काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

332 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
लावण्यस्य महानिधी रसिकतां लक्ष्मीदृशोस्तन्वती
युष्माकं कुरुतां भवार्तिशमनं नेत्रे तनुर्वा हरेः ॥३७१॥
एष वचनश्लेषोपि ।
महदेसुरसंधम्मे तमवसमासंगमागमाहरणे ।
हरबहुसरणं तं चित्तमोहमवसरउमे सहसा ॥३७२॥
Lāvaṇyasya mahānidhī rasikatāṁ lakṣmīdṛśostanvatī
Yuṣmākaṁ kurutāṁ bhavārtiśamanaṁ netre tanurvā hareḥ.
‘May (a) the eyes or (b) the body of Viṣṇu set at rest
your worldly troubles !—(a) the eyes looking tenderly
upon devotees, and (a) the body looked upon by persons
in humble devotion,—(a) the eyes and (b) the body both
vying with the lotus, mediated upon by yogins for the
attainment of their highest ends,—the ocean of beauty,
and producing charming sensations in the eyes of
Lakṣmī.’
(2) Here again we have also the coalescence of the two
numbers [Dual and Singular, the form of the various
epithets being the same in both numbers ; the Neuter-
Dual forms being the same the Feminine-Singular].
(4) ‘Mahadesurasaṁdhamme
tamavasamāsaṁgamāgamāharaṇe
Harabahusaraṇaṁ taṁ chittamoham-
avasaraume sahasā.’
[This couplet, when taken as Sanskrit, means—‘O
Umā, who ordains happiness, please safeguard my devo-
tion to Vedic studies, which lead to union with the gods,
and in proper time destroy the ever-growing delusion of
my mind.’—

CHAPTER IX 333
अयं सर्वाणि शास्त्राणि हृदि ज्ञेषु च वक्ष्यति ।
सामर्थ्यकृदमित्राणां मित्राणां च नृपात्मजः ॥३७३॥
रजनिरमणमौलेः पादपद्मावलोक-
क्षणसमयपराप्तापूर्वसंपत्सहस्रम् ।
प्रमथनिवहमध्ये जातुचित्त्वत्प्रसादाद्
अहमुचितरुचिः स्यान्नन्दिता सा तथा मे ॥३७४॥
And when taken as Prakrit, its meaning is as follows—
‘O Consort of Shiva! produce in me a regard for virtue,
and destroy my desire for birth and re-birth, which has
its source in Tamas!—Thou art my sole refuge; so please
remove the delusion of my mind.’—
Thus in this case we have the coalescence of the two
dialects.]
(5) ‘Ayaṁ sarvāṇi shāstrāṇi hṛdi jñeṣu cha vakṣyati
Sāmarthyakṛdamitrāṇāṁ mitrāṇāṁ cha nṛpātmajaḥ’.
[‘The son of the king shall (a) bear in his heart, and
(b) discuss with the learned, all the sciences, and he shall
be the (a) strength-giver to his friends and (b) the strength-
destroyer of his foes.]
(6) ‘Rajanīramaṇamauleḥ pādapadmāvaloka-
Kṣaṇasamayaparāptāpūrvasaṁpatsahasram
Pramathanivahamadhye jātuchittvatprasādād
Ahamuchitaruchiḥ syānnanditā sā tathā me.’
‘Having obtained a thousandfold splendour on the
occasion of looking at the lotus-feet of the Moon-crested
God, and having acquired the right devotion through
your grace,—may I among Shiva's hosts, (a) become the
joy-giver and (b) attain the position of Nandi, their
leader!’

334 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
सर्वस्वं हर सर्वस्य त्वं भवच्छेदतत्परः ।
नयोपकारसांमुख्यमायासि तनुवर्तनम् ॥३७५॥८४॥
भेदाभावात्प्रकृत्यादेर्भेदोपि नवमो भवेत् ।
नवमोपीत्यपिर्भिन्नक्रमः । उदाहरणम्—
योसकृत्परगोत्राणां पक्षच्छेदक्षणक्षमः ।
शतकोटिदतां बिभ्रद्विबुधेन्द्रः स राजते ॥३७६॥

(7) Sarvasvaṁ hara sarvasya
Tvaṁ bhavachchedatatparaḥ
Nayopakārasāṁmukhyam
Āyāsi tanuvartanam.
[This may be construed either (a) as addressed by a
devotee to Śhiva, or (b) as addressed by a thief to his
son :—(a) ‘O Shiva ! you are the all in all of the entire
universe,—addicted to the destruction of the world ; as
such you have a body wherefrom emanates all that is
conducive to good and virtue’;—(b) ‘O Son, take away
all the property of all men ; employ yourself in cutting
the walls ; do away with the idea of returning good for
good ; and extend your livelihood at the cost of others.’—
[Here we have the coalescence (a) of the declensional termination,
the vocative, and the conjugational termination, imperative, in
the word ‘hara’;—(b) of the conjugational termination, imperative
and the declensional termination, the genitive, understood in the
word ‘bhava’; also we have (c) the coalescence in the word ‘āyāsi’, of the
possessive ending ‘ṇini’ and the conjugational termination, the
present.] 84.
There is also the ninth kind (of Pun), where there is no
difference in the crude form or other factors.
The particle ‘api’, ‘also’, is to be construed with
‘navamaḥ’, ‘ninth’.

CHAPTER IX 335
अत्र प्रकरणादिनियमाभावात् द्वावप्यर्थौ वाच्यौ ॥
ननु स्वरितादिगुणभेदाद् भिन्नप्रयत्नोच्चार्याणां तदभा-
वादभिन्नप्रयत्नोच्चार्याणां च शब्दानां बन्धेऽलंकारान्तरप्रति-
भोत्पत्तिहेतुः शब्दश्लेषोऽर्थश्लेषश्चेति द्विविधोऽप्यर्थालंकारमध्ये
परिगणितोऽन्यैरिति कथमयं शब्दालंकारः ।
Example—
‘ Yosakṛtparagotrāṇāṁ pakṣachchedakṣaṇakṣamaḥ
Shatakoṭidatāṁ bibhrad vibhudhendraḥ sa rājate.’
There being no defining factor in the shape of con-
text and the rest, this couplet is equally capable of affording
. both. the meanings—(a) ‘ The king of the learned is
resplendent, being capable of repeatedly destroying in a
moment the prosperity of his enemy’s people, and bearing
the mark of having given away hundreds of millions’;—
(b) ‘ The king of the gods, Indra, is resplendent,—capable
of cutting off in a moment, the wings of the great moun-
tains, and bearing the character of striking with the thun-
derbolt.’
[Here we have a coalescence, where there is no difference in the
two cases, in any one of the eight factors mentioned above.—This
kind has been called the ‘Abhaṅga-shleṣa’ ‘Unbroken Pun’, on the
ground that it does not necessitate the breaking up of the words into
its various factors;—the necessity of which breaking up leads to the
above-mentioned eight kinds of Pun being called ‘Sabhaṅga-shleṣa’,
‘Broken Pun.’ ]
. An objection is raised in this connection :—“‘A com-
position consists (a) of words that are pronounceable by
diverse ‘ efforts ’ on account of the divergence in their
accents, ‘ samāhāra ’ and other qualifications,—and also
(b) of words that are pronounceable by similar ‘ efforts ’,
by reason of there being no difference in the said qualifi-

336 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
उच्यते—इह दोषगुणालंकाराणां शब्दार्थगतत्वेन यो
विभागः सः अन्वयव्यतिरेकाभ्यामेव व्यवतिष्ठते। तथाहि—
कष्टत्वादिगाढत्वाद्यनुप्रासादयः व्यर्थत्वादिप्रौढाद्युपमा-
दयस्तद्भावतदभावानुविधायित्वादेव शब्दार्थगतत्वेन व्यवस्था-
प्यन्ते।
cations; in such a composition, ‘coalescence’ serves the
purpose of intimating the Simile and such other figures
of speech; the ‘Coalescence’ or ‘Pun’ is of two kinds,
‘verbal’ (based upon the forms of words); and ‘ideal’
(based upon the meanings of words); and since both
these kinds of Pun have been included by others among
‘Ideal Figures of Speech’, why should it be treated as a
verbal figure of speech (as it is done in the present context)?”
The answer to the above is as follows :—
In the present connection, when we divide defects or
excellences or figures of speech into ‘verbal’ and ‘ideal’.
such a division is based upon a consideration of concomi-
tances, positive and negative.
[That is to say, when a certain defect pertains to and is concomi-
tant with only the verbal form of words and takes no account of
the meaning, it is classed as ‘verbal’; while it if is found to be concom-
tant with and pertaining to the meaning of words and is not affected
by the verbal forms, then it is classed as ‘ideal’].
For instance, Harshness (defect), Floridity (excellence),
Alliteration (figure of speech) and the rest are classed as
‘verbal’, because they are dependent entirely upon the
presence or absence of the verbal forms of words; and
‘Irrelevancy’ (defect), Boldness (excellence) and Simile
(figure of speech) and the rest are classed as ‘ideal’, be-
cause they are dependent entirely upon the presence or

CHAPTER IX 337
स्वयं च पल्लवाताम्रभास्वत्करविराजिता । इत्यभङ्गः
प्रभातसंध्येवास्वापफललुब्धेहितप्रदा ॥ ३७७॥ इति सभङ्गः
इति द्वावपि शब्दैकसमाश्रयाविति द्वयोरपि शब्दश्लेषत्वमुप-
पन्नं न त्वाद्यस्यार्थश्लेषत्वम् । अर्थश्लेषस्य तु स विषयः यत्र
शब्दपरिवर्तनेपि न श्लेषत्वखण्डना । यथा
absence of the meanings of words. For example, in the
following two passages—
(a) ‘Svayaṁ cha pallavātāmrabhāsvatkaravirājitā,
(b) prabhātasandhyevāsvāpaphalalubdhehitapradā.’
[‘Gaurī—(1) adorned by hands red as the fresh
leaf, and (2) fulfilling the desires of persons seeking for
results hard to attain,—resembles the morn, which is (1)
adorned by the shining sun red like the fresh leaf and
fulfills the desires of persons intent upon performing the
rites of the early dawn,’ [—we have, in the first an ins-
tance of ‘broken pun’. [Since it involves the breaking
up of the expression ‘bhāsvatkaravirājitā’ into ‘bhāsvat—
kara-virājitā’ in one case, and into ‘bhāsvatka—ravi—
rājitā’ in the other], and in the second an instance of
the ‘unbroken pun’ [since the pun rests in the word ‘asvāpa’,
which retains the same form in both cases and has not
got to be broken up].
[The commentators have made a hopeless muddle of this passage,
being landed into it by the wrong reading whereby the first passage is
spoken of as ‘abhaṅga’ and the second as ‘sabhaṅga’; while, as a matter
of fact, the case is just the reverse. The commentators say that
‘asvāpa involves a ‘broken pun’; but in both cases the word retaining
the same form,—where is the breaking ?]
Since both these puns are based upon the verbal forms
of the words, it is only right that they should be regarded
as ‘verbal’. It is not possible for even the first half to be
regarded as ‘ideal’, because that Pun alone can be regarded

338 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
स्तोकेनोन्नतिमायाति स्तोकेनायात्यधोगतिम् ।
अहो सुसदृशी वृत्तिस्तुलाकोटेः खलस्य च ॥३७८॥
न चायमुपमाप्रतिभोत्पत्तिहेतुः श्लेषः अपि तु श्लेषप्रति-
भोत्पत्तिहेतुरुपमा । तथाहि—यथा
‘कमलमिव मुखं मनोज्ञमेतत्कचतितराम्’ इत्यादौ गुणसाम्ये
क्रियासाम्ये उभयसाम्ये वा उपमा । तथा ‘सकलकलं पुरमेत-
ज्जातं संप्रति सुधांशुबिम्बमिव’ इत्यादौ शब्दमात्रसाम्येऽपि
सा युक्तैव । तथा ह्युक्तं रुद्रटेन
as ‘ideal’, where the pun remains unaffected even when
the words are changed ; as is the case in the verse—
‘Stokenonnatimāyāti stokenāyātyadhogatim
aho susadṛśī vṛttistulākoṭeḥ khalasya cha’]
[‘Rising with little and falling with little,—the character
of the wicked is exactly like that of the balance-beam’]—
[where the Pun remains unaffected even when other
synonyms are substituted for the words ‘stokena’,
‘unnatim’ and ‘adhogatim’.]
Nor would it be right to regard the instance cited above
(‘svayañcha pallavā &c.’, stanza No. 377.) as only serving
the purpose of indicating the Semblance of a Simile [as
has been held by the objector], for in reality it is the Simile
(the similitude between ‘Gaurī’s hands’ and ‘Morn ’) that
serves the purpose of indicating the Semblance of the Pun.
[It will not be right to urge that “the similitude between
‘Gaurī’s hands’ and the ‘Morn’ resting merely on the
fact of the verbal form of certain epithets being applicable
to both, it can not be a case of Simile” ; because] even
such instances as ‘Sakalakalaṁ purametajjātaṁ saṁprati
sudhāṁśubimbamiva’ [‘This city has become sakalakala,
full of humming voices, and hence resembles the disc
of the Moon which is sakalakala, complete with all its

“स्फुटमर्थालंकारावेतावुपमासमुच्चयौ किं तु ।
आश्रित्य शब्दमात्रं सामान्यमिहापि संभवतः ॥” इति ।
न च ‘कमलमिव मुखम्’ इत्यादिः साधारणधर्मप्रयोगशून्य
उपमाविषय इति वक्तुं युक्तं पूर्णोपमाया निर्विषयत्वापत्तेः ॥
देव त्वमेव पातालमाशानां त्वं निबन्धनम् ।
त्वं चामरमरुद्भूमिरेको लोकत्रयात्मकः ॥३७९॥

340 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
इत्यादिः श्लेषस्य चोपमाद्यलंकारविविक्तोस्ति विषय इति ।
द्वयोर्योगे संकर एव । उपपत्तिपर्यालोचने तु उपमाया एवायं
युक्तो विषयः । अन्यथा विषयापहार एव पूर्णोपमायाः स्यात् ।
न च 'अबिन्दुसुन्दरी नित्यं गलल्लावण्यबिन्दुका' इत्यादौ
विरोधप्रतिभोत्पत्तिहेतुः श्लेषः अपि तु श्लेषप्रतिभोत्पत्ति-
Deva tvameva pātālamāśānāṁ tvaṁ nibandhanam
Tvaṁ chāmaramarudbhūmireko lokatrayātmakaḥ
[Which, (a) as addressed to Viṣṇu, means—‘O Viṣṇu,
you are the nether region, the bounds of space, and the
land of the immortals;—thus centralising in yourself all
the three regions’:—and (b) as addressed to the king—
‘O king, you alone are the thorough protector, the ful-
filment of all desires; you are also the recipient of the
wind flowing from the royal chowries; thus though one,
you are threefold’.] ;—
If, however, we admit the presence of both the figures
here, it will have to be regarded as a case of ‘combina-
tion’ of figures. In reality however, on a full review
of all the circumstances, the passage in question (‘the
face is blooming like the lotus’) must be taken as an ins-
tance of Simile; for if it were not so, there could be no
instance of the ‘Complete Simile’ at all.
[As in the case of Simile, so in the case of Contradic-
tion also] some people have held that in certain cases
Pun is indicative of the ‘semblance of Contradiction’
also, e.g., in the passage ‘Abindusundarī nityaṁ galallā-
vaṇyabindukā.’ (‘She is dripping with loveliness, and is
(a) beautiful as the Moon reflected in water (b) beautiful
without drops) the Pun contained in the word ‘abindusun-
darī’ serves to indicate the ‘semblance of contradiction’
(as between ‘without drops’ and ‘dripping’.)

CHAPTER IX 341
हेतुर्विरोधः । न ह्यत्रार्थद्वयप्रतिपादकः शब्दश्लेषः द्विती-
यार्थस्य प्रतिभातमात्रस्य प्ररोहाभावात् । न च विरोधाभास
इव विरोधः श्लेषाभासः श्लेषः । तदेवमादिषु वाक्येषु श्लेषप्रति-
भोत्पत्तिहेतुरलंकारान्तरमेव । तथा च
सद्वंशमुक्तामणिः ॥३८०॥
नाल्पः कविरिव स्वल्पश्लोको देव महान् भवान् ॥३८१॥
अनुरागवती संध्या दिवसस्तत्पुरःसरः ।
अहो दैवगतिश्चित्रा तथापि न समागमः ॥३८२॥
This, however, is not right ; as here also the case is
just the reverse : it is the Contradiction that serves to
indicate the ‘semblance of Pun’. And the reason for
this lies in the fact that there is in reality no such verbal
Pun as has a clear double meaning (which is the necessary
element in all Puns), for the second meaning (‘beautiful
without drops’) is merely hinted at and is not sufficiently
complete or explicit (the epithet ‘beautiful without drops’
not being expressive enough to have any force). Nor is
the mere Semblance of Pun a Figure of speech, in the same
manner as the Semblance of Contradiction (Apparent Con-
tradiction) is.
All this leads to the conclusion that in cases like those
cited, it is the other figures of speech that are predominant
and serve to indicate the mere semblance of Pun. For
instance, in the following four passages—
(a) ‘Sadvaṁśamuktāmaṇiḥ’—‘The pearl-gem in the
noble family [‘growing a nice bamboo’],—(b) ‘Nālpaḥ
kaviriva svalpashloko deva mahān bhavān,’—‘O king, you
are great, and are not of little fame, like an inferior poet,
whose poems are insignificant ;’—
(c) ‘Anurāgavatī sandhyā divasastatpurassaraḥ
aho daivagatishchitrā tathāpi na samāgamaḥ ;’—

342 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
आदाय चापमचलं कृत्वाहीनं गुणं विषमदृष्टिः ।
यश्चित्रमच्युतशरो लक्ष्यमभाङ्क्षीन्नमस्तस्मै ॥३८३॥
इत्यादावेकदेशविवर्तिरूपकश्लेषव्यतिरेकसमासोक्तिविरोध-
त्वमुचितं न तु श्लेषत्वम् ॥
शब्दश्लेष इति चोच्यते अर्थालंकारमध्ये च लक्ष्यते इति
कोयं नयः । किं च वैचित्र्यमलंकार इति य एव कविप्रतिभासं-
‘The evening (girl) is red in the atmosphere (full
of love), and the Day (her lover) goes before it (is
present before her), and yet such is the curious way of
Destiny that the two never meet;’—
(d) ‘Ādāya chāpamachalaṁ kṛtvāhīnaṁ guṇaṁ viṣamadṛṣṭiḥ,
yashchitramachyutasharo lakṣyamabhāṅkṣīnnamastasmai’.
‘Having taken up the bow immovable (in the shape
of the Himālaya mountain), putting to it a string worn out
(in the shape of the lord of serpents), and having an arrow
which never moved (in the shape of Viṣṇu), the Being with
deranged vision (the Three-eyed God, Shiva), shattered his
target in a strange manner;—salutation to Him!’;—the
Figure that is predominant is, not ‘Pun’, but respectively,
(a) Partial Metaphor, (b) Dissimilitude based upon Pun,
(c) Modal Metaphor and (d) Contradiction.
Then again, the objector calls the Figure in question
‘Verbal Pun’, and yet he includes it among ‘Ideal Figures;’
—what sort of principle is this?
Further, a Figure of Speech is only a form of imagery
or fancy,—and this imagery can belong to only that (word
or idea) which forms the final goal of the poet’s imagi-
nation; and it is only this (Word or Idea) that forms the
substratum of the Figure of Speech. [So that it cannot
be right to say that all Pun is Ideal, as the objector has

CHAPTER IX 343
रम्भगोचरस्तत्रैव विचित्रता इति सैवालंकारभूमिः । अर्थ-
मुखप्रेक्षित्वमेतेषां शब्दानामिति चेत् अनुप्रासादीनामपि तथैवेति
तेऽप्यर्थालंकाराः किं नोच्यन्ते । रसादिव्यञ्जकस्वरूपवाच्य-
विशेषसव्यपेक्षत्वेऽपि ह्यनुप्रासादीनामलंकारता । शब्दगुण-
दोषाणामप्यर्थापेक्षयैव गुणदोषता । अर्थगुणदोषालंकाराणां
शब्दापेक्षयैव व्यवस्थितिरिति तेऽपि शब्दगतत्वेनोच्यन्ताम् ।
‘विधौ वक्रे मूर्ध्नि’ इत्यादौ च वर्णादिश्लेषे एकप्रयत्नोच्चार्य-
त्वेऽर्थश्लेषत्वं शब्दभेदेऽपि प्रसज्यतामित्येवमादि स्वयं विचार्यम् ।।
held].—It might be argued that—“ The words (in which
the Pun rests) always look up to (depend upon) their
meanings [so that in the long run, they must be regarded
as ideal].”—But the same thing happens in the case of
Alliteration and other Figures (which even the objector
regards as verbal) ; so that why are not, these also called
‘verbal’ ? As a matter of fact, even though Alliteration
and the other verbal figures are dependent upon the mean-
ings of words, and also upon all those factors that serve
to suggest a Passion or Sentiment and the rest,—yet they
are regarded as ‘Figures of Speech’; [and according to
the objector, these should have to be regarded as Ideal].—
Further, the Excellences and Defects of words also are
to be regarded only as bearing upon their meanings [so
that according to the objector these should all be regarded
as ideal, bearing upon the meaning only]. Further, even
those Excellences, Defects and Figures that are regarded
(by both parties) as belonging to the meaning or Idea
are dependent upon the verbal form of the words ; so
that, on the same principle, these latter should be held to
belong to the verbal forms only.—Lastly in such passages
as ‘vidhau vakre mūrdhni &c.’ (See above stanza No. 369),

344 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
तच्चित्रं यत्र वर्णानां खड्गाद्याकृतिहेतुता ॥ ८५ ॥
संनिवेशविशेषेण यत्र न्यस्ता वर्णाः खड्गमुरजपद्माद्याकार-
मुल्लासयन्ति तच्चित्रं काव्यम् । कष्टं काव्यमेतदिति दिङ्मात्रं
प्रदर्श्यते । उदाहरणम्—
मारारिशक्ररामेभमुखैरासाररंहसा ।
सारारब्धस्तवा नित्यं तदार्तिहरणक्षमा ॥ ३८४ ॥
माता नतानां संघट्टःश्रियां बाधितसंभ्रमा ।
मान्याथ सीमा रामाणां शं मे दिश्यादुमादिमा ॥ ३८५ ॥
(खड्गबन्धः)
where the Pun rests in single letters, though the two words
are entirely distinct (e.g., ‘vidhi’ and ‘vidhu’), yet on the mere
ground of the word (‘vidhau’ in both cases) being such as
is pronounceable by the same ‘effort’, it may be possible
to speak of these as instances of ‘Ideal’ Pun.
All these points have to be left to your intelligent
consideration.
V. Where the letters assume the form of such objects as
the sword and the like, it is the Figure Pictorial. 85.
In cases where the letters arranged in particular
ways appear in the form of (a) the sword, (b) or the
drum, (c) or the lotus and so forth, we have Pictorial
Poetry (i.e. Poetry with the Pictorial Figures).
As this sort of poetry is extremely difficult, we are
citing only a few examples—(a) The Sword
‘Mārārishakrārāmebhamukhairāsāraramhasā
Sārārabdhastavā nityantadārtiharaṇakṣamā’
‘May the primeval Umā,—eloquently eulogised by
Shiva, Indra and Rāma,—always removing their troubles,
the centre of majesty, free from all anxiety, esteemed by
the best of women,—ordain our prosperity.’

CHAPTER IX 345
' सरला बहुलारम्भतरलालिबलारवा ।
वारलाबहुलामन्दकरलाबहुलामला ॥३८६॥
(मुरजबन्धः)
भासते प्रतिभासार रसाभाताहताविभा ।
भावितात्मा शुभा वादे देवाभा बत ते सभा ॥३८७॥
(पद्मबन्धः)
रसासार रसा सारसायताक्षक्षतायसा ।
सातावात तवातासा रक्षतस्त्वस्त्वतक्षर ॥३८८॥
(सर्वतोभद्रम्)
[The words of this verse lend themselves to being
arranged in the form of the Sword; for which see Appendix-I.]
[ The second stanza has not been translated with
original translation. It may be rendered us :-Mother of
the humble, assemblage of prosperities, who has removed
the fear, the Venerable, the model of women, the first
of all beings, may such Umā make (me) happy.]
(b) The Drum
' Saralā bāhulārambhataralālibalāravā
Vāralābahulāmandakaralābahulāmalā '
' Clean, resounding with the humming of the active
black bees, abounding in swans, with the royal officers
fully alive to their duties, bright even during the darker
fortnight—[may the Autumn ever prosper !] '
[This verse lends itself to being arranged in the form
of the Drum, for which see Appendix-I.]
(c) The Lotus
' Bhāsate pratibhāsārarasābhātāhatāvibhā
Bhāvitātmā shubhā vāde devābhā bata te sabhā'
' O essence of genius ! your court shines resplendent
with sentiments, undeterred, with undimmed lustre, in
which the true nature of the soul has been recognized,
ever expert in debates and equal to the gods.'

346 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
संभविनोप्यन्ये प्रभेदाः शक्तिमात्रप्रकाशका न तु काव्य-
रूपतां दधतीति न प्रदर्श्यन्ते ॥८५॥
पुनरुक्तवदाभासो विभिन्नाकारशब्दगा ।
एकार्थतेव ॥
भिन्नरूपसार्थकानर्थकशब्दनिष्ठमेकार्थत्वेन मुखे भासनं पुनरुक्त-
वदाभासः । स च
शब्दस्य ॥
[This verse can be arranged in the form of the Lotus ;
for which see Appendix-I.]
(d) The All-round Square
‘Rasāsararasāsārāsayātākṣakṣatāyasā
Sātāvāta tavātāsā rakṣatastvastvatamkṣara’.
‘O essence of the Earth ! whose eyes are as large as
the lotus, who has destroyed all illusion, and who is
vastly generous ! when you protect her, may the Earth,
destroy the wicked and remain free from harm !’
[This verse can be arranged in the form of the Square ;
for which see Appendix-I.]
There are several possible varieties of this form of
poetry ; but they only serve to display the (perverted)
ingenuity of the poet, and do not attain to the dignity of
real Poetry ; it is for this reason that we are not describing
them here in detail. 85.
VI.—When it appears as if one and the same meaning is
expressed by words in diverse forms,—it is Semblance of Repetition.
When, on the face of it, (there is by chance) an
appearance of one and the same meaning, in words
of diverse forms,—with or without meaning,—it is
‘ Semblance of Repetition ’.
This—
(a) Subsists in a word ;—

CHAPTER IX 347
सभङ्गाभङ्गरूपकेवलशब्दनिष्ठः । उदाहरणम्--
अरिवधदेहशरीरः सहसा रथिसूततुरगपादातः ।
भाति सदानत्यागः स्थिरतायामवनितलतिलकः ॥३८९॥
चकासत्यङ्गनारामाः कौतुकानन्दहेतवः ।
तस्य राज्ञः सुमनसो विबुधाः पार्श्ववर्तिनः ॥३९०॥
तथा शब्दार्थयोरयम् ॥ ८६ ॥
That is, it subsists merely in a word, either (1)
broken or (2) unbroken. Example (a) Semblance of
Repetition in ‘broken words’—
‘Arivadhadehasharīraḥ sahasā rathisūtaturagapādātaḥ
Bhāti sadānatyāgaḥ sthiratāyāmavanitalatilakaḥ.
‘The King, the ornament of the Earth, is glorious,
through his meekness, being the leader of archers longing
for the destruction of enemies, whose infantry and cavalry
are kept compact by charioteers, and who is quite a moun-
tain in his firmness.’
[Here we have ‘Semblance of Repetition’ in -1) ‘deha—sharīra’,
(2) ‘sārathi—sūta’ and (3) ‘dāna-tyāga’, and each of these cases involves
the breaking of the words (1) ‘vadhadeha’, (2) ‘sahasā’ and (3)
‘sadā’ respectively.]
(b) Example of ‘Semblance of Repetition’ in ‘un-
broken words’—
‘Chakāsatyanganārāmāḥ kautukānandahetavaḥ
Tasya rājñaḥ sumanaso vibudhāḥ pārshvavartinaḥ’.
‘Resplendent are the king’s attendants,—who are
happy at home, who are the source of pleasure to him
through their arts, well-disposed and learned.’
[Here we have the ‘Semblance of Repetition’ the words—(1)
‘anganā—rāmā’, (2) ‘kautuka-ānanda’, and (3) ‘sumanaso—vibudhāḥ’,
in neither of which there is a breaking up of any word.]
II–4

348 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
उदाहरणम्--
तनुवपुरजघन्योऽसौ करिकुञ्जररुधिररक्तखरनखरः ।
तेजोधाम महःपृथुमनसामिन्द्रो हरिर्जिष्णुः ॥३९१॥
अत्रैकस्मिन् पदे परिवर्तिते नालंकार इति शब्दाश्रयः
अपरस्मिंस्तु परिवर्तितेऽपि स न हीयते इत्यर्थनिष्ठ इत्युभया-
लंकारोयम् ॥८६॥
इति काव्यप्रकाशे शब्दालंकारनिर्णयो नाम नवम उल्लासः ॥
And also in both Word and Meaning. 86.
Example—
'Tanuvapurajaghanyo'sau karikuñjararudhiraraktakharanakharaḥ
Tejodhāma mahaḥpṛthumanasāmindro harirjiṣṇuḥ'.
'This lion, though slim, is yet mighty,—having his
sharp nails reddened with the blood of mighty elephants,
the receptacle of glory, the leader of the glorious and the
brave, and ever victorious.'
[Here we have the 'Semblance of Repetition' in—(1)
'tanu-vapuḥ', (2) 'kari-kuñjara', (3) 'rudhira-rakta',
(4) 'tejo-dhāma-mahaḥ' and (5) 'indro-harir-jiṣṇuḥ'];
and among these some of the words—'tanu', 'kuñjara',
'rakta', 'dhāma', 'hari' and 'jiṣṇu'—are such as cannot
be altered without spoiling the effect of the Figure of
Speech; and to this extent the Figure subsists in words,
and is 'verbal';—while others—'vapuḥ', 'kari', 'rudhira'
and 'indra'—are such as can be replaced by their synonyms
without spoiling the effect, and to this extent, the Figure
subsists in the meaning, and is 'ideal'. And thus the
Figure belongs to both, Word and Meaning. 86.
Thus ends chapter IX of the Kāvya Prakāsha, dealing with the
Verbal Figures of Speech.

अथ दशम उल्लासः
अर्थालंकारानाह--
साधर्म्यमुपमा भेदे ।।
उपमानोपमेययोरेव न तु कार्यकारणादिकयोः साधर्म्यं
भवतीति तयोरेव समानेन धर्मेण संबन्ध उपमा ।
भेदग्रहणमनन्वयव्यवच्छेदाय ।।
पूर्णा लुप्ता च ।।
उपमानोपमेयसाधारणधर्मोपमाप्रतिपादकानामुपादाने पूर्णा ।
एकस्य द्वयोस्त्रयाणां वा लोपे लुप्ता ।।
CHAPTER X
THE IDEAL FIGURES OF SPEECH.
The author now describes the Ideal Figures of
Speech—
I. Upamā—Simile.
I. When there is similarity of properties, while there
is difference (between the objects themselves), it is Simile.
What the text is referring to is the similarity of the
properties belonging to the two objects of comparison
(the object compared and the object compared
to),—and not those belonging to the cause and the effect,
and such other correlatives ; so that it is a case of Simile
when the said objects of comparison are related to some
common property.
'While there is difference';—this has been added with
a view to distinguish the Figure, Ananvaya, 'Comparison
Absolute'.
[Simile is of two kinds]—(a) Complete and (b) Elliptical.

350 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
साग्रिमा ।।
श्रौत्यार्थी च भवेद्वाक्ये समासे तद्धिते तथा ॥ ८७ ॥
अग्रिमा पूर्णा ।
यथेवादिशब्दा यत्परास्तस्यैवोपमानताप्रतीतिरिति यद्यप्युप-
मानविशेषणान्येते तथापि शब्दशक्तिमहिम्ना श्रुत्यैव षष्ठीवत्
संबन्धं प्रतिपादयन्तीति तत्सद्भावे श्रौती उपमा । तथैव “तत्र
तस्येव” इत्यनेनेवार्थे विहितस्य वतेरुपादाने ।।
It is a case of Complete Simile when all the factors
are mentioned—(1) the object compared , (2) the
object compared to, (3) the common property, and (4)
terms signifying similitude ; and it is one of Elliptical Simile,
when either one or two or three of these factors are omitted.
The former of these is (a) directly expressed and
(b) implied ; and it appears (1) in sentence, (2) in a
compound and (3) in a nominal affix. 87.
‘Former’, i.e., the Complete Simile
Such words as ‘yathā’, ‘iva’ and the like (meaning
‘like’, ‘as’, ‘just as’ and so forth.)
As a matter of fact, that object is recognised as the
‘object compared to’, in connection with which such
terms (expressive of similitude) as ‘yathā’, ‘iva’ and so
forth are used ; and in this sense these terms serve to
qualify the ‘object compared to’ ; but the force of these
words such that, like the genitive case—ending, they
directly express relationship ; so that in a passage where
these terms are present, it is a case of Directly Expressed
Simile.—So also in cases where the affix ‘vati’ is used
in the sense of ‘iva’, and other terms expressive of simi-
litude in accordance with Pāṇini 5.1.116 (which prescribes
the use of ‘vati’ in the sense of similarity.)

CHAPTER X 351
‘तेन तुल्यं मुखम्’ इत्यादावुपमेये एव ‘तत्तुल्यमस्य’ इत्यादौ
चोपमाने एव ‘इदं च तच्च तुल्यम्’ इत्युभयत्रापि तुल्यादिशब्दानां
विश्रान्तिरिति साम्यपर्यालोचनया तुल्यताप्रतीतिरिति साधर्म्य-
स्यार्थत्वात्तुल्यादिशब्दोपादाने आर्थी तद्वत् ‘तेन तुल्यं क्रिया
चेद्वतिः’ इत्यनेन विहितस्य वतेः स्थितौ ।
“इवेन नित्यसमासो विभक्त्यलोपः पूर्वपदप्रकृतिस्वरत्वं
च” इति नित्यसमासे इवशब्द्योगे समासगा ।। क्रमेणोदाहरणम्-—
On the other hand, it is a case of Implied Simile, where
the similitude is implied by the presence of such terms as
‘tulya’, ‘equal’ and the like ; this equality as expressed
by the term ‘equal’ and the like being comprehended by
the due recognition of similarity (a) in the ‘object com-
pared’,—where the expression used is in the form ‘the
face is equal to that (i. e. the lotus),’ (b) in the ‘object
compared to’, where the expression used is in the form
‘that (lotus) is equal to this (face),’ and (c) in both, where
the expression is in the form ‘this (face) and that (lotus) are
equal.’ So it is also in cases where the affix ‘vati’ is used
in accordance with Pāṇini 5.1.115 (which prescribes the
use of the affix in the sense of similarity of action.)
We have the directly expressed Simile occurring in a
compound, in cases where the compound is formed with
the term ‘iva’, in accordance with the Vārttika under
Pāṇini 2.1.4 and 2.4.71—‘There is nitya compounding
with the term iva; where the case-termination of the pre-
ceding member is not dropped and where the preceding
member takes the accent of its crude form.’
Examples are cited in order.
(1) [The Directly Expressed Simile, in a Sentence]—