काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

CHAPTER VII 257
सरोहंसोत्तंस प्रचलदल नीलोत्पल सखे
सखेदोऽहं मोहं श्लथय कथय क्वेन्दुवदना ॥२८३॥
अत्र 'विरहिप्राणदमन' इति नानुवाद्यम् ॥
(२२) लग्नं रागावृताङ्गचेत्यादि ॥२८४॥
अत्र 'विदितं तेस्तु' इत्युपसंहृतोपि तेनेत्यादिना पुनरुपात्तः ॥
(२३) हन्तुमेव प्रवृत्तस्य स्तब्धस्य विवरैषिणः ।
यथास्य जायते पातो न तथा पुनरुन्नतिः ॥२८५॥
अत्र पुंव्यञ्जनस्यापि प्रतीतिः ॥
dalliance, who destroys the lives of separated lover, who
is an ornament of the best of lakes, and whose petals are
moving ! I am grief-stricken ; remove my bewilderment
and tell me where the moon-faced one is.’
Here the adjunct ‘who destroys the lives of separated
lovers’ is highly improper.
[As one who does this can never be expected to help the lover
in his difficulties, and it is such help that the speaker is seeking.]
(22) In the verse ‘Lagnam rāgāvṛtāṅgyā’ &c.’ (see above,
stanza No. 241) though the statement is ‘concluded’ at
the clause ‘be it known to you,’—yet it is resumed again
in the clause ‘by him &c.’ [So this is an example of the
‘resuming of the concluded].
(23) [Example of the ‘Indecorous’].
‘Hantumeva pravṛttasya
Stabdhasya vivaraiṣiṇaḥ
Yathāsya jāyate pāto
Na tathā punarunnatiḥ.’
‘An evil person being always arrogant, bent upon
mischief, given to fault-finding,—his fall, when it comes,
is such that he can never rise again.’
17

258 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
यत्रैको दोषः प्रदर्शितस्तत्र दोषान्तराण्यपि सन्ति तथापि
तेषां तत्राप्रकृतत्वात्प्रकाशनं न कृतम् ।।५५-५७।।
कर्णावतंसादिपदे कर्णादिध्वनिनिर्मितिः ।
संनिधानादिबोधार्थम्
अवतंशादीनि कर्णाद्याभरणान्येवोच्यन्ते । तत्र कर्णादि-
शब्दाः कर्णादिस्थितिप्रतिपत्तये । यथा
अस्याः कर्णावतंसेन जितं सर्वं विभूषणम् ।
तथैव शोभतेत्यर्थमस्याः श्रवणकुण्डलम् ।।२८६।।
The words used here have an implication which points
to the male organ (and thus this becomes 'indecorous').
Though in several cases, a verse that has been cited
as an example of a certain defect, contains other defects
also, yet these latter have not been pointed out, as not
being quite pertinent to the context. 55-57.
In such expressions as 'Karṇāvataṁsa' and the like,
the introduction of the term 'karṇa' is for the purpose of
expressing proximity.
Such words as 'avataṁsa' and the like denote the
ear-ring itself; the addition of the term 'karṇa' 'ear'
(in the compound 'karṇāvataṁsa') serves the purpose of
expressing proximity [and hence it cannot be regarded as
'redundant'].
Examples of such use are found in the following
verses—
' Asyāḥ karṇāvataṁsena
Jitaṁ sarvaṁ vibhūṣaṇam
Tathaiva śobhatetyartham
Asyāḥ śravaṇakuṇḍalam.

CHAPTER. VII 259
अपूर्वमधुरामोदप्रमोदितदिशस्ततः ।
आययुर्भृङ्गमुखराः शिरःशेखरशालिनः ॥२८७॥
अत्र कर्णश्रवणशिरःशब्दाः संनिधानप्रतीत्यर्थाः ॥
विदीर्णाभिमुखारातिकराले संगरान्तरे ।
धनुर्ज्याकिणचिह्नेन दोष्णा विस्फुरितं तव ॥२८८॥
अत्र धनुःशब्द आरूढत्वावगतये ॥
Apūrvamadhurāmoda-Pramoditadishastataḥ
Āyayurbhṛiṅgamukharāḥ shiraḥshekharashālinaḥ.
‘By her ear-ornament on the ear, all ornament has been
subdued ; similarly does excellently shine her ear-ring in
the ear :—The men came forward, rendering all the direc-
tions fragrant with excellent perfumes, with bees humming
about them, and wearing crown-jewels on their heads.’
Here the terms ‘karṇa’, ‘shravaṇa’ and ‘shiraḥ’
(when the terms ‘avataṁsa’, ‘kuṇḍala’ and ‘shekhara’
denote respectively, the ear-ornament, the ear-ring and the
head-ornament), serve the purpose of expressing proximity
(i.e., the fact of the ornament being actually worn on the
occasion spoken of).
Similarly in the following verse—
‘Vidīrṇābhimukhārātikarāle saṅgarāntare
Dhanurjyākiṇacihnena doṣṇā visphuritaṁ tava’,
‘Throbbing was thy arm, hardened by the marks
made by the bow-string of thy bow, and terrible through
the rending of opponents during battle ’;—the addition
of the term ‘dhanuḥ,’ ‘bow’ (when ‘jyā’ itself denotes
the bow-string) serves to indicate the fact of the string
being placed upon the bow.
(That the addition of the term ‘bow’ is meant to

260 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अन्यत्र तु
ज्याबन्धनिष्पन्दभुजेन यस्य विनिश्वसद्वक्त्रपरंपरेण ।
कारागृहे निर्जितवासवेन लङ्केश्वरेणोषितमा प्रसादात् ॥२८९॥
इत्यत्र केवलो ज्याशब्दः ।
प्राणेश्वरपरिष्वङ्गविभ्रमप्रतिपत्तिभिः ।
मुक्ताहारेण लसता हसतीव स्तनद्वयम् ॥२०९॥
अत्र मुक्तानामन्यरत्नामिश्रितत्वबोधनाय मुक्ताशब्दः ।
convey this additional idea is shown by the fact that) in
other cases (where no such idea is meant to be conveyed),
we find the term ‘jyā’, ‘bow-string,’ used alone by itself ;
e.g., in the following—
‘Jyābandhaniṣpandabhujena yasya
Viniśvasadvaktraparaṁpareṇa
Kārāgṛhe nirjitavāsavena
Laṅkeśvareṇoṣitamāprasādāt.’
‘In whose prison, there lived, till propitiation, the
king of Laṅkā, the subduer of Indra, who had his arms
paralysed by being tied up with the bowstring, and the
line of his mouths panting.’
In the following.—
‘Prāṇeśvarapariṣvaṅgavibhramapratipattibhiḥ
Muktāhāreṇa lasatā hasatīva stanadvayam’.
‘The pair of breasts, beautified by the pearl-necklace
is smiling as it were, under the consciousness of the joys
of the embrace of her lover;’—the addition of the term
‘muktā’, ‘pearl’ (when the term ‘hāra’, ‘necklace’,
itself signifies the presence of pearls) is meant to express
the fact that no other gems were mixed with the pearls in
the necklace.

CHAPTER VII 261
सौन्दर्यसंपत् तारुण्यं यस्यास्ते ते च विभ्रमाः ।
षट्पदान् पुष्पमालेव कान् नाकर्षति सा सखे ॥२९१॥
अत्रोत्कृष्टपुष्पविषये पुष्पशब्दः । निरुपपदो हि मालाशब्दः
पुष्पस्रजमेवाभिधत्ते ॥
स्थितेष्वेतत्समर्थनम् ॥ ५८ ॥
न खलु कर्णावतंसादिवज्जघनकाञ्चीत्यादि क्रियते ।
जगाद मधुरां वाचं विशदाक्षरशालिनीम् ॥२९२॥
Similarly in the following—
‘ Saundaryasampat tāruṇyaṁ yasyāste te cha vibhramāḥ
Ṣaṭpadān puṣpamāleva kān nākarṣati sā sakhe .
‘ She who is endowed with a richness of beauty, youth
and excellent graces,—whom does she not captivate, O
Friend ! in the same manner as a flower-garland attracts
the bees ?’—
The term ‘ puṣpa ’ ‘ flower ’, has been added in the
sense of excellent flowers,—the word ‘ mālā ’ ‘ garland ’,
without a prefix, denoting merely a string of flowers
(without any idea of the quality of the flowers strung).
This is a justification of only such instances as are actually
found (in standard works). 58.
It is not meant to justify such usage by modern writes) ;
so that it would not be right to use such expressions as
‘ jaghanakāñchī ’, on the analogy of the expression
‘ Karṇāvataṁsa ’ (justified above p. 258).
In such expressions as
‘ jagāda madhurāṁ vāchaṁ vishadākṣarashālinīm ’ (‘ uttered
a speech, sweet and clearly worded ’), it is not right

262 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
इत्यादौ क्रियाविशेषणत्वेपि विवक्षितार्थप्रतीतिसिद्धौ
“गतार्थस्यापि विशेष्यस्य विशेषणदानार्थं क्वचित्प्रयोगः कार्यः”
इति न युक्तम् । युक्तत्वे वा
चरणत्रपरित्राणरहिताभ्यामपि द्रुतम् ।
पादाभ्यां दूरमध्वानं व्रजन्नेष न खिद्यते ॥२९३॥
इत्युदाहार्यम् ॥५८॥
to justify (as Vāmana has done) the addition of the
noun ‘vācham’, ‘speech’, [which would appear to be
superfluous on the ground of the verb ‘jagāda’ ‘uttered’,
itself denoting the ‘uttering of speech’], on the ground
that ‘even though the sense of the noun may have been
obtained already, it is added for the purpose of adding
qualifying epithets to it’; because the purpose sought to
be served by the adding of these epithets could be more
easily served by the use of adverbs (qualifying the verb
itself) ; [So that the addition of the noun should not be
necessary, even for that purpose].
[The expression with the adverbs could appear in the
form ‘jagāda madhuraṁ vidvān viśadākṣaraśālī cha].
As an example of the propriety of the justification
suggested by Vāmana we have (not the aforesaid sentence
cited by him, but) the following—
‘Charaṇatraparitrāṇarahitābhyāmapi drutam
Pādābhyāṁ dūramadhvānaṁ vrajanneṣa na khidyate.
‘He is not fatigued even when he walks long distances
swiftly with feet deprived of shoes.’—[Where the purpose
served by the addition of adjectival epithets to the noun
‘charaṇa’ is such as could not be served by the addition
of any adverbial expressions]. 58.

CHAPTER VII 263
ख्यातेऽर्थे निर्हेतोरदुष्टता
यथा
चन्द्रं गता पद्मगुणान्न भुङ्क्ते पद्माश्रिता चान्द्रमसीमभिख्याम् ।
उमामुखं तु प्रतिपद्य लोला द्विसंश्रयां प्रीतिमवाप लक्ष्मीः ॥२९४॥
अत्र रात्रौ पद्मस्य संकोचः दिवा चन्द्रमसश्च निष्प्रभत्वं
लोकप्रसिद्धमिति ‘न भुङ्क्ते’ इति हेतुं नापेक्षते ॥
अनुकरणे तु सर्वेषाम् ।
सर्वेषां श्रुतिकटुप्रभृतीनां दोषाणाम् । यथा
मृगचक्षुषमद्राक्षमित्यादि कथयत्ययम् ।
पश्यैष च गवित्याह सूत्रामार्णं यजेत च ॥२९५॥
In cases where what is stated is a well-known fact,
‘inconsequentiality’ is not a defect.
As an example we have the following—
‘Located in the Moon, grace does not imbibe the
qualities of the lotus ; and when located in the lotus, it
partakes not of the beauty of the Moon ; but when it
rested in Umā’s face, the fickle grace obtained the charm
belonging to both (Moon and Lotus).’
The statement that grace ‘does not imbibe &c. &c.’
does not need an explanation ; as it is well-known that the
lotus is closed up during the night, and the Moon is
lustreless during the day.
In imitation, all the defects (cease to be defects).
‘All the defects’—‘unmelodiousness’ and the rest.
As examples we have the following—
‘Mṛgachakṣuṣamadrākṣamityādi kathayatyayam
Pashyaiṣa cha gavityāha sūtrāmāṇaṁ yajeta cha.’
‘He says “I saw the fawn-eyed one’ and so forth ;
he says “see the cow” and also “offer sacrifices to Indra.”’

264 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
वक्त्राद्यौचित्यवशाद्दोषोपि गुणः क्वचित्क्वचिन्नोभौ ॥५९॥
वक्तृप्रतिपाद्यव्यङ्ग्यवाच्यप्रकरणादीनां महिम्ना दोषोपि
क्वचिद्गुणः क्वचिन्न दोषो न गुणः । तत्र वैयाकरणादौ वक्तरि
प्रतिपाद्ये च रौद्रादौ च रसे व्यङ्ग्ये कष्टत्वं गुणः ।
क्रमेणोदाहरणम्—
दीधीङ्वेवीङ्समः कश्चिद्गुणवृद्ध्योर्भाजनम् ।
क्विप्प्रत्ययनिभः कश्चिद्यत्र संनिहिते न ते ॥२१६॥
[ (a) ‘Mṛgachakṣuṣam’ is unmelodious ;—(b) ‘gaviti’ is ungramma-
tical ;—and (c) ‘sūtrāmāṇam’ is unconventional; but being only
reproductions of what has been said by another person, they do not
constitute defects in the reproduction.]
By virtue of the special character of the speaker and the
rest, sometimes a defect becomes an excellence, and
sometimes it is neither the one nor the other. · 59.
By virtue of the importance attaching to the
character of —(a) the speaker, (b) the person spoken to,
(c) the meaning suggested, (d) the thing described, (e)
the context and so forth,—a defect sometimes becomes an
excellence ; and in certain cases it is neither a defect nor
an excellence.
For instance, when a grammarian is the person speak-
ing, or the person spoken to,—or when the passion of
‘Fury’ forms the suggested meaning,—the Harshness of
words becomes an excellence.
Examples in order :—
(a) ‘Dīdhīṅvevīṅsamaḥ kashchid
Guṇavṛddhyorabhājanam
Kvippratayanibhaḥ kashchid
Yatra sannihite na te.’

CHAPTER VII 265
यदा त्वामहमद्राक्षं पदविद्याविशारदम् ।
उपाध्यायं तदास्मारं समस्प्राक्षं च संमदम् ॥२९७॥
अन्त्रप्रोतबृहत्कपालनलकक्रूरक्वणत्कङ्कण-
प्रायप्रेङ्खितभूरिभूषणरवैराघोषयन्त्यम्बरम् ।
पीतच्छर्दितरक्तकर्दमघनप्राग्भारघोरोल्लस-
द्व्यालोलस्तनभारभैरववपुर्दर्पोद्धतं धावति ॥२९८॥
‘ Like the roots “ dīdhīṅ ” and “ vevīṅ ”, some people
are not amenable to excellence and prosperity (eṅ and ai,
changes, to which the said roots are not subject) ; others
again are like the “ kvip ” affix, by virtue of whose proxi-
mity, the said two things (excellence and prosperity) do
not exist.
[Here since the speaker is a grammarian, the obscurity attaching
to the expressions becomes an excellence.]
(b) ‘ Yadā tvāmahamadrākṣaṁ
Padavidyāviśāradaṁ
Upādhyāyaṁ tadāsmārṣaṁ
Samasprākṣaṁ cha sammadam.’
‘ When I saw you well-versed in grammatical lore,
I was reminded of my own teacher and became elated with
joy ’.
[The person spoken to being a grammarian, obscurity is an
excellence.]
(c) ‘ Āntraprotabṛhatkapālanalakakrūrakvaṇatkaṅkaṇa—
Prāyapreṅkhitabhūribhūṣaṇaravairāghoṣayantyambaram
Pītachcharditaraktakardamaghanaprāgbhāraghorollasad-
Vyālolastanabhārabhairavavapurdarpoddhataṁ dhāvati ’.
‘ She is rushing forward with proud arrogance, filling
the atmosphere with the jingling of her dangling ornaments
consisting of sculls and thighbones strung on the entrails,—
her body appearing frightful on account of her dangling

266 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
वाच्यवशाद्यथा
मातङ्गाः किमु वल्गितैः किमफलैराडम्बरैर्जम्बुकाः
सारङ्गा महिषा मदं व्रजथ किं शून्येषु शरा न के ।
कोपाटोपसमुद्भटोत्कटसटाकोटेरिभारेः पुरः
सिन्धुध्वानिनि हुङ्कृते स्फुरति यत् तद्गर्जितं गर्जितम् ॥२९९॥
अत्र सिंहे वाच्ये परुषाः शब्दाः ॥
प्रकरणवशाद्यथा
────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
breasts bespattered with the muddy blood that she has
drunk and vomited.’
[The passion of disgust being suggested here, the harshness of the
words becomes a source of excellence.]
(d). The following is an example where the defect (of
Harshness) becomes an excellence by virtue of the character
of the thing described.—
‘Mātaṅgāḥ kimu valgitaiḥ kimaphalairāḍambarairjambukāḥ
Sāraṅgā mahiṣā madam vrajata kim shūnyeṣu shūrā na ke
Kopāṭopasamudbhaṭotkaṭasaṭākoṭeribhāreḥ puraḥ
Sindhudhvānini huṅkṛte sphurati yat tad garjitam garjitam’
‘O elephants, what of your cries ! O jackals, what of
these useless struttings ! O deer and buffaloes, wherefore
are you so proud ? Who is not brave, in solitude ?
Roaring would be real roaring, only in the presence of the
ocean-like rumble of the lion with his name ruffled in
anger.’
In the latter half of this verse, the lion being the
thing described, the harsh-sounding words are a source
of excellence.
(e) The following is an example of a defect becoming
an excellence, by virtue of the context or occasion.

CHAPTER VII 267
रक्ताशोक कृशोदरी क्व नु गता त्यक्त्वानुरक्तं जनं
नो दृष्टेति मुधैव चालयसि किं वातावधूतं शिरः ।
उत्कण्ठाघटमानषट्पदघटासंघट्टदष्टच्छद-
स्तत्पादाहतिमन्तरेण भवतः पुष्पोद्गमोयं कुतः ॥३००॥
अत्र शिरोधूननेन कुपितस्य वचसि ॥
क्वचिन्नीरसे न गुणो न दोषः । यथा
‘Raktāśoka kṛśodarī kva nu gatā
tyaktvānuraktaṁjanam
No dṛṣṭeti mudhaiva chālayasi kiṁ
vātāvadhūtaṁ śiraḥ
Utkaṇṭhāghaṭamānaṣaṭpadaghaṭāsaṅghaṭṭa-
daṣṭachchhadas-
Tatpādāhatimantareṇa bhavataḥ puṣpod-
gamoyaṅkutaḥ.’
‘O red Ashoka tree, whereto has the slender-waisted
one gone, leaving her lover ?—Why do you dishonestly
shake your wind-blown head as if denying your having
seen her ?—Without the touch of her feet, whence could
there appear in you these blossoms, which have their petals
bitten off by the swarms of black bees hovering round in
their anxiety (to get at the flowers)’.
The latter half of the verse is spoken by the speaker
on an occasion when he has become enraged by the dis-
honest behaviour of the tree shaking its head, [and hence
the harshness of the words used is an excellence].
-- In some cases, where there is no Passion depicted,
Harshness is neither a defect nor an excellence. For
example—

268 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
शीर्णघ्राणाङ्घ्रिपाणीन् व्रणिभिरपघनैर्घर्घरार्यक्तघोषान्
दीर्घाघ्रातानघौघैः पुनरपि घटयत्येक उल्लाघयन् यः ।
घर्मांशोस्तस्य वोन्तर्द्विगुणघनघृणानिघ्ननिर्विघ्नवृत्तेर्
दत्तार्घाः सिद्धसंघैर्विदधतु घृणयः शीघ्रमंहोविघातम् ॥३०१॥
अप्रयुक्तनिहतार्थौ श्लेषादावदुष्टौ । यथा
येन ध्वस्तमनोभवेन बलिजित्कायः पुरा स्त्रीकृतो
यश्चोद्वृत्तभुजङ्गहारवलयोगङ्गां च योधायत् ।
' Shīrṇaghrāṇāṅghripāṇīn vraṇibhirapagha-
nairghargharāvyaktaghoṣān
Dīrghāghrātānaghoghaiḥ punarapi ghaṭayat-
yeka ullāghayan yaḥ
Gharmāṁśostasya vontardviguṇaghanaghṛṇā-
nighnanirvighnavṛtter
Dattārghāḥ siddhasaṅghairvidadhatu ghṛṇayaḥ
shīghramambhovighātam.'
'May the rays of the sun, to whom water-offerings
are made by the hosts of gods, bring about the destruction
of your sins ;--the sun who restores and rejuvenates the
bodies of lepers which, beset with hosts of sins, have the
nose, legs and hands shattered and ulcerated, and whose
voice is indistinct; and whose disposition is affected by
doubly intensified pity.'
[Here since no Passion of any kind is meant to be described, the
high-sounding words do not constitute either a defect or an exce-
llence.]
'Unconventionality' and 'Suppression of Meaning'
are not defective in passages where we have the figure of
Paronomasia. For instance, in the following verse :—
'Yena dhvastamanobhavena balijitkāyaḥ purāstrīkṛto
Yashchodvṛttabhujangahāravalayogangāṁ cha yodhārayat

CHAPTER VII 269
यस्याहुः शशिमच्छिरोहर इति स्तुत्यं च नामामराः
पायात्स स्वयमन्धकक्षयकरस्त्वां सर्वदोमाधवः ॥३०२॥
अत्र माधवपक्षे शशिमदन्धकक्षयशब्दावप्रयुक्तनिहतार्थौ ॥
अश्लीलं क्वचिद्गुणः । यथा सुरतारम्भगोष्ठ्याम् “द्व्यर्थैः
पदैः पिशुनयेच्च रहस्यवस्तु” इति कामशास्त्रस्थितौ
Yasyāhuḥ shashimachchhirohara iti stutyaṁ cha nāmāmarāḥ
Pāyāt sa svayamandhakakṣayakarastvāṁ sarvadomādhavaḥ.
(A) (Applied to Kṛṣṇa)—‘May the all-giving husband
of Lakṣmī protect you !—He who has destroyed the de-
mon Shakaṭa, and himself unborn, conquered Balī, assumed
a female form, subdued the serpent Kālīya ; in whom all
sound becomes merged, who upheld the mountain and the
earth, whose praiseworthy name the gods declare to be
‘the chopper of the head of Rāhu’, and who established
the residence of the Andhaka race.’
(B) (Applied to Shiva)—‘May the husband of Umā
ever protect you !,—He, the destroyer of the mind-born
Love-god, who turned into an arrow the body of Viṣṇu
(the subduer of Balī), who has large serpents as his necklets
and bangles, bears the Gaṅgā, and the moon also on his
forehead, whose praiseworthy name declared by the gods
is ‘Hara’, and who destroyed the demon Andhaka’.
In this verse the terms ‘shashimat’ and ‘andhakaṣaya’
are ‘unconventional’, when applied to Kṛṣṇa (but are not
regarded as defective).
The ‘Indecorous’ is an excellence in certain cases ;
for instance, in conversations leading upto sexual dalliance ;
in accordance with the dictum of the Science of Erotics
that ‘secret matters are to be concealed by means of words
with double meanings’;—e. g., in the following verse—

270 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
करिहस्तेन संबाधे प्रविश्यान्तर्विलोड़िते ।
उपसर्पन् ध्वजः पुंसः साधनान्तर्विराजते ॥३०३॥
शमकथासु
उत्तानोच्छूनमण्डूकपाटितोदरसंनिभे ।
क्लेदिनि स्त्रीव्रणे सक्तिरकृमेः कस्य जायते ॥३०४॥
निर्वाणवैरदहनाः प्रशमादरीणां
नन्दन्तु पाण्डुतनयाः सह माधवेन।
रक्तप्रसाधितभुवः क्षतविग्रहाश्च
स्वस्था भवन्तु कुरुराजसुताः सभृत्याः ॥३०५॥
अत्र भाव्यमङ्गलसूचकम् ॥
Karihastena saṁbādhe praviśyāntarviloḍite
Upasarpan dhvajaḥ puṁsaḥ sādhanāntarvirājate.
Similarly also in conversation dealing with the quiet-
istic sentiment ; e.g.
‘ Uttānochchhūnamaṇḍūkapāṭitodarasannibhe
Kledini strīvraṇe saktirakṛmeḥ kasya jāyate.’
Further, in the following verse, ‘ Indecorousness ’ is
regarded as an excellence, by virtue of its affording a
premonition of impending calamity—
‘ Nirvāṇavairadahanāḥ prashamādarīṇāṁ
Nandantu pāṇḍutanayāḥ saha mādhavena
Raktaprasādhitabhuvaḥ kṣatavigrahāścha
Svasthā bhavantu kururājasutāḥ sabhṛtyāḥ ’
‘ May the sons of Pāṇḍu along with Kṛṣṇa rejoice,
on having the fire of animosity extinguished by the death
(or peacefulness) of enemies ! and may the sons of the
Kuru-king, along with their dependants, rest at peace (or

CHAPTER VII 271
संदिग्धमपि वाच्यमहिम्ना क्वचिन्नियतार्थप्रतीतिकृत्त्वेन व्याज-
स्तुतिपर्यवसायित्वे गुणः । यथा
पृथुकार्तस्वरपात्रं भूषितनिःशेषपरिजनं देव ।
विलसत्करेणुगहनं संप्रति सममावयोः सदनम् ॥३०६॥
प्रतिपाद्यप्रतिपादकयोर्ज्ञत्वे सत्यप्रतीतं गुणः । यथा
in heaven), after having ruled over the world-kingdom
attached to them (or, after having covered the earth with
their blood), and having their quarrels set at rest (or
having their bodies cut up).'
[Here the thing that is wished to happen is indicative of inaus-
piciousness.]
In cases where, the force of the character of the thing
described tends to point to a definite meaning, ‘Ambiguity’
is regarded as an excellence, on account of its leading up
to the Figure of Dissembling Eulogy. For instance, in
the following versu—
‘Pṛthukārtasvarapātraṁ bhūṣitaniḥśeṣaparijanaṁ deva
Vilasatkareṇugahanaṁ saṁprati samamāvayoḥ sadanam’.—
‘O Lord, at present the houses of both of us (you and
I) are similar : yours being full of large golden vessels
(and mine, full of the piteous shriekings of children), with
all the servants decorated (mine, with all the inmates lying
on the ground), and teeming with large elephants (mine,
covered with mouse-dust);’—
[The fact of the words being addressed to the king point to the
figure of Dissembling Eulogy, whereby the king’s affluence is
described]
In cases where the speaker and the person spoken to
are both learned men, ‘unintelligibility’ is an excellence.
For instance, in the following verse—

272 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
आत्माराम विहितरतयो निर्विकल्पे समाधौ
ज्ञानोद्रेकाद्विघटिततमोग्रन्थयः सत्त्वनिष्ठाः ।
यं वीक्षन्ते कमपि तमसां ज्योतिषां वा परस्तात्
तं मोहान्धः कथमयममुं वेत्ति देवं पुराणम् ॥३०७॥
स्वयं वा परामर्शे । यथा
षडधिकदशनाडीचक्रमध्यस्थितात्मा
हृदि विनिहितरूपः सिद्धिदस्तद्विदां यः ।
अविचलितमनोभिः साधकैर्मृग्यमाणः
स जयति परिणद्धः शक्तिभिः शक्तिनाथः ॥३०८॥
‘ Ātmārāmā vihitaratayo nirvikalpe samādhau
Jñānodrekād vighaṭitatamogranthayaḥ sattvaniṣṭhāḥ
Yaṁ vīkṣante kimapi tamasāṁ jyotiṣāṁ vā parastāt
Taṁ mohāndhaḥ kathamayamamuṁ vetti devaṁ purāṇam.
‘ How can this man (Duryodhana), blinded with delu-
sion as he is, recognize the eternal God, whom only those
perceive who, fixed in Goodness, have outgrown Dark-
ness and Passion, and who have the knot of ignorance cut
by the current of knowledge, given upto abstract medita-
tion, and rejoicing in the contemplation of the god-head’.
[This is said by Bhīmasèna to Sahadeva, both highly educated
princes : hence the use of Yoga technicalities is not a defect.]
In soliloquy also Unintelligibility is not a defect ; e. g.,
in the following—
Ṣaḍadhikadaśanāḍīchakramadhyasthitātmā
Hṛdi vinihitarūpaḥ siddhidastadvidāṁ yaḥ
Avichalitamanobhiḥ sādhakairmṛgyamāṇaḥ
Sa jayati pariṇaddhaḥ śaktibhiḥ śaktināthaḥ ’ ;—
‘ Glorious is Shiva, the Lord of the Female Divinity,
possessed of manifold potentiality, having his soul located
within the circle of the sixteenfold artery, who has his

CHAPTER VII 273
अधमप्रकृत्युक्तिषु ग्राम्यो गुणः । यथा
फुल्लुक्करं कलमकूरणिहं वहन्ति
जे सिन्धुवारविडवा मह वल्लहा दे ।
जे गालिदस्स महिसीदहिणो सरिच्छा
दे किं च मुद्धविअइल्लपसूणपुञ्जा ॥३०९॥
अत्र कलमभक्तमहिषीदधिशब्दा ग्राम्या अपि विदूषकोक्तौ ॥
न्यूनपदं क्वचिद्गुणः । यथा
गाढालिङ्गनवामनीकृतकुचप्रोद्भूतरोमोद्गमा
सान्द्रस्नेहरसातिरेकविगलच्छ्रीमन्नितम्बाम्बरा ।
form in the heart, the ordainer of success to those who
know Him, and who is looked up to by devotees with
steady minds'.
‘Vulgarity’ is an excellence in the speeches of low-
born persons.
e.g.—
‘Phullukkuraṁ kalamakūraṇihaṁ vahanti
Je sindhubarabiḍavā mahaballahā de
Je gālīdassa mahiṣīdahiṇo sarichchhā
De kiṁ cha muddhaviaillapasūṇapuñjā’.
‘Those branches of the Sindhuvāra trees are dear to
me, which bear fruits like rice; as also are those masses
of Mallikā flowers which resemble the squeezed curdled
milk of a she-buffalo’.
In this the terms ‘kalama’, ‘bhakta’, ‘kūra’, ‘mahiṣī’
and ‘dadhi’, though vulgar, are not regarded as defective,
as they occur in the speech of the clown.
‘Verbal deficiency’ is in some cases an excellence, e.g.,
in the following :—
‘Gāḍhāliṅganavāmanīkṛtakuchaprodbhūtaromodgamā
Sāndrasneharasātirekavigalachchrīmannitambāmbarā
18

274 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
मा मा मानद माति मामलमिति क्षामाक्षरोल्लापिनी
सुप्ता किं नु मृता नु किं मनसि मे लीना विलीना नु किम् ॥३१०॥
क्वचिन्न गुणो न दोषः । यथा
तिष्ठेत्कोपवशात्प्रभावपिहिता दीर्घं न सा कुप्यति
स्वर्गायोत्पतिता भवेन्मयि पुनर्भावार्द्रमस्या मनः ।
तां हर्तुं विबुधद्विषोपि न च मे शक्ताः पुरोवर्तिनीं
सा चात्यन्तमगोचरं नयनयोर्यातेति कोयं विधिः ॥३११॥
Mā mā mānada māti māmalamiti kṣāmākṣarollāpinī
Suptā kim nu mṛtā nu kim manasi me līnā vilīnā nu kim’.
Her breasts dwarfed by firm embrace, and the body
thrilling all over, her beautiful clothing slipping away
from her waist, under the intensity of deep love, she uttered
broken words—“Do not ! O ! do not ! my love ! not
too much ! Ah me ! Enough !”—After which I know
not if she went to sleep or was dead, or having entered into
my heart, became assimilated therewith’.
[Here the broken utterance serve to intensify the feeling depicted.]
In certain cases the same defect of ‘Verbal Deficiency’
is neither a defect nor an excellence ; e.g., in the follow-
ing—
‘Tiṣṭhet kopavashāt prabhāvapihitā dīrghaṁ na sā kupyati
Svargāyotpatitā bhavenmayi punarbhāvārdramasyā manaḥ
Tāṁ hartuṁ vibudhaviṣopi na cha me shaktāḥ purovartinīṁ
Sā chātyantamagocharam nayanayoryāteti koyam vidhiḥ.’
‘May she be lying concealed ?—She angers not for
long ! Might she have flown to the heavens ?—Her
heart bore deep affection towards me. Even the demons
could not wrench her away from before me.—And yet
she has passed completely beyond the range of my vision.
What a process of fate !’

CHAPTER VII 275
अत्र पिहिता इत्यतोनन्तरं 'नैतद्यतः' इत्येतैर्न्यूनैः पदैर्विशेष-
बुद्धेरकरणान्न गुणः । उत्तरा प्रतिपत्तिः पूर्वा प्रतिपत्तिं बाधते
इति न दोषः ॥
अधिकपदं क्वचिद्गुणः । यथा
यद्वञ्चनाहितमतिर्बहुचाटुगर्भं
कार्योन्मुखः खलजनः कृतकं ब्रवीति ।
तत्साधवो न न विदन्ति विदन्ति किंतु
कर्तुं वृथा प्रणयमस्य न पारयन्ति ॥३१२॥
अत्र 'विदन्ति' इति द्वितीयमन्ययोगव्यवच्छेदपरम् ।
After 'pihitā', 'concealed', there should have been
the expression—'it is not so, because' and so forth; but
this deficiency cannot be regarded as an excellence, because
it does not afford any additional suggestion (as is done in
the proceeding case); nor can it be regarded as a defect,
because inasmuch as the second statement ('she angers not
for long') by itself sets aside the first one, there is no real
harm done by the omission of the words.
'Redundancy' is sometimes an excellence; e.g. in the
following—
'Yadvañcanāhitamatirbahucāṭugarbhaṁ
Kāryonmukhaḥ khalajanaḥ kṛtakaṁ bravīti
Tatsādhavo na na vidanti vidanti kiṁtu
Kartuṁ vṛthā praṇayamasya na pārayanti'.
'The deceitful and cunning way in which evil people
tell lies in business,—it is not that the good men do not
know it, they do know it, even though they are unable to
frustrate their hypocritical attachment'.
The second 'vidanti', 'they do know', serves the pur-
pose of excluding others from the knowledge in question
[and as such the repetition is not a defect].

यथा वा
वद वद जितः स शत्रुर्न हतो जल्पंश्च तव तवास्मीति ।
चित्रं चित्रमरोदीद्धा हेति परं मृते पुत्रे ॥३१३॥
इत्येवमादौ हर्षभयादियुक्ते वक्तरि ॥
कथितपदं क्वचिद्गुणः लाटानुप्रासे अर्थान्तरसंक्रमित-
वाच्ये विहितस्यानुवाद्यत्वे च। क्रमेणोदाहरणम्—
सितकरकररुचिरविभा विभाकराकार धरणिधर कीर्तिः ।
पौरुषकमला कमला सापि तवैवास्ति नान्यस्य ॥३१४॥