काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

154 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
उच्यते--लक्षणीयस्यार्थस्य नानात्वेपि अनेकार्थशब्दाभि-
धेयवन्नियतत्वमेव । न खलु मुख्येनार्थेनानियतसंबन्धो लक्षयितुं
शक्यते । प्रतीयमानस्तु प्रकरणादिविशेषवशेन नियत संबन्धः
अनियतसंबन्धः संबद्धसंबन्धश्च द्योत्यते ।
न च
“अत्ता एत्थ णिमज्जइ एत्थ अहं दिअहए पलोएहि ।
मा पहिअ रत्तिअन्धअ सेज्जाए मह णिमज्जहिसि ॥१३६॥”
ing), what is this new kind of meaning that is called
‘suggested’?”
Our answer to this is as follows :—
Firstly, even though a word may have several ‘indi-
cated’ meanings, yet their number must be limited, just
like the expressed meaning of a word which has many
meanings.—Secondly, what is ‘indicated’ can never be
such as has no definite connection with the primary
(denoted) meaning, while the ‘suggested’ meaning, under
the influence of ‘context’ and other circumstances, may
have a definite connection (with the expressed meaning),
or it may have only an indefinite (vague) connection with
it, or it may be only indirectly connected (being connected
with something else which is connected with the expressed
meaning).—Thirdly, the primary (expressed) meaning is not
‘barred’ by (incompatibility) in the case of ‘suggestion’,
in such instances as—‘my mother-in-law lies here, and here
myself, mark this well while there is daylight; lest, O
wayfarer, you tumble into our beds at night’;—so that
(the very first condition of ‘Indication’ being wanting)
how can this be regarded as a case of ‘Indication’? —
Fourthly, it has been already shown (under Chapter II)
that in the process of ‘Indication’ also, ‘Suggestion’
comes in as an essential factor.

CHAPTER V 155
इत्यादौ विवक्षितान्यपरवाच्ये ध्वनौ मुख्यार्थबाधः ।
तत्कथमत्र लक्षणा । लक्षणायामपि व्यञ्जनमवश्यमाश्रयितव्य-
मिति प्रतिपादितम् ।
यथा च समयसव्यपेक्षा अभिधा तथा मुख्यार्थबाधादित्रय-
समयविशेषसव्यपेक्षा लक्षणा । अत एवाभिधापुच्छभूता सेत्याहुः ।
न च लक्षणात्मकमेव ध्वननं तदनुगमेन तस्य दर्शनात् । न च
तदनुगतमेव अभिधावलम्बनेनापि तस्य भावात् । न चोभयानु-
सार्येव अवाचकवर्णानुसारेणापि तस्य दृष्टेः । न च शब्दानुसार्येव
अशब्दात्मकनेत्रत्रिभागावलोकनादिगतत्वेनापि तस्य प्रसिद्धेः इति
अभिधातात्पर्यलक्षणात्मकव्यापारत्रयातिवर्ती ध्वननादिपर्यायो
व्यापारोऽनपह्नवनीय एव ॥
—Fifthly, just as ‘Denotation’ is dependent upon
convention, so is ‘Indication’ also upon the particular
convention relating to the three conditions of ‘the
primary meaning being barred’ and the rest (described
under Chapter II); and it is on this account that
‘Indication’ has been called the ‘tail of Denotation.’
[Hence it is just as impossible for ‘Suggestion’ to be
included under ‘Indication’ as under ‘Denotation.’]—
Sixthly, ‘Suggestion’ is not exactly of the nature
of ‘Indication’, because in some cases Suggestion follows
on the wake of Indication; nor indeed does Suggestion
always follow on the wake of Indication, as in several
instances Suggestion is based upon Denotation itself
nor again is Suggestion always based upon these two;
(Denotation and Indication), as it is found to emanate
even from mere letters and syllables which do not ‘denote’
anything at all,—or even from such entirely non-verbal
sources as side-long glances and other mere gestures.

156 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
तत्र “अत्ता एत्थ” इत्यादौ नियतसंबन्धः “कस्स व ण
होइ रोसो” इत्यादौ, अनियतसंबन्धः ।
“विपरीअरए लच्छी बम्हं दट्ठूण णाहिकमलट्ठं ।
हरिणो दाहिणणअणं रसाउला झत्ति ढक्केइ ॥१३७॥”
इत्यादौ संबद्धसंबन्धः । अत्र हि हरिपदेन दक्षिणनयनस्य
सूर्यात्मकता व्यज्यते। तन्निमीलनेन सूर्यास्तमयः । तेन पद्मस्य
संकोचः । ततो ब्रह्मणः स्थगनम् । तत्र सति गोप्याङ्गस्यादर्शनेन
अनिर्यन्त्रणं निधुवनविलसितमिति ।
From all this it follows that we cannot reject ‘Sugges-
tion’ as a process which functions far beyond the three
processes of ‘Denotation’, ‘Import’ and ‘Indication’.
(a) In the verse referred to above—‘my mother-in-
law lies here &c.’—the ‘suggested’ meaning is one
that bars a definite relationship (to the expressed meaning);
(b) while in the verse ‘who will not get annoyed etc.,
(quoted above) the relationship is extremely vague and
(c) in the following verse—
‘On the occasion of......when Lakṣmī saw Brahmā
seated on the naval-lotus of her husband, she, being too
immersed in her passion, closed the right eye of Viṣṇu
(her husband)’,
—the suggested meaning is related to the expressed
indirectly through something else related to it; e. g. the
term ‘Hari’ (Viṣṇu) suggests the fact of his right eye
being the Sun (the Sun and the Moon being described as
the two eyes of Viṣṇu), hence the closing of that eye
signifies sunset, which signifies the closing of the lotus and
the consequent hiding of Brahmā seated upon it, which,
lastly, suggests the fact that her secret parts being
rendered invisible to anyone, her pleasure would con-
tinue unmolested.

CHAPTER V 157
'अखण्डबुद्धिनिर्ग्राह्यो वाक्यार्थ एव वाच्यः वाक्यमेव च
वाचकम्' इति येप्याहुः तैरप्यविद्यापदपतितैः पदपदार्थकल्पना
कर्तव्यैवेति तत्पक्षेप्यवश्यमुक्तोदाहरणादौ विध्यादिर्व्यङ्ग्य
एव।
ननु वाच्यादसंबद्धं तावन्न प्रतीयते यतः कुतश्चित् यस्य
कस्यचिदर्थस्य प्रतीतेः प्रसङ्गात्। एवं च संबन्धात् व्यङ्ग्य-
Others again (the Vedāntins) have held the view that
—"It is the meaning of the sentence which, comprehended
through a single indivisible cognition, is what is 'ex-
pressed' or 'denoted', and it is the sentence alone that is
denotative".
But even these men, when they descend to the regions
of 'Illusion', have to take into account 'words' and
'meanings of words'; so that according to these people
also, in the examples cited above ' ('The sandal-paint
over thy breasts has been......thou hast not gone to that
wretched man') the affirmation and such other meanings
must be regarded as being 'suggested'.
[The logician starts off with another objection to the
'Suggestion theory']—"What is suggested is not some-
thing entirely unconnected with the expressed meaning ;
if it were, then anything could be suggested by any word,
without any restriction. In view of some such connection
being essential, there can be no suggestiveness in the absence
of some restrictive relationship; and thus what really
happens in the case of 'Suggestion' is that there is (1)
a constant relation (between the suggested and the sugges-
ter), (2) the relation is such that the suggester is never con-
comitant with the contrary of the suggested, and (3) the
suggester subsists in the suggested; so that the suggester
fulfilling the three conditions of the 'Inferential Problems',

158 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
व्यञ्जकभावोप्रतिबन्धेवश्यं न भवतीति व्याप्तत्वेन
नियतधर्मिनिष्ठत्वेन च त्रिरूपाल्लिङ्गाल्लिङ्गिज्ञानमनुमानं यत्
तद्रूपः पर्यवस्यति । तथाहि--
“भम धम्मिअ वीसद्धो सो सुणओ अज्ज मारिओ तेण ।
गोलाणइकच्छकुडंगवासिणा दरिअसीहेण ॥१३८॥”
अत्र गृहे श्वनिवृत्त्या भ्रमणं विहितं गोदावरीतीरे सिंहोप-
लब्धेरभ्रमणमनुमापयति । यत् यत भीरुभ्रमणं तत्तद्भयकारण-
निवृत्त्युपलब्धिपूर्वकं गोदावरीतीरे च सिंहोपलब्धिरिति
व्यापकविरुद्धोपलब्धिः ।
अत्रोच्यते--भीरुरपि गुरोः प्रभोर्वा निदेशेन प्रियानुरागेण
अन्येन चैवंभूतेन हेतुना सत्यपि भयकारणे भ्रमतीत्यनैकान्तिको
our knowledge of the suggested meaning comes to be purely
inferential in character. For instance, in the following
verse—‘ My good man, roam about as you choose ; the
dog has been killed by the lion living in the cave of the
banks of the Godāvarī’,—what is advised is the safety
of roaming about due to the removal of the dog from the
house, and this leads to the inference of the danger involved
in wandering on the banks of the Godāvarī, by reason of
the presence of the lion. The ‘roaming of a coward’
is invariably concomitant with the certainty of ‘the ab-
sence of all cause of fear’;—on the banks of the Godā-
varī ‘the cause of fear’ is present ; and so this ‘presence’
is the contrary of the aforesaid ‘absence’ with which the
said roaming is invariably concomitant. Hence the said
‘presence’ leads to the deduction of what is contrary to the
aforesaid ‘roaming’, i. e. the impropriety of roaming”.
Our answer to the above is as follows :—(a) As a matter
of fact, even a coward is found going to places where

CHAPTER V 159
हेतुः शुनो बिभ्यदपि वीरत्वेन सिंहान्न बिभेतीति विरुद्धोपि गोदा-
वरीतीरे सिंहसद्भावः प्रत्यक्षादनुमानाद्वा न निश्चितः । अपि तु
वचनात् । न च वचनस्य प्रामाण्यमस्ति । अर्थेनाप्रतिबन्धादित्य-
सिद्धश्च तत्कथमेवंविधाद्धेतोः साध्यसिद्धिः ।
तथा "निःशेषच्युत-" इत्यादौ गमकतया यानि चन्दनच्यवना-
दीन्युपात्तानि तानि कारणान्तरतोपि भवन्ति। अतश्चात्रैव स्नान-
there is danger, under certain circumstances, such as by
the order of his preceptor or master, under the influence
of his love for his beloved ; so that the inferential pro-
bans (premise) is 'inconclusive' (the 'coward's roaming'
being not invariably concomitant with the 'absence of
danger');—(b) and again, it is possible that the person
addressed may be a brave man who, even though fearing
the dog, would not fear the lion, and thus the premise is
also 'contradictory' (the 'presence of the lion' not nece-
ssarily involving the impossibility of the 'fearing man'
not roaming that way) ;—(c) further,' the presence of the
lion' on the banks of the Godāvarī is not something known
either by direct Perception or by Inference, it is learnt only
from the words (of the speaker), and since no reliability
belongs to the mere word (of a stray person), until it has
been found to be consonant with facts, the probans is
'unknown' also.—Thus the probans being vitiated by
three fallacies, how can it lead to any valid inference of the
conclusion ?—Further, in the case of the verse 'the san-
dal-paint over thy breasts has been entirely rubbed out......
thou hast not gone to the wretched man', the marks—
rubbing out of the sandal-paint and so forth—which have
been set forth as suggestive (of the conclusion 'thou hast
gone') are such as could be brought out by (and hence be
indicative of) other circumstances also ; in fact even in

160 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
कार्यत्वेनोक्तानीति नोपभोगे एव प्रतिबद्धानीत्यनैकान्तिकानि ।
व्यक्तिवादिना चाधमपदसहायानामेषां व्यञ्जकत्वमुक्तम् ।
न चात्राधमत्वं प्रमाणप्रतिपन्नमिति कथमनुमानम् । एवंविधा-
दर्थादेवंविधोर्थ उपपत्त्यनपेक्षत्वेपि प्रकाशते इति व्यक्तिवादिनः
पुनस्तत् अदूषणम् ॥
इति काव्यप्रकाशे ध्वनिगुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्यसंकीर्णभेदनिर्णयो
नाम पञ्चम उल्लासः ॥५॥
the verse itself they are described as brought about by
bathing ; so that they are not invariably concomitant with
the ‘ dalliance ’ (of the person addressed, which is held to
be suggested).
According to the upholder of the ‘ Suggestion ’ theory,
on the other hand, the said suggestion has been explained as
brought about by the marks described, through the aid
of the epithet ‘ wretched ’ (applied to the lover, which
suggests his infidelity in having dallied with the messen-
ger).—Nor could this ‘ wretchedness ’ be made the basis
of any Inference, for the simple reason that it is not some-
thing that is already cognised through any (other) valid
means of cognition. As for the fact that a certain set of
words gives rise to the notion of things (not actually
expressed by them), without any rhyme or reason,—this
cannot be effectively urged against the upholder of the
‘ Suggestion ’ theory (who takes pride in the suggestion
of such meanings). 47.
Thus ends Chapter V dealing with the sub-divisions
of Suggestive Poetry and the Poetry of Subordinate
Suggestion.

अथ षष्ठ उल्लासः
शब्दार्थचित्रं यत्पूर्वं काव्यद्वयमुदाहृतम् ।
गुणप्राधान्यतस्तत्र स्थितिश्चित्रार्थशब्दयोः ॥ ४८ ॥
न तु शब्दचित्रे अर्थस्याचित्रत्वमर्थचित्रे वा शब्दस्य ।
तथा चोक्तम्
“रूपकादिरलंकारस्तस्यान्यैर्बहुधोदितः ।
न कान्तमपि निर्भूषं विभाति वनिताननम् ॥
रूपकादिमलंकारं बाह्यमाचक्षते परे ।
सुपां तिङां च व्युत्पत्तिं वाचां वाञ्छन्त्यलंकृतिम् ॥
CHAPTER VI
LOWEST KIND OF POETRY
OF FANCIFUL WORD AND FANCIFUL MEANING
In the two kinds of Poetry spoken of above—that of Fan-
ciful Word and that of Fanciful Meaning,—subordinacy and pre-
dominance belong respectively to the fanciful meaning and the
fanciful word.
It is not that in the Poetry of Fanciful Word, there is
no fanciful meaning or vice versa.
[All that the division means is that though in any individual
instance, we may have both fanciful word and fanciful meaning, yet
it is regarded as the Poetry ‘ of Fanciful Word ’ when the fanciful
word (i. e., the Verbal Figure of Speech) is more prominent than the fanci-
ful meaning (i. e., the Ideal Figure of Speech) ; and it is regarded as ‘ of
fanciful meaning ’ when the fanciful meaning is the more prominent
of the two].
[In support of this commixture of both] we have the
following declaration :—
‘(a) Some writers have spoken of Metaphor and the
other (ideal) Figures of Speech as the real ‘ embellishments ’
11

162 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
तदेतदाहुः सौशब्द्यं नार्थव्युत्पत्तिरीदृशी ।
शब्दाभिधेयालंकारभेदादिष्टं द्वयं तु नः॥” इति ॥
शब्दचित्रं यथा
“प्रथममरुणच्छायस्तावत्ततः कनकप्रभ-
स्तदनु विरहोत्ताम्यत्तन्वीकपोलतलद्युतिः ।
उदयति ततो ध्वान्तध्वंसक्षमः क्षणदामुखे
सरसबिसिनीकन्दच्छेदच्छविर्मृगलाञ्छनः” ॥१३९॥
of Poetry ; even the face of a woman, though beautiful
in itself, does not appear charming when it is without any
ornaments [similarly Poetry, however beautiful in itself
is not charming unless it is embellished by a Figure of
Speech] ;—(b) others regard Metaphor and the other
Ideal Figures of Speech as something foreign to Poetry, and
they hold that the real embellishment consists in the elegant
placing of nouns and verbs ; it is this that they call ‘ ele-
gance of composition ’; no such elegance (or charm)
attaches to the mere Ideal figure (the fanciful meaning);—
(c) we however accept both kinds of embellishments ro
figures—the Verbal and the Ideal ’.
Example of the ‘ Fanciful Word ’ (Verbal Figure of
Speech)—
Prathamamaruṇachchhāyastāvattataḥ kanakaprabhas.
Tadanu virahottāmyattanvī kapolataladyutiḥ.
Udayati tato dhvāntadhvamsakṣamaḥ kṣaṇadāmukhe
Sarasabisinīkandachchhedachchhavirmṛgalāñchhanaḥ.
‘ The Moon rises at first with a shade of red ; then he
takes the golden hue ; after that he has the lustre of the
cheeks of the slender woman pining under separation ;
then towards night he takes the splendour of the bulbous

CHAPTER VI 163
अर्थचित्रं यथा
ते दृष्टमात्रपतिता अपि कस्य नात्र
क्षोभाय पक्षमलदृशामलकाः खलाश्च ।
नीचाः सदैव सविलाससमीकलग्ना
ये कालतां कुटिलतामिव न त्यजन्ति ॥१४०॥
यद्यपि सर्वत्र काव्येन्ततः विभावादिरूपतयैव पर्यवसानं
तथापि स्फुटस्य रसस्यानुपलम्भादव्यङ्ग्यमेतत्काव्यद्वयमुक्तम् ।
root of the fresh lotus-stock and is then capable of dis-
persing darkness'.
[Here the charm, lies in alliteration, which is more prominent
and charming than the series of similes involved].
Example of the 'Fanciful Meaning' (Ideal Figure of
Speech)—
'Whom do not (a) the locks of the woman with fair-
lashed eyes—and (b) the wicked people—not perturb,—
when they (a) curl over the eyes [(b) are seen], (a) hanging
low [(b) mean], (a) lying beautifully on the forehead
[(b) delighting in telling lies], and never abandon their
(a) blackness [(b) fraudulence] and (a) curls [(b) crooked-
ness, dishonesty]'.
[Here we have the ideal figure 'Combination' aided
by 'Paronomasia' and 'Simile]'.
Though in reality, in the case of all kinds of Poetry,
everything ultimately turns upon the Excitants, Ensuants
and Variants (and the Passion manifested by these) [and
hence in Fanciful Poetry also there is bound to be some
suggestion of Passion], yet what happens in the two
kinds of Fanciful Poetry just described is that no real
'Passion' is clearly discernible and it is on that ground

164 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अत्र च शब्दार्थालंकारभेदाद्बहवो भेदाः ते चालंकारनिर्णये
निर्णेष्यन्ते ॥
इति काव्यप्रकाशे शब्दार्थचित्रनिरूपणं नाम षष्ठ उल्लासः ॥६॥
that they are regarded as ‘devoid of suggestiveness’
[and hence ‘inferior’].
The varieties of this kind of Poetry are many, in accor-
dance with the number of Figures of Speech—ideal and
verbal ; and these are going to be described under the
section treating of the ‘Figures of Speech’ (Chapters
IX and X). 48.
Thus ends Chapter VI dealing with the Poetry of
Fanciful Word and Meaning.

अथ सप्तम उल्लासः
काव्यस्वरूपं निरूप्य दोषाणां सामान्यलक्षणमाह
मुख्यार्थहतिर्दोषो रसश्च मुख्यस्तदाश्रयाद्वाच्यः ।
उभयोपयोगिनः स्युः शब्दाद्यास्तेन तेष्वपि सः ॥ ४९ ॥
हतिरपकर्षः । शब्दाद्याः इत्याद्यग्रहणाद्वर्णरचने ।
विशेषलक्षणमाह
दुष्टं पदं श्रुतिकटु च्युतसंस्कृत्यप्रयुक्तमसमर्थम् ।
निहतार्थमनुचितार्थं निरर्थकमवाचकं त्रिधाश्लीलम् ॥५०॥
CHAPTER VII
OF DEFECTS
Having described the form of Poetry, the author states
the general definition of defects (the absence of which he
has made a necessary condition in all poetry) :—
Defect is the repressor of the principal meaning ; the
‘ principal meaning ’ being the Passion, as also the Expressed
Meaning, which is essential for the manifestation of the
Passion ;—both of these requiring the aid of Word and the
rest, Defects pertain to these latter also. 49.
‘ Repressing ’ is hindering the agreeableness.
‘ Word and the rest.—The phrase ‘ and the rest ’ is
meant to include Letters and Syntactical construction
(i. e. Sentence).
The author now proceeds to add specific definitions
of particular Defects.—
The defective Word is such as—(1) unpleasant to the
ear, (2) lacking correctness, (3) unconventional, (4) incapable

166 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
सन्दिग्धमप्रतीतं ग्राम्यं नेयार्थमथ भवेत् क्लिष्टम् ।
अविमृष्टविधेयांशं विरुद्धमतिकृत्समासगतमेव ॥ ५१ ॥
(१) ‘श्रुतिकटु’ परुषवर्णरूपं दुष्टम् ।
यथा
अनङ्गमङ्गलगृहापाङ्गभङ्गितरङ्गितैः ।
आलिङ्गितः स तन्वङ्ग्या कार्ताथ्र्यं लभते कदा ॥१४१॥
अत्र कार्ताथ्र्यमिति ॥
(२) ‘च्युतसंस्कृति’ व्याकरणलक्षणहीनम्
of giving sense, (5) having its meaning suppressed, (6) having
an improper signification, (7) useless, (8) not expressive, (9)
indecorous in three ways, (10) ambiguous, (11) unintelligible,
(12) vulgar, (13) and one whose meaning has to be guessed ;—
and it is (14) obscure, or (15) having the predicative factor
not discriminated, or (16) of repugnant implication,—only
when occurring in a compound. 51.
[ Examples of each of the above sixteen defects ]—(1)
The word that has the defect of being ‘ unpleasant to the
ear ’,—i. e. consisting of harsh letters,—is found in the
following—
‘ Anaṅgamaṅgalagṛhāpāṅgabhaṅgitaraṅgitaiḥ
Āliṅgitaḥ sa tanvaṅgyā kārtārthyaṁ labhate kadā’.
‘ When will he attain the fulfilment of his desires, on
being embraced by the slender-bodied girl, lovely through
the graces of her glance, the auspicious abode of the
Love-god himself ?’.
Here the word ‘ kārtārthyam ’ is ‘ unpleasant to the
ear ’ (Harsh).
(2) The following contains an example of the word
‘ lacking in correctness ’, i. e. not according with the rules
of grammar.—

CHAPTER VII 167
यथा
एतन्मन्दविपक्वतिन्दुकफलश्यामोदरापाण्डर-
प्रान्तं हन्त पुलिन्दसुन्दरकरस्पर्शक्षमं लभ्यते ।
तत् पल्लीपतिपुत्रि कुञ्जरकुलं कुम्भाभयाभ्यर्थना-
दीनं त्वामनुनाथते कुचयुगं पत्रावृतं मा कृथाः ॥१४२॥
अत्रानुनाथते इति । ‘सर्पिषो नाथते’ इत्यादावाशिष्येव
नाथतेरात्मनेपदं विहितम् । “आशिषि नाथः” इति । अत्र तु
याचनमर्थः । तस्मात् ‘अनुनाथति स्तनयुगम्’ इति पठनीयम् ।
‘ Etanmanda .............................
Dīnaṁtvāmanunāthate .............
‘ O thou, the daughter of the chief of the settlement !
the herd of elephants, seeking safety from danger (at the
hands of young foresters), is begging you not to cover
your breasts with leaves,—breasts that resemble the half
ripe Tinduka fruit in being dark in the centre and slightly
white all round, and which deserve to be fondled by
Shabara-youths ’.
[The sense is that if the girl does not cover her breasts the hunting
youths would be attracted nearer towards them than towards the
heads of the elephants.]
Here the verb ‘ anunāthate ’ is grammatically incorrect.
In accordance with Pāṇini’s Sūtra 2.3.15, the root ‘ nāth ’
can take the Ātmanepada-ending only when it is used in
the sense of benediction (hope or expectation), as in the ex-
pression ‘ sarpiṣo nāthate ’ (‘ he expects to obtain butter ’);
while in the verse cited, the word ‘ anunāthate ’ has the
sense of begging. Hence the correct reading should have
been ‘ anunāthati stanayugam ’.

168 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
(३) ‘अप्रयुक्तं तथा आम्नातमपि कविभिर्नादृतम् ।
यथा
यथायं दारुणाचारः सर्वदैव विभाव्यते ।
तथा मन्ये दैवतोस्य पिशाचो राक्षसोथ वा ॥१४३॥
अत्र दैवतशब्दो “दैवतानि पुंसि वा” इति पुंस्याम्नातोपि न
केनचित्प्रयुज्यते ॥
(४) ‘असमर्थं’ यत्तदर्थं पठ्यते न च तत्रास्य शक्तिः ।
यथा
तीर्थान्तरेषु स्नानेन समुपार्जितसत्कृतिः ।
सुरस्रोतस्विनीमेष हन्ति संप्रति सादरम् ॥१४४॥
अत्र हन्तीति गमनार्थम् ॥
(3) The following is an example of the ‘unconven-
tional’,—i. e. a word, which though quite correct formally,
is one that has not been admitted by poets into usage—
‘yathāyaṁ...........................daivatosya’
‘Inasmuch as this person is always cruel in his actions,
it seems as if his guiding spirit were a ghost or a demon’.
Though the form ‘daivataḥ’ is formally correct,—it
being mentioned in the lexicons as belonging both to the
masculine and neuter genders—yet as a matter of fact,
it has never been used in its masculine form.
(4) The following is an example of the word incapable
of giving sense’, i. e. one used in a sense to which its
denotative potency does not extend.
‘Tīrthāntareṣu......hanti samprati sādaram’
‘After having acquired merit from bathing in other
sacred places, he now reverentially repairs to the Celestial
River.’
Here the verb ‘hanti’ has been used in the sense of
going (which it is incapable of denoting).
[In the Dhātupāṭha the root han is mentioned to have the mean-
ings “to kill” and “to go”.]

CHAPTER VII 169
(५) ‘निहतार्थं’ यदुभयार्थमप्रसिद्धेऽर्थे प्रयुक्तम् ।
यथा
यावकरसार्द्रपादप्रहारशोणितकचेन दयितेन ।
मुग्धा साध्वसतरला विलोक्य परिचुम्बिता सहसा ॥१४५॥
अत्र शोणितशब्दस्य रुधिरलक्षणेनार्थेनोज्ज्वलीकृतत्वरूपोऽर्थो
व्यवधीयते ॥
(६) ‘अनुचितार्थं’ यथा
तपस्विभिर्या सुचिरेण लभ्यते प्रयत्नतः सत्त्रिभिरिष्यते च या।
प्रयान्ति तामाशु गतिं यशस्विनो रणाश्वमेधे पशुतामुपागताः ॥१४६॥
(5) The following is an example of a word which has
its meaning ‘suppressed’—i. e. used in a sense which,
though formally correct, is not generally known—
‘ Yāvakarasārdra.........śoṇitakachena.........
........................parichumbitā sahasā.
‘ When the lover, who had his locks made ruddy by
the touch of her feet painted with red alakta, saw that the
young girl was flurried through fright (caused by the sus-
picion that the redness might be due to blood), he kissed
her vehemently ’.
Here the intended meaning of the word ‘śoṇita’ i. e.
‘made ruddy’—is ‘suppressed’ by its better known
meaning, ‘blood’.
(6) In the following we have an example of the word
‘ with an improper signification ’—
‘ Tapasvibhiryā...........................
............raṇāśvamedhe paśutāmupāgatāḥ ’
‘ The glorious men who have become beasts offered
in the sacrifice of battle quickly attain that condition which
is attained by ascetics by prolonged austerities, and which
is eagerly sought after by performers of sacrifices.’

170 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अत्र पशुपदं कातरतामभिव्यनक्तीत्यनुचितार्थम् ॥
(७) 'निरर्थकं पादपूरणमात्रप्रयोजनं चादिपदम् ।
यथा
उत्फुल्लकमलकेसरपरागगौरद्युते मम हि गौरि ।
अभिवाञ्छितं प्रसिद्ध्यतु भगवति युष्मत्प्रसादेन ॥१४७॥
अत्र हिशब्दः ॥
(८) 'अवाचकं' यथा
अवन्ध्यकोपस्य विहन्तुरापदां भवन्ति वश्याः स्वयमेव देहिनः ।
अमर्षशून्येन जनस्य जन्तुना न जातहार्देन न विद्विषादरः ॥१४८॥
Here the word ‘pashu’, ‘beast’,—indicating (in its
proper denotation) as it does, cowardliness—conveys a
sense that is ‘improper’ (and repugnant to the context).
[The meaning is that those who lose their lives in battle attain
heaven more quickly than others ; this has been figuratively expressed
by means of the words ‘men who are killed in battle as beasts are
offered in sacrifice’,—and this implies that the men are possessed of
the qualities of the ‘beasts’ ; and these qualities are quite the reverse
of bravery and other qualities which are generally associated with the
heroes of war.]
(7) In the following we have an example of the ‘useless’
(redundant) word.—
‘Utphulla................................................mama hi gauri
................................................................ yuṣmatprasōdena’
‘O blessed Gauri, whose complexion is bright like
the pollen of the full-blown lotus, may my desired object
be accomplished by your kindness!’
Here the particle ‘hi’ is entirely superfluous.
(8) In the following we have an example of the ‘in-
expressive’ word—
(a) ‘Abandhyakopasya ..................
.............. jantunā .........daraḥ.’

CHAPTER VII 171
अत्र जन्तुपदमदातर्यर्थे विवक्षितं तत्र च नाभिधायकम् । यथा वा
हाधिक् सा किल तामसी शशिमुखी दृष्टा मया यत्र सा
तद्विच्छेदरुजान्धकारितमिदं दग्धं दिनं कल्पितम् ।
किं कुर्मः कुशले सदैव विधुरो धाता न चेत्तत्कथं
तादृग्यामवतीमयो भवति मे नो जीवलोकोऽधुना ॥१४९॥
‘ To him whose anger is never futile and who is ever
able to destroy his own troubles, people surrender them-
selves of their own accord ; on the other hand, if one is
devoid of resentment, men do not mind his enmity, nor
do they care for his friendship, if he is not generous ’.
Here the word ‘ jantu ’ (which means ‘ animal ’),
is used in the sense of ‘ not generous ’, which it never
expresses.
[A distinction is made between the ‘inexpressive ’ word and the
word ‘incapable of giving sense’ (4) on the ground that while the
latter, though incapable of expressing the intended meaning in its
entirety, does express a portion of it, the former is absolutely unable
to express any portion of it at all : that is of the two factors of the
intended meaning, the object and its qualities, while the ‘Incapable
word’ may signify one or the other, though not both, the
‘Inexpressive word ’ signifies neither.]
Another example of the “ Inexpressive Word ”—
Hā dhik....................
......... dagdhaṁ dinaṁ ...
.................................................
.........................................jīvaloko dhunā ’.
‘ Woe to me ! That time when I saw the Moon-
faced one is said to have been (dark) night, and this present
time, darkened as it is by the pangs of her separation, is
held to be (light) day ! What shall I do ? The Dispenser
is ever averse to my welfare ! Or else, why was not the
entire living world transformed for me into that same
night.’

172 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अत्र दिनमिति प्रकाशमयमित्यर्थेऽवाचकम् ।
यच्चोपसर्गसंसर्गादर्थान्तरगतम्
यथा
जङ्घाकाण्डोरुनालो नखकिरणलसत्केसरालीकरालः
प्रत्यग्रालक्तकाभाप्रसरकिसलयो मञ्जुमञ्जीरभृङ्गः ।
भर्तुर्नृत्तानुकारे जयति निजतनूस्वच्छलावण्यवापी-
संभूताम्भोजशोभां विदधदभिनवो दण्डपादो भवान्याः ॥१५०॥
अत्र दधदित्यर्थे विदधदिति ।।
Here the word ‘ dinam ’ is not quite expressive of
brightness [in the same manner as ‘ tāmasī ’ is of darkness.]
Another example of this same defect we have in a case
where (though the verbal root is quite expressive of the
intended meaning), the meaning becomes changed by
the particular prefix added to it ; as in the following—
‘ Jaṅghā..................
......vidadhadabhinavo...bhavānyāḥ ’
‘ Glorious is the Daṇḍapāda attitude struck up by
Bhavānī when imitating her husband’s dance,—the attitude
(of the legs) which bears the splendour of the lotus grown
in the tank of the exquisite charm of her body, having the
thighs for its stalk, the lustrous nails for its filaments, the
bright red paints on the feet for its petals, and the jingling
anklets for the bees hovering round it.’
Here the word ‘ vidadhat ’ has been used in the sense
of ‘ dadhat,’ ‘ bears.’
[The form ‘ dadhat ’ without the prefix ‘ means ‘ bearing’; with
the said prefix, it means ‘ ordaining,’ ‘ encompassing ’ and so forth.]

CHAPTER VII 173
(९) ‘अश्लीलम्’ त्रिधेति व्रीडाजुगुप्सामङ्गलव्यञ्जकत्वात् ।
यथा
साधनं सुमहद्यस्य यन्नान्यस्य विलोक्यते ।
तस्य धीशालिनः कोन्यः सहतारालितां भ्रुवम् ॥१५१॥ (१)
लीलातामरसाहतोन्ववनितानिःशङ्कदष्टाधरः
कश्चित्केसरदूषितेक्षण इव व्यामील्य नेत्रे स्थितः ।
मुग्धा कुड्मलिताननेन ददती वायुं स्थिता तत्र सा
भ्रान्त्या धूर्ततयाथवानतिमृतेतेनानिश्ं चुम्बिता॥१५२॥(२)
(9) The ‘ indecorous ’ word is of three kinds, implying
either (a) indecency or (b) disgust or (c) inauspiciousness ;
we have an example of (a) in the following :—
‘ Sādhanam .........
........ bhruvam ’
‘ He whose vast sādhana (army—the male organ) is one
that is not found with any one else,—of such an intelligent
person who can bear the eyebrows curved (in anger) ? ’
There is an indecent implication in the double meaning
of the word ‘ sādhanam ’.
An example of (b) we have in the following—
‘ Līlātāmarasā ...................
......dadāti vāyuṁ......chumbitā’
‘ He who had his lips bearing the marks of the freely
bestowed kisses of a strange woman, on being struck
(in anger) by his wife with her sporting lotus, stood rubbing
his eyes, as if they were hurt by the dust of the flower
falling into them ; the simple-minded young girl (taking
pity on him) stood there puffing air into the eyes with her
budded mouth ; thereupon, either through mistake or
through cunningness, the man kissed her repeatedly (thus
becoming reconciled), without having had to throw him-
self at her feet (and seek her forgiveness)’.