनिधि-योग्यतावशात्पर-
स्परसंसर्गो यत्रापदार्थोपि विशेषरूपो वाक्यार्थस्तत्राभिहितान्वय-
वादे का वार्ता व्यङ्ग्यस्याभिधेयतायाम्।
as also the Simile or any other figure of speech that may
be perceptible, must doubtless be regarded as ‘suggest-
ted’.
In cases of ‘suggestion’ based upon the force of mean-
ing also, how can there be any possibility of the ‘suggest-
ted’ meaning being regarded as ‘expressed’ or ‘deno-
ted’, when,—in accordance with the ‘Abhihitānvaya’
theory—what is expressed by a sentence is the mutual
relationship among the denotation of the component words
based upon their mutual need, proximity and capability ;
and as such it must be confined to particular individuals,
and hence cannot be ‘denoted’ by any single word, whose
denotation must always pertain to Universals only, for the
simple reason that convention, upon which alone ‘deno-
tation’ is based, can never pertain to particular individuals.
[‘Suggestion’ being shown to be inevitable according
to the Bhāṭṭa theory of ‘Abhihitānvaya,’ the author proceeds
to show that it must be accepted under the Prābhākara
theory of ‘Anvitābhidhāna’ also ; and for this purpose
he sets forth this latter theory, as bearing upon the matter
under consideration.]

CHAPTER V 137
यप्याहुः
“शब्दवृद्धाभिधेयांश्च प्रत्यक्षेणात्र पश्यति ।
श्रोतुश्च प्रतिपन्नत्वमनुमानेन चेष्टया ।। १ ।।
अन्यथानुपपत्त्या तु बोधेच्छक्तिं द्वयात्मिकाम् ।
अर्थापत्त्यावबोधेत संबन्धं त्रिप्रमाणकम् ।। २ ।।
इति प्रतिपादितदिशा देवदत्त गामानय इत्याद्युत्तमवृद्धवाक्य-
प्रयोगाद्देशाद्देशान्तरं सास्नादिमन्तमर्थं मध्यमवृद्धे नयति सति
अनेनास्माद्वाक्यादेवंविधोर्थः प्रतिपन्नः इति तच्चेष्टयानुमाय
The upholders of the ‘Anvitābhidhāna’ theory have
offered the following explanation of the process of
denotation:—(a)
“The word, the experienced elderly man uttering
it, and the object denoted by the word, these three
things the young child perceives by his senses,—(b) that
the young man to whom the word has been addressed
has understood its meaning, he deduces by inference from
the action of the young man,—(c) and the two-fold
potency (of the word to denote and of the object to be
denoted) he recognises by means of presumption based
upon ‘apparent inexplicability;’—thus the denotative
relationship (of the word and its meaning) is cognised
through three means of cognition.”—
According to this account what happens is that—(a) the
elder person utters the words ‘bring the cow,’—(b) upon
which the younger person (to whom the words are add-
ressed) is found to bring from one place to another an
animal with the dewlap and other distinguishing features,—
(c) the youngest person (the child) then deduces from
this action that ‘such and such a meaning has been under-
stood by the younger person from the words that have
been uttered’;—(d) thus he comes to recognise the de-

138 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
तयोरखण्डवाक्यवाक्यार्थयोरर्थापत्त्या वाच्यवाचकभावलक्षणं
संबन्धमवधार्य बालस्तत्र व्युत्पद्यते । परतः चैत्र गामानय देवदत्त
अश्वमानय देवदत्त गां नय इत्यादिवाक्यप्रयोगे तस्य तस्य
शब्दस्य तं तमर्थमवधारयतीति अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यां प्रवृत्ति-
निवृत्तिकारि वाक्यमेव प्रयोगयोग्यमिति वाक्यस्थितानामेव
notative relationship subsisting between the said sentence
and its meaning as one impartible whole, and thereby he
himself comes to comprehend its signification ;—(e) after
sometimes he hears such sentences as ‘ Chaitra, bring
the cow,’ ‘ Devadatta, bring the horse.’ ‘ Devadatta, take
away the cow,’ and so forth, and thence deduces the mean-
ing of the several words and expressions. Thus it is
clear from positive as well as negative concomitance that
what is really significant and hence capable of being used
is the sentence only ; so that the denotative convention
pertaining to each individual word is cognised only
when it occurs in a sentence, and is connected with other
words ; so that the meaning of the sentence consists only
in the denotations of its component words as related to
one another ; and it is not that each word expresses its
own meaning and then these several meanings become
correlated (through proximity etc.) ; though it is true
that individual words when found to be used in other
sentences become recognised as the same (as the one that
was heard for the first time). Thus what forms the subject
of denotative convention is the denotation of a single
word only as correlated to the denotation of other words ;
thus though, when the said convention comes to be com-
prehended, it is comprehended in a particular form, yet
this particular form is one that is always overshadowed

CHAPTER V 139
पदानामन्वितैः पदार्थैरन्वितानामेव संकेतो गृह्यते इति विशिष्टा
एव पदार्था वाक्यार्थः ।
न तु पदार्थानां वैशिष्ट्यम् ।
by the corresponding generic character (a notion of the
particular being impossible without that of the corrrespond-
ing universal); and this for the simple reason that those
word-meanings that are inter-related are always of the
said character (i. e., the particular over-shadowed by the
universal).”
According to this view also, the subject of Conven-
tion is only such word-meaning as appears in a particular
form, but over-shadowed by the corresponding universal; from
which it follows that when a word occurs in a sentence,
what is denoted by it forms part of the denotation of the
sentence as a whole, and as such what it expresses is some-
thing that is very much restricted to an extremely specific
form (in which it is correlated to the other words of the
particular sentence) and this very specific form which is
expressed by the word, not being the subject of convention
(which appertains to particulars only as overshadowed by
universals), cannot be regarded as directly ‘denoted’
by the word. And thus when the ordinary meaning of a
word also cannot be ‘denoted’ by it, it is a far cry to
what we hold to be the objects of ‘suggestion,’ which
are totally different from the direct meaning of the words
employed;—e. g., in the verse ‘The Sandal paint over
thy breasts is entirely rubbed of...thou hast not gone to
that wretched man,’ what is ‘suggested’ is that the person
addressed has gone to the man, while the direct meaning
of the words is quite the opposite.
Thus it is found that—(a) according to the ‘Abhi-
hitānvayavāda’, what is ‘denoted’ by the word is some-

140 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
यद्यपि वाक्यान्तरप्रयुज्यमानान्यपि प्रत्यभिज्ञाप्रत्ययेन
तान्येवैतानि पदानि निश्चीयन्त इति पदार्थान्तरमात्रेणान्वितः
पदार्थः संकेतगोचरः । तथापि सामान्यावच्छादितो विशेष-
रूप एवासौ प्रतिपद्यते व्यतिषक्तानां पदार्थानां तथाभूतत्वादि-
त्यन्विताभिधानवादिनः ।
तेषामपि मते सामान्यविशेषरूपः पदार्थः संकेतविषय
इत्यतिविशेषभूतो वाक्यार्थान्तर्गतोऽसंकेतितत्वादवाच्य एव यत्र
पदार्थः प्रतिपद्यते तत्र दूरे अर्थान्तरभूतस्य निःशेषच्युतेत्यादौ
विध्यादेश्चर्चा ।
अन्वितोऽर्थोऽभिहितान्वये पदार्थान्तरमात्रेणान्वित-
स्त्वन्विताभिधाने अन्वितविशेषस्त्ववाच्य एव इत्युभयन-
येऽप्यपदार्थ एव वाक्यार्थः ।
यदप्युच्यते नैमित्तिकानुसारेण निमित्तानि कल्प्यन्ते इति ।
thing not correlated to anything else, and (b) according
to the ‘Anvitābhidhānavāda’, what is ‘denoted’ is some-
thing only correlated in a general way with what is ex-
pressed by other words ; so that in either case the parti-
cular object as related to another particular object is what
is never ‘denoted’ ; and hence under both these theories
the meaning of the sentence can never be the object of
direct verbal ‘denotation’.
Some people have urged the following arguments
(against the ‘suggestion-theory’)—“In every case causes
are inferred from their effects. So that when we find an
expression producing a certain idea, we conclude that that
expression is possessed of the potency necessary for ex-
pressing that idea ; consequently, whether the idea be
expressed directly or indirectly, the fact remains that it has
been expressed by the word ; and hence every case can be

CHAPTER V 141
तत्र निमित्तत्वं कारकत्वं ज्ञापकत्वं वा शब्दस्य। प्रकाशक-
त्वान्न कारकत्वम्। ज्ञापकत्वं तु अज्ञातस्य कथम्। ज्ञातत्वंच
संकेतेनैव स चान्वितमात्रे एवं च निमित्तस्य नियतनिमित्तत्वं
यावन्न निश्चितं तावन्नैमित्तिकस्य प्रतीतिरेव कथम् इति
‘नैमित्तिकानुसारेण निमित्तानि कल्प्यन्ते इत्यविचारिताभि-
धानम्।
regarded to be of the word expressing an idea; and there
is no ground for making any such distinction as that into
‘expression’, ‘indication’ and ‘suggestion’.”
In answer to this we ask—What is meant by the word
being the ‘cause’ here? Does it mean that it produces
the idea? or that it makes it known? It cannot be said
to produce the idea, as what the word does is to give expression
to an idea, it can never produce one. As regards its making
(the idea) known, how can the power to do this belong to
what is itself not known or understood?
[i. e. So long as the meaning of the word itself has not been
understood, it cannot give expression to anything else.]
As a matter of fact, the word itself can be understood
only through convention; and this convention is (as
shown above) only in regard to such words as are correlated
to others. Thus then, so long as the precise extent of
causal potency of the cause has not been ascertained, how
can the cause itself be recognised as such? So that the
assertion that ‘causes are inferred from their effects’ is
extremely ill-conceived.
Others again urge the following argument—“The
action of the word is like that of an arrow, its reach being
prolonged further and further; so that in whatever sense
a word may be used, that is the meaning expressed or de-
noted by it. Thus then (even in the case of the verse ‘the

142 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
ये त्वभिदधति सोयमिषोरिव दीर्घदीर्घतरो व्यापारः
इति यत्परः शब्दः स शब्दार्थः इति विधिरेवात्र वाच्य
इति । तेप्यतात्पर्यज्ञास्तात्पर्यवाचोयुक्तेर्देवानांप्रियाः । तथाहि
‘भूतभव्यसमुच्चारणे भूतं भव्यायोपदिश्यते’ इति कारक-
पदार्थाः क्रियापदार्थेनान्वीयमानाः प्रधानक्रियानिर्वर्तकस्व-
क्रियाभिसंबन्धात् साध्यायमानतां प्राप्नुवन्ति । ततश्चा-
दग्धदहनन्यायेन यावदप्राप्तं तावद्विधीयते । यथा ऋत्विक्प्रचरणे
sandal-paint has been entirely ...... thou hast not gone to
that wretched man ’), the affirmation (‘thou hast gone’,—
which has been held to be the suggested meaning) is what
is really only expressed or denoted by it.”
These ignorant people also do not understand what
is meant by a word being ‘used in a certain sense’. It
is a well-established principle that ‘when an accomplished
entity (i. e., substance) is spoken of along with what is to be
accomplished (i. e. an action), the former is mentioned as
subserving the purposes of the latter ; and according to
this principle, when substantives become correlated to
verbs (e. g. in the expression ‘bring the cow ’), they them-
selves acquire the character of ‘what is to be accompli-
shed,’ inasmuch as they have to be the substratum of their
own action of walking which helps in the accomplishment
of the principal action (of bringing) [as the bringing of the
cow can be accomplished only when she herself does the
walking] ; and in this case (where the accomplished entity,
cow, is tainted with the character of what is to be accom-
plished, i. e. its walking), the direction in question (‘bring
the cow ’) involves the injunction or predication of that
factor alone which is not already accomplished. For
example in the case of the sentence—‘The red-turbaned

प्रमाणान्तरात् सिद्धे “लोहितोष्णीषा ऋत्विजः प्रचरन्ति”
इत्यत्र लोहितोष्णीषत्वमात्रं विधेयं हवनस्यान्यतः सिद्धेः
“दध्ना जुहोति” इत्यादौ दध्यादेः करणत्वमात्रं विधेयम् ॥
क्वचिदुभयविधिः क्वचित्त्रिविधिरपि यथा ‘रक्तं पटं
वयः’ इत्यादौ एकविधिर्द्विविधिस्त्रिविधिर्वा । ततश्च ‘यदेव
विधेयं तत्रैव तात्पर्यम्’ इत्युपात्तस्यैव शब्दस्यार्थे तात्पर्यं न तु
प्रतीतमात्रे एवं हि ‘पूर्वो धावति’ इत्यादावपराद्यथपि क्वचित्ता-
त्पर्यं स्यात् ।

144 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
यत्तु 'विषं भक्षय मा चास्य गृहे भुङ्क्थाः' इत्यत्र 'एतद्गृहे
न भोक्तव्यम्' इत्यत्र तात्पर्यमिति स एव वाक्यार्थ इति, उच्यते
तत्र चकार एकवाक्यतासूचनार्थः न चाख्यातवाक्ययोर्द्वयोरङ्गा-
ङ्गिभाव इति विषभक्षणवाक्यस्य सुहृद्वाक्यत्वेनाङ्गता कल्प-
नीयेति 'विषभक्षणादपि दुष्टमेतद्गृहे भोजनमिति सर्वथा मास्य
गृहे भुङ्क्थाः' इति, उपात्तशब्दार्थे एव तात्पर्यम् ।
be included in the ‘sense’ or ‘import’ of a certain word,
then) the expression ‘the former man is running’ would
have to be regarded as having its ‘sense’ applying to the
notion of the ‘latter’ also [as the notion of the ‘latter’,
is implied by that of the ‘former,’ which is the word pro-
nounced].
Then again, it has been urged that in the case of the
sentences, ‘Eat poison, and don’t eat in that man’s house,’
the sense is that ‘you should not eat in that man’s house,’
and this is accepted as the meaning of the sentence [though
it is only implied and not directly expressed].
But what happens in the case of this sentence is that
the conjunctive particle ‘and’ indicates that the two
sentences have to be construed together,—and as between
the two sentences themselves, there can be no justification,
(without sufficient reason) for taking one as subordinate
to the other;—but it is found that there is such reason in
the shape of the fact that the admonition coming from a
friend, the first sentence ‘Eat poison’ (being incompatible,
in its direct meaning) must be regarded as subordinate to
the second one,—the meaning of the two sentences taken
together being ‘Eating in that man’s house is worse than
eating poison, therefore you should never eat in his
house.’ And when we accept this to be the sense or im-
port of the sentence, it is only what is expressed by the

CHAPTER V 145
यदि शब्दश्रुतेरनन्तरं यावानर्थो लभ्यते तावति शब्दस्या-
भिधैव व्यापारः ततः कथं 'ब्राह्मण पुत्रस्ते जातः ब्राह्मण कन्या
ते गर्भिणी' इत्यादौ हर्षशोकादीनामपि न वाच्यत्वम् । कस्माच्च
लक्षणा लक्षणीयेऽप्यर्थे दीर्घदीर्घतराभिधाव्यापारेणैव प्रतीतिसिद्धेः।
किमिति च श्रुतिलिङ्गवाक्यप्रकरणस्थानसमाख्यानां पूर्वपूर्वबली-
यस्त्वम् इत्यन्विताभिधानवादेपि विधेरपि सिद्धं व्यङ्ग्यत्वम् ।।
words of the sentence itself (by Indication, if not by direct
Denotation).
[The distinction between such 'Indication' and the 'Suggestion'
under dispute is that the indicated meaning is apprehended immediately
from the words themselves, while what is suggested comes to be grasped
some time after the direct denoted meaning has been comprehended].
Further, if we were to accept the view that in regard
to anything and everything that happens to be perceived
on the hearing of a certain word, the action of the word
is always 'Denotation' only,—then, in the case of the
words 'O Brāhmaṇa, a son has been born to you—and
your unmarried daughter is enciente'—why should not joy
and dejection that become manifested on the face of the
man to whom they are addressed be regarded as the mean-
ing of the words? 'Why too, in that case, admit of
'Indication' either (as a Secondary Verbal process) ?
For in the case of 'Indication' also, the gradually extending
reach of 'Denotation' itself could account for the desired
signification.—Why again should there be any gradually
descending authority attaching to 'Direct Vedic Declara-
tion', 'Indicative Power', 'Syntactical Connection', 'Con-
text', 'Position' and 'Name' (as the means of ascertain-
ing what accessory is subservient to what sacrificial act) ?
From all this it follows that under the theory of the
'Anvitābhidhāna' also, 'the affirmation (implied by the
10