काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

CHAPTER X 461
यद्यथा साधितं केनाप्यपरेण तदन्यथा ॥ १३८ ॥
तथैव यद्विधीयेत स व्याघात इति स्मृतः ।
येनोपायेन यत् एकेनोपकल्पितम् तस्यान्येन जिगीषुतया
तदुपायकमेव यत् अन्यथाकरणम् स साधितवस्तुव्याहतिहेतुत्वात्
व्याघातः । उदाहरणम्—
दृशा दग्धं मनसिजं जीवयन्ति दृशैव याः ।
विरूपाक्षस्य जयिनीस्ताः स्तुवे वामलोचनाः ॥ ५६६॥
सेष्टा संसृष्टिरेतेषां भेदेन यदिह स्थितिः ॥ १३९ ॥
एतेषां समनन्तरमेवोक्तस्वरूपाणां यथासंभवमन्योन्यनिर-
LIX.—Vyāghāta—Frustration.
When one thing, which has been accomplished, in one way,
by one person, is turned otherwise in that same way,
by another,—that is called 'Frustration'.
One man having accomplished a certain object
by a certain means,—if that same object is made, by
that same means, to become otherwise, by another
person,—it is the figure ‘Frustration’, ‘Vyāghāta’;—so
called because it is based upon the frustration (vyāhati)
of something that has been accomplished.
Example—
‘We eulogise the women who revivify, by their
glances, the Love-god, who was burnt by Shiva, by his
glance,—and who are thus superior to this latter god’.
LX.—Saṁsṛṣṭi—Collocation of Figures.
When these (figures) are present, distinctly from one another,
it is Collocation. 138-39.
When the figures of speech described above are
present,—as far as possible independently of one ano-
ther,—in one substratum,—either (a) in the word or (b)

462 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
पेक्षतया यत् एकत्र शब्दभागे एव अर्थविषये एव उभयत्रापि वा
अवस्थानम् सा एकार्थसमवायस्वभावा संसृष्टिः ।
तत्र शब्दालंकारसंसृष्टिर्यथा
वदनसौरभलोभपरिभ्रमद्भ्रमरसंभ्रमसंभृतशोभया ।
चलितया विदधे कलमेखलाकलकलोलकलोलदृशान्यया ॥५६७॥
अर्थालंकारसंसृष्टिस्तु
लिम्पतीव तमोऽङ्गानि वर्षतीवाञ्जनं नभः ।
असत्पुरुषसेवेव दृष्टिर्विफलतां गता ॥५६८॥
पूर्वत्र परस्परनिरपेक्षौ यमकानुप्रासौ संसृष्टिं प्रयोजयतः
उत्तरत्र तु तथाविधे उपमोत्प्रेक्षे ।
in the meaning or (c) in both,—it is called ‘Collocation’,
because it consists in the co-existence of several in one thing.
(a) In the following we have the Collocation of two
verbal figures of speech—
‘Vadanasaurabhalobhaparibhramad-
bhramarasambhramasambhṛtaśobhayā
Chalitayā vidadhe kalamekhalā
kalakalo lakaloladṛśānyayā.’
‘The sweet sound of the girdle-zone was produced
by another woman, with her eyes tremulous by reason
of her hanging locks tossing about, and her beauty
enhanced by the flurry caused by the black bees hovering
about her, having been attracted by the sweet fragrance
of her mouth’.
(b) The Collocation of an Ideal and a Verbal Figure
of Speech, we have in the verse—
‘Limpatīva tamoṅgāni etc.’ (see above, stanza No. 417).
In the former verse (a) we have the Collocation brought
about by the verbal figures Alliteration and Chime, which

CHAPTER X 463
शब्दार्थालंकारयोस्तु संसृष्टिः ।
सो णत्थि एत्थ गामे जो एअं महमहन्तलाअण्णं ।
तरुणाण हिअअलूंड़िं परिसक्कन्तीं णिवारेइ ॥५६९॥
अत्रानुप्रासो रूपकं चान्योन्यानपेक्षे । संसर्गश्च तयोरेकत्र
वाक्ये छन्दसि वा समवेतत्वात् ॥१३९॥
अविश्रान्तिजुषामात्मन्यङ्गाङ्गित्वं तु संकरः ।
एते एव यत्रात्मनि अनासादितस्वतन्त्रभावाः परस्परम्
अनुग्राह्यानुग्राहकतां दधति स एषां संकीर्यमाणस्वरूपत्वात्
संकरः ।
stand independent of each other ; and in the latter (b),
by the two ideal figures, Simple and Poetic Fancy, stand-
ing independently of each other.
(c) As an example of the Collocation of a Verbal and
Ideal figure of speech, we have the following—
‘So ṇatthi ettha gāme jo eaṁ mahamahantalāaṇṇaṁ.
Taruṇāṇa hiaalūḍiṁ parisakkantīṁ ṇivārei.’
‘There is no one in this village who could restrain
this young woman loitering about with her exuberant
charm, captivating the hearts of young men’.
Here we have Alliteration and Metaphor, indepen-
dently of each other, and there is connection between
these,—as they both occur in the same sentence or the
same verse. 139.
LXI.—Saṅkara.—Commixture.
(a) When, however, there is a relation of subserviency among
the said figures of speech, which are incapable
of independent existence by themselves,—then it is
Commixture.

464 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
उदाहरणम्--
आत्ते सीमन्तरत्ने मरकतिनि हृते हेमतातङ्कपत्रे
लुप्तायां मेखलायां झटिति मणितुलाकोटियुग्मे गृहीते ।
शोणं बिम्बोष्ठकान्त्या त्वदरिमृगदृशामित्वरीणामरण्ये
राजन् गुञ्जाफलानां स्रज इति शबरा नैव हारं हरन्ति ॥५७०॥
अत्र तद्गुणमपेक्ष्य भ्रान्तिमत्ता प्रादुर्भूतम् तदाश्रयेण च
तद्गुणः सचेतसां प्रभूतचमत्कृतिनिमित्तमित्यनयोरङ्गाङ्गिभावः ।
यथा वा
When these same figures, incapable of attaining inde-
pendent existence by themselves, bear to one another
the relation of helper and helped (i. e., when one helps
to sustain the other), it is Commixture, 'Saṅkara';—so
called because it involves a mixing up of the figures.
Example—'O King, when the wives of your enemies
are wandering about in the forest, the foresters wrest
from them emerald crown-jewel, take away the golden
ear-ornament, snap away the girdle-zone and quickly
remove the jewelled anklets; but on seeing the necklace
of pearls, which has become reddened by the reflection of
the red colour of their Bimba-like lips, they take it to
be only a string of red berries and therefore do not
take it'.
Here the figure 'Illusion' appears as based upon
'Quality-borrowing', and vice versa; and this comming-
ling of the two figures is felt by persons possessed of
poetic sensibility to be extremely charming; and hence
it is found that there is 'mutual subserviency' between
the two.

CHAPTER X 465
जटाभाभिर्भाभिः करधृतकलङ्काक्षवलयो
वियोगिव्यापत्तेरिव कलितवैराग्यविशदः ।
परिप्रेङ्खत्तारापरिकरकपालाङ्किततले
शशी भस्मापाण्डुः पितृवन इव व्योम्नि चरति ॥५७१॥
उपमा रूपकम् उत्प्रेक्षा श्लेषश्चेति चत्वारोत्र पूर्ववत्
अङ्गाङ्गिंतया प्रतीयन्ते ।
कलङ्क एवाक्षवलयमिति रूपकपरिग्रहे करधृतत्वमेव साधक-
प्रमाणतां प्रतिपद्यते । अस्य हि रूपकत्वे तिरोहितकलङ्करूपम्
Another example of the same—
‘ Jaṭābhābhirbhābhiḥ karadhṛtakalaṅkākṣabalayo
Viyogivyāpatteriva kalitavairāgyavishadaḥ
Paripreṅkhattārāparikarakapālāṅkitatale
Shashī bhasmāpāṇḍuḥ pitṛvana iva vyomni charati ’.
‘ The Moon roams in the sky, which has its surface
marked by skulls in the shape of the moon and stars, as
if it were in a crematorium,—shining, as he does, with the
colour of the knotted hair,—wearing in his hand (rays)
the bracelet of rosary-beads, in the shape of the black
mark,—having attained the purity (whiteness) of dis-
passion (freedom from redness) consequent upon the
trouble brought upon separated lovers (the destruction of
the objects of sense),—and is white like (with) ashes ’.
Here the four Figures, Simile, Metaphor, Poetical
Fancy, and Pun appear, as in the foregoing verse, to be
‘ mutually subservient ’.
When we expound the expression ‘ Kalaṅkākṣabalaya ’
as ‘ Kalaṅka eva akṣabalayam ’, (the black mark itself being
‘the bracelet of rosary-beads ’), and as such involving the
figure of Metaphor,—the n the fact of ‘ being held in the
hand (rays) ’ is to be regarded as the basis justifying that

466 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अक्षवलयमेव मुख्यतयावगम्यते तस्यैव च करग्रहणयोग्यतायां
सार्वत्रिकी प्रसिद्धिः। श्लेषच्छायया तु कलङ्कस्य करधारणम्
असदेव प्रत्यासत्त्या उपचर्य योज्यते शशाङ्केन केवलं कलङ्कस्य
मूर्त्यैव उद्वहनात्। कलङ्कोक्षवलयमिवेति तु, उपमायां
कलङ्कस्य, उत्कटतया प्रतिपत्तिः। न चास्य करधृतत्वं
तत्त्वतोस्तीति मुख्येप्युपचार एव शरणं स्यात्।
एवंरूपश्च संकरः शब्दालंकारयोरपि परिदृश्यते। यथा
Metaphor ; and in this Metaphor it is the 'bracelet of
rosary-beads' which appears as the predominant factor,
entirely hiding from view the 'black mark' ; as it is the
bracelet (and not the black mark) that is universally known
as 'Karadhṛta', 'worn in the hand'; this latter factor, of
being 'Karadhṛta',—though really not present in the case
of the black mark—is imposed upon it figuratively, through
the force of the Pun (upon the word 'kara', which means
both hand and rays) aided by the proximity (of the lunar
disc),—since it is only on his disc that the Moon wears
the black mark.
If, on the other hand, the expression 'Kalaṅkākṣabalaya'
is expounded as 'Kalaṅkaḥ akṣabalayam iva', ('the black
mark which is like the bracelet of rosary-beads'),—thus
involving a Simile (not a Metaphor),—then it is the
'black mark' that comes to be recognised most obtrusively
(as the principal factor) ;—but even so, as it is not possible
for this mark to be 'karadhṛta' (worn in the hand),—if
it is the predominant factor, for the application of this
epithet, it would have to be dependent entirely upon the
said figurative indication (based upon Pun).
Commixture of this kind is met with between verbal
figures also. As for example, in the following—

CHAPTER X 467
राजति ततीयमभिहतदानवरासातिपातिसारावनदा ।
गजता च यूथमविरतदानवरा सातिपाति सारा वनदा ॥५७२॥
अत्र यमकामनुलोमप्रतिलोमश्च चित्रभेदः पादद्वयगते परस्परापेक्षे ।
एकस्य च ग्रहे न्यायदोषाभावादनिश्चयः ॥ १४० ॥
द्वयोर्बहूनां वा अलंकाराणामेकत्र समावेशेपि विरोधात्
न यत्र युगपदवस्थानम् न चैकतरस्य परिग्रहे साधकम् तदितरस्य
वा परिहारे बाधकमस्ति येनैकतर एव परिगृह्येत स निश्चया-
भावरूपो द्वितीयः संकरः समुच्चयेन संकरस्यैवाक्षेपात् ।
‘ Rājati tatīyamabhihatadānavarāsātipātisārāvanada
Gajatā cha yūthamaviratadānavarā sātipāti sārā vanadā.’
‘ This place is glorious, where the roaring of demons
has been subdued and which is adorned with fast-flowing
murmuring rivers ; and this elephant-herd protects itself,
glorious with the uninterrupted flow of the ichor, powerful
and destroying the forest ’.
Here Chime and the Fanciful with convertible parts,
are contained in the two feet, and are dependent upon
each other.
(b) When there is no reason in support of, nor any
objection against, the recognition of any one (to the
exclusion of the likely figures), there is Uncertainty
(which forms the second variety of Commixture). 140.
When two or more figures of speech are found toge-
ther, and by reason of incompatibility, all of them
cannot be admitted simultaneously,—nor is there any
reason for accepting any one of them, nor is there any
objection against the exclusion of others, by virtue of
which any one only could be admitted,—then there is

468 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
उदाहरणम्—
जह गहिरो जह रअणणिब्भरो जह अ णिम्मलच्छाओ ।
तह किं विहिणा एसो सरसवाणीओ जलणिही ण किओ ॥५७३॥
अत्र समुद्रे प्रस्तुते विशेषणसाम्यादप्रस्तुतार्थप्रतीतेः किमसौ
समासोक्तिः किम् अब्धेरप्रस्तुतस्य मुखेन कस्यापि तत्समगुणतया
प्रस्तुतस्य प्रतीतेः इयमप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा इति संदेहः । यथा वा
नयनानन्ददायीन्दोर्बिम्बमेतत्प्रसीदति ।
अधुनापि निरुद्धाशमविशीर्णमिदं तमः ॥५७४॥
अत्र किं कामस्योद्दीपकः कालो वर्तते इति भङ्ग्यन्तरेणा-
भिधानात् पर्यायोक्तम् । उत वदनस्येन्दुबिम्बतया अध्यवसानात्
Uncertainty; and this is to be regarded as the second
variety of Commixture;—this being the implication of the
collective particle ‘cha’ (in the text), which is meant to
connect the ‘commixture’ with the present text.
For example, in the following verse—‘Hot is it that
the ocean was not made sweet-watered, by the Creator,
as it was made deep, rich in gems and bright ?’
Here it is uncertain what figure is meant to be expressed ;
either (a) Modal Metaphor—involving the recognition of
an object not meant to be described (the King), when what
is actually described is the Ocean,—or (b) Indirect Descrip-
tion, involving the recognition of the object to be described
(the King), through the mention of an object not meant
to be described (the Ocean), which the former resembles.
Or, another example (of Uncertainty), in the following
verse.—
‘This disc of the moon, which is a source of joy
to the eye, is shining; and yet even now this darkness,
pervading all quarters, stands unpierced’.

CHAPTER X 469
अतिशयोक्तिः किं वा । एतदिति वक्त्रं निर्दिश्य तद्रूपारोपवशात्
रूपकम् । अथवा तयोः समुच्चयविवक्षायां दीपकम् । अथवा तुल्य-
योगिता । किमु प्रदोषसमये विशेषणसाम्यादाननस्यावगतौ समा-
सोक्तिः । आहोस्वित् मुखनैर्मल्यप्रस्तावात् अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसा इति
बहूनां संदेहादयमेव संकरः ।
यत्र तु न्यायदोषयोरन्यतरस्यावतारः तत्र एकतरस्य
निश्चयात् न संशयः ॥
न्यायश्च साधकत्वम् अनुकूलता दोषोपि बाधकत्वं प्रति-
कूलता । तत्र
Here it is Uncertain, whether what is meant is—(a)
the indirect assertion of the fact that ‘ the time favourable
for the manifestation of love has arrived ’,—thus involving
the Figure of Periphrasis ;—or (b) the recognition of the
Face of the girl as the Moon,—thus involving the figure
Hyperbole ;—or (c) the imposition of the character of the
Moon upon the Face, referred to by the pronoun ‘this ,—
thus involving the figure of Metaphor ;—or (d) the com-
bination of both (Face and Moon),—thus involving the
figure of Illuminator)—or (e) the figure of Equal Pairing
(both Face and Moon being meant to be described) ;
—or (f) the cognition of the face, through common quali-
fications and the mention of the evening-time,—thus
involving the figure of Modal Metaphor ;—or (g) the in-
troduction of the description of the face,—thus involving
the figure of Indirect Description.
Thus, there being an uncertainty pertaining to several
figures, this is an instance of the Uncertain Commixture.
In cases where there are reasons for or against the
admission of any one of the figures involved, there is
certainty with regard to that one ; so that in that case
there is no uncertainty.

470 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
सौभाग्यं वितनोति वक्त्रशशिनो ज्योत्स्नेव हासद्युतिः ॥५७५॥
इत्यत्र मुख्यतया अवगम्यमाना हासद्युतिर्वक्त्रे एवानुकूल्यं
भजते इत्युपमायाः साधकम्। शशिना तु न तथा प्रतिकूलेति रूपकं
प्रति तस्या अबाधकता।
वक्त्रेन्दौ तव सत्ययं यदपरः शीतांशुरभ्युद्यतः ॥५७६॥
इत्यत्रापरत्वमिन्दोरनुगुणं न तु वक्त्रस्य प्रतिकूलमिति
रूपकस्य साधकतां प्रतिपद्यते न तूपमाया बाधकताम्।
राजनारायणं लक्ष्मीस्त्वामालिङ्गति निर्भरम् ॥५७७॥
The term ‘nyāya’ (in the text) stands for reasons for,
that is, favourable to, something ; and ‘doṣa’ for reasons
against, opposed to, something.
(a) In the following passage—‘ the brightness of the
smile like moonlight, lends gracefulness to the face-moon’,
—what is recognised as the predominant factor is the
‘brightness of smile.’, and this is favourable to the des-
cription being applicable to the face ; and hence it serves
as the reason for the definite recognition of the figure of
Simile (in the expression ‘face-moon’); and as regards
the application of the description to the moon, also, the
said circumstance (of the brightness of Simile being the
predominant factor) is not altogether unfavourable ;
and hence it cannot be regarded as a reason for the admission
of the figure of Metaphor (in the same expression ‘Face-
moon’.)—
(b) But in the passage—‘ that this other moon should
appear while your face-moon is already present’,—the
epithet ‘other’ is favourable to the moon being taken as
the object described, but not entirely unfavourable to the

CHAPTER X 471
इत्यत्र पुनरालिङ्गनमुपमां निरस्यति सदृशं प्रति परप्रेयसी-
प्रयुक्तस्यालिङ्गनस्यासंभवात् ।
पादाम्बुजं भवतु नो विजयाय मञ्जु-
मञ्जीरशिञ्जितमनोहरमम्बिकायाः ॥५७८॥
इत्यत्र मञ्जीरशिञ्जितम् अम्बुजे प्रतिकूलम् असंभावादिति
रूपकस्यबाधकम् न तु पादेनुकूलमित्युपमायाःसाधकमभिधयते
विध्युपमर्दिनो बाधकस्य तदपेक्षयोत्कटत्वेन प्रतिपत्तेः ॥
एवमन्यत्रापि सुधीभिः परीक्ष्यम् ॥१४०॥
face being so taken; and hence it becomes a reason
for the admission of Metaphor, but not a reason against that
of Simile.
(c) In the passage—'The Goddess of Wealth firmly
embraces you, the King-Viṣṇu',—the mention of 'em-
bracing' excludes the Simile, as it is not possible (right)
for the wife of one person to 'embrace' another who may
be similar to him.
(d) In the passage—'may the lotus-feet of Ambikā,
lovely on account of the jingling of the anklets, ordain
your victory',—the 'jingling' is unfavourable to the
description applying to the lotus whose jingling is impossible
and as such, it is a reason against the admission of Metaphor;
we do not regard it as a reason for the admission of the
Simile, on the ground of its being favourable to its apply-
ing to the feet,—because the fact of its being a negative
reason against (Metaphor) is more obtrusively recognised
than that of its being an affirmative reason for Simile.
Similar deductions may be made by the learned in
other cases also.

472 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
स्फुटमेकत्र विषये शब्दार्थालंकृतिद्वयम् ।
व्यवस्थितं च
अभिन्ने एव पदे स्फुटतया यत् उभावपि शब्दार्थालंकारौ
व्यवस्थां समासादयतः सोप्यपरः संकरः । उदाहरणम्--
स्पष्टोल्लसत्किरणकेसरसूर्यबिम्ब-
विस्तीर्णकर्णिकमथो दिवसारविन्दम् ।
श्लिष्टाष्टदिग्दलकलापमुखावतार-
बद्धान्धकारमधुपावलि संचुकोच ॥५७९॥
अत्र एकापदानुप्रविष्टौ रूपकानुप्रासौ ॥
तेनासौ त्रिरूपः परिकीर्तितः ॥ १४१ ॥
(c) Also, when, in a single word, both the Verbal
and the Ideal Figures of Speech are clearly manifest.
When in one and the same word, both, the Verbal
and the Ideal Figures of Speech obtain a clear footing,—
it is another (third) kind of Commixture.
Example—
‘ Spaṣṭollasatkiraṇakesarasūryabimba—
Vistīrṇakarṇikamatho divasāravindam
Shliṣṭāṣṭadigdalakalāpamukhāvatāra—
Baddhāndhakāramadhupāvali sañchukocha ’.
'The Day-lotus, with the Sun for its pericarp of which
the shooting rays are the filaments,—enveloping the
Night-bee embracing the eight quarters, has become con-
tracted ’.
Here we have the Commixture of Alliteration and
Metaphor in single words (in the shape of the two long
compounds).
Thus this (Commixture) has been described as
having three forms. 141.

CHAPTER X 473
तदयमनुग्राह्यानुग्राहक तया संदेहेन एकपदप्रतिपाद्यतया च
व्यवस्थितत्वात्त्रिप्रकार एव संकरो व्याकृतः । प्रकारान्तरेण तु
न शक्यो व्याकर्तुम् आनन्त्यात्तत्प्रभेदानामिति प्रतिपादिताः
शब्दार्थोभयगतत्वेन त्रैविध्यजुषोलंकाराः ॥
कुतः पुनरेष नियमो यदेतेषां तुल्येपि काव्यशोभातिशय-
हेतुत्वे कश्चिदलकारः शब्दस्य कश्चिदर्थस्य कश्चिच्चोभयस्य
इति चेत् । उक्तमत्र यथा काव्ये दोषगुणालंकाराणां शब्दार्थो-
भयगतत्वेन व्यवस्थायामन्वयव्यतिरेकावेव प्रभवतः निमित्तान्त-
रस्याभावात् । ततश्च योलंकारो यदीयान्वयव्यतिरेकावनुविधत्ते
स तदलंकारो व्यवस्थाप्यते इति ।
Thus has been described Commixture in its three
forms-(1) that in which one figure aids, and is
subservient to, the other, (2) where the predominance
of one or the other is doubtful, and (3) where both figures
manifest themselves in single words.
Any other method of sub-dividing it is not advisable,
as the number of such divisions would be endless.
Thus have been described all the Figures of Speech,
classified under three heads-as pertaining to the word,
to the idea and to both.
Question.-"All Figures of Speech equally being only
the means of lending charm to poetry, wherefore should
there be any such restriction as that some figures belong
to Words, others to Ideas, and others again to both Words
and Ideas ?"
Our answer to this is as follows :-It has already been
explained that in Poetry, Defects, Excellences and Figures
of Speech are attributed to Words, Ideas or both, entirely
on the basis of positive and negative concomitance ; as

474 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
एवं च यथा पुनरुक्तवदाभासः परंपरितरूपकं चोभयोर्भावा-
भावानुविधायितया, उभयालंकारौ तथा शब्दहेतुकार्थान्तरन्यास-
प्रभृतयोपि द्रष्टव्याः । अर्थस्य तु तत्र वैचित्र्यम् उत्कटतया
प्रतिभासते, इति वाच्यालंकारमध्ये वस्तुस्थितिमनपेक्ष्यैव
लक्षिताः ॥
योलंकारो यदाश्रितः स तदलंकार इत्यपि कल्पनायाम्
अन्वयव्यतिरेकावेव समाश्रयितव्यौ । तदाश्रयणमन्तरेण विशिष्ट-
स्याश्रयाश्रयिभावस्याभावादित्यलंकाराणां यथोक्तनिमित्त
एव परस्परव्यतिरेको ज्यायान् ॥१४१॥
there can be no other determining basis ; consequently a
Figure of Speech is attributed to one or the other accord-
ing as it is concomitant, positively as well as negatively,
with that. So the Semblance of Repetition and the Conse-
quential Metaphor are attributed to both Word and Idea,
because their presence or absence is dependent upon
the presence and absence of both. Similarly with the
‘Transition’ based upon words and other Figures of speech;
even so however the real state of things has been ignored,
and these latter have been classed among Ideal figures,
simply because what shines forth in them most prominently
is the charm of the Idea expressed.
Even if we accept the principle that ‘a figure is to be
attributed to that on which it rests’, the ultimate criterion
to be adopted will have to be the before-mentioned
‘positive and negative concomitance’, especially because
in the absence of these latter there can be no idea of the
figures subsisting in anything For these reasons it is best
to accept the said distinction among Figures of Speech
entirely on the basis of the said ‘concomitance’. 141.

CHAPTER X 475
एषां दोषा यथायोगं संभवन्तोपि केचन ।
उक्तेष्वन्तर्भवन्तीति न पृथक् प्रतिपादिताः ॥ १४२ ॥
तथाहि--अनुप्रासस्य प्रसिद्धयभावो वैफल्यं वृत्तिविरोध
इति ये त्रयो दोषाः । ते प्रसिद्धिविरुद्धताम् अपुष्टार्थत्वम् प्रति-
कूलवर्णतां च यथाक्रमं न व्यतिक्रामन्ति तत्स्वभावत्वात् ।
क्रमेणोदाहरणम्--
चक्री चक्रारपङ्क्तिं हरिरपि च हरीन् धूर्जटिर्धूर्ध्वजाग्रान्
अक्षं नक्षत्रनाथोरुणमपि वरुणः कूबराग्रं कुबेरः ।
रंहः संघः सुराणां जगदुपकृतये नित्ययुक्तस्य यस्य
स्तौति प्रीतिप्रसन्नोन्वहमहिमरुचेः सोवतात्स्यन्दनो वः ॥५८०॥
Defects are possible in connection with these
(Figures) also; but they are such as are likely to be
included among these already described; hecnce they
are not dealt with separately. 142.
For instance, in connection with Alliteration, three
defects have been cited (by the older writers) as
specially noticeable; these are—(1) absence of general
recognition, (2) uselessness and (3) incompatibility of
diction; and these do not differ in character respectively
from (1) being opposed to accepted notions, (2) Irrele-
vancy and (3) Discordance of letters; as they have the
same character as these. Examples in order—
(1) [Absence of General Recognition]—
'Chakrī chakrārapaṅktiṁ harirapi cha harīn,
dhūrjaṭirdhūrdhvajāgrān
Akṣaṁ nakṣatranāthoruṇamapi varuṇaḥ,
kūbarāgraṁ kuberaḥ
Raṁhaḥ saṁghaḥ surāṇāṁ jagadupakṛtaye
nityayuktasya yasya
Stauti prītiprasannonvahamahimarucheḥ
sovātātsyandano vaḥ.'
II-12

476 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
अत्र कर्तृकर्मप्रतिनियमेन स्तुतिः अनुप्रासानुरोधेनैव कृता न
पुराणेतिहासादिषु तथा प्रतीतेति प्रसिद्धिविरोधः ॥
भण तरुणि रमणमन्दिरमानन्दस्यन्दिसुन्दरेन्दुमुखि ।
यदि सल्लीलोल्लापिनि गच्छसि तत् किं त्वदीयं मे ॥५८१॥
अनणुरणन्मणिमेखलमविरतशिञ्जानमञ्जुमञ्जीरम् ।
परिसरणमरुणचरणे रणरणकमकारणं कुरुते ॥५८२॥
‘May that chariot of the Sun bent upon benefitting the
world, protect you, whose line of spokes is daily recognised
with pleasure by Viṣṇu, the horses by Indra, the banners
by Shiva, the wheel by the Moon, the driver Aruṇa by
Varuṇa, the poles by Kubera and the speed by the hosts
of gods!’
The series of Agents and the Acts attributed to them
here are all such as have been assumed for the purposes
of Alliteration, and no such acts are found to have been
described in the Itihāsas or Purāṇas. So that this is only
a case of ‘contraxity to prevailing notions’.
(2) [Uselessness]—
‘Bhaṇa taruṇi ramaṇamandiramānandasyandi-
sundarendumukhi
Yadi sallīlollāpini gachchasi tat kiṁ tvadīyaṁ me
Anaṇuraṇanmaṇimekhalamaviratashiñjānamañju-
mañjīram
Parisaraṇamaruṇacharaṇe raṇaraṇakamakā-
raṇaṁ kurute.’
‘O young girl, with face as bright as the joyous moon,
who converse sweetly and whose feet are red! at the time
that you are going to your husband, your movement,
accompanied by the tingling girdlezone and jingling
anklets, produce without reason, a peculiar anxiety in
my heart ;—tell me why this is so’.

CHAPTER X 477
अत्र वाच्यस्य विचिन्त्यमानं न किंचिदपि चारुत्वं प्रतीयते,
इत्यपुष्टार्थतैवानुप्रासस्य वैफल्यम् ॥
अकुण्ठोत्कण्ठया इति अत्र शृङ्गारे परुषवर्णाडम्बरः
पूर्वोक्तरीत्या विरुध्यते इति परुषानुप्रासोत्र प्रतिकूलवर्णतैव
वृत्तिविरोधः ॥
यमकस्य पादत्रयगतत्वेन यमनमप्रयुक्तत्वं दोषः ॥ यथा
भुजङ्गमस्येव मणिः सदम्भा ग्राहावकीर्णेव नदी सदम्भाः ।
दुरन्ततां निर्णयतोपि जन्तोः कर्षन्ति चेतः प्रसभं सदम्भाः ॥५८३॥
The idea expressed here is one in which, however
much we ponder over it, we perceive no charm; hence
the ‘uselessness’ of the Alliteration is only what has been
described above as ‘Irrelevancy’.
(3) [Incompatibility of Diction]—
‘Akuṇṭhotkaṇṭhayā &c., &c., (see above, stanza No. 207).
Here, the bombast of harsh words is incompatible
with the delineation of the Erotic Passion, in accordance
with what has been said before (in Chapter VII); so that
the defect of ‘incompatibility of diction’ in this Allitera-
tion is nothing more than the presence of ‘discordant
letters’.
The presence of chiming in three feet of a verse, which
has been mentioned as a defect in connection with Chime,
is only ‘opposition to usage’; e. g., in the following
verse—
‘Bhujangamasyeva maṇiḥ sadambhā
Grāhāvakīrṇeva nadī sadambhāḥ
Durantatānnirṇayatopi jantoḥ
Karṣanti chetaḥ prasabhaṁ sadambhāḥ.’

478 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
उपमायाम् उपमानस्य जातिप्रमाणगतन्यूनत्वम् अधिकता
वा तादृशी अनुचितार्थत्वं दोषः । धर्माश्रये तु न्यूनाधिकत्वे यथा-
क्रमं हीनपदत्वमधिकपदत्वं च न व्यभिचरतः ॥ क्रमेणोदाहरणम्— .
चण्डालैरिव युष्माभिः साहसं परमं कृतम् ॥५८४॥
वह्निस्फुलिङ्ग इव भानुरयं चकास्ति ॥५८५॥
अयं पद्मासनासीनश्चक्रवाको विराजते ।
युगादौ भगवान् वेधा विनिर्मित्सुरिव प्रजाः ॥५८६॥
‘ Deceitful people, though bearing testimony to their
wicked heart, yet succeed in attracting the hearts of
simple people,—just as is done by the pure and brilliant
hood-gem of the serpent, and by the clear-watered streams
full of alligators ’.
The defect mentioned in connection with Simile is
the inferiority or superiority of the object compared to (to
the object compared), in point of kind and degree ;—and
this is only what has been described as ‘ Impropriety’ of
meaning ;—while the inferiority and superiority as regard
the properties (of the two objects) do not differ from what
has been described as ‘ deficiency of words ’ or ‘ redundancy
of words ’.
For Example—
(1) [ Inferiority in kind ]—
‘ You took a very bold step, like Chaṇḍālas ’
(2) [ Inferiority in degree ]—
‘ The Sun is shining like a spark of fire ’.
(3) [ Superiority in kind ]—
‘ This Chakravāka bird, seated on the lotus-seat, looks
beautiful,—just like the revered Creator going to create
the people at the beginning of the cycle ’.

CHAPTER X 479
पातालमिव ते नाभिः स्तनौ क्षितिधरोपमौ ।
वेणीदण्डः पुनरयं कालिन्दीपातसंनिभः ॥५८७॥ .
अत्र चण्डालादिभिरुपमानः प्रस्तुतोऽर्थोऽत्यर्थमेव कदर्धित
इत्यनुचितार्थता ॥
स मुनिर्लाञ्छितो मौञ्ज्या कृष्णाजिनपटं वहन् ।
व्यराजन्नीलजीमूतभागाश्लिष्ट इवांशुमान् ॥५८८॥
अत्रोपमानस्य मौञ्जीस्थानीयस्तडिल्लक्षणो धर्मः केनापि
पदेन न प्रतिपादित इति हीनपदत्वम् ॥
स पीतवासाः प्रगृहीतशार्ङ्गं मनोज्ञभीमं वपुराप कृष्णः ।
शतह्रदेन्द्रायुधवान्निशायां संसृज्यमानः शशिनेव मेघः ॥५८९॥
अत्रोपमेयस्य शङ्खादेरनिर्देशे शशिनो ग्रहणमतिरिच्यते
इत्यधिकपदत्वम् ॥
(4) [ Superiority in degree ]—
‘Thy navel is like the nether regions, thy breasts are like
mountains and thy looks like the stream of the Yamunā’.
In all these instances, the objects described, by being
compared to the things mentioned, have been very much
depreciated; and this involves the defect of ‘impropriety
of meaning’ (already described in Chap. VII.)
In the passage—‘The sage, wearing the girdle and the
skin of the antelope, appeared like the sun interspersed
among masses of blue clouds’,—it is found that in connec-
tion with the object compared to (the Sun), nothing (like the
lightning, for instance) has been mentioned as correspond-
ing to the ‘girdle’ of the object compared; and this is only
a ‘deficiency of words’.
In the passage—‘Kṛṣṇa, dressed in yellow cloth and
holding his bow assumed a body at once beautiful
and terrible,—like the nocturnal cloud accompanied by
lightning and the rainbow and the Moon’,—in the absence

480 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
लिङ्गवचनभेदोपि उपमानोपमेययोः साधारणं चेत्
धर्ममन्यरूपं कुर्यात् । तदा एकतरस्यैव तद्धर्मसमन्वयावगतेः
सविशेषणस्यैव तस्योपमानत्वमुपमेयत्वं वा प्रतीयमानेन धर्मेण
प्रतीयते इति प्रक्रान्तस्यार्थस्य स्फुटमनिर्वाहादस्य भग्नप्रक्रम-
रूपत्वम् । यथा--
चिन्तारत्नमिव च्युतोसि करतो धिङ्मन्दभाग्यस्य मे ॥५९०॥
of any mention of the conch and other things in connec-
tion with the object compared (Kṛṣṇa), the mention of the
moon is superfluous ; and this involves the defect of
'Redundancy' (already described under chapter VII).
Further, the diversity in gender and number, of the
object compared and that compared to (which has been des-
cribed as a defect of Simile),—if it bring about some di-
versity in the form of the word mentioning the common
property, it is only the defect which has been described as
'Broken Uniformity;' because in such a case the said
property belonging to only one of the two objects, the
objects could be regarded either as 'the object compared'
or 'the object compared a to' on the basis of that property
only in a qualified (and not original) form ; and this would
mean that the idea started with could not be sustained.
For example, in the following instances—
(a) 'Chintāratnamiva chyutosi karato dhiṅ mandabhāgyasya
me'
'You are fallen from my hands, like the Chintāmaṇi,—
unlucky that I am!' [where the past-participle 'chyutaḥ'
being in the masculine gender, can be construed only with
the man described, and not with 'ratnam', which is in the
neuter gender, [ ;-and also in the passage—(b) 'Saktavo