काव्यप्रकाश (आचार्य मम्मट - सम्पूर्ण १० उल्लास सटीक)

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

CHAPTER X 481
सक्तवो भक्षिता देव शुद्धाः कुलवधूरिव ॥५९१॥
यत्र तु नानात्वेपि लिङ्गवचनयोः सामान्याभिधायि पदं
स्वरूपभेदं नापद्यते न तत्रैतद्दूषणावतारः उभयथापि अस्य
अनुगमक्षमस्वभावत्वात् । यथा
गुणैरनर्घ्यैः प्रथितो रत्नैरिव महार्णवः ॥५९२॥
तद्वेषोसदृशोन्याभिः स्त्रीभिर्मधुरताभृतः ।
दधते स्म परां शोभां तदीया विभ्रमा इव ॥५९३॥
bhakṣitā deva shuddhāḥ kulavadhūriva,—‘The clean barley-
meal was eaten, like pure women ’,—[where the past-
participle ‘bhakṣitāḥ’ in the plural number cannot be
construed with ‘kulavadhūḥ’ in the singular.]
In those cases however where, even when there is
diversity of gender and number, there is no consequent
alteration in the word denoting the common property,—
it does not involve the said defect ; as the common pro-
perty remains capable of being connected with both the
objects concerned. For example, in the following pass-
ages—(a) ‘Guṇairanarghyaiḥ prathito ratnairiva mahārṇavaḥ’
[ He is famous for his valuable qualities, as the ocean for
his gems ] [ where though the genders of the nouns
‘ratnaiḥ’ and ‘guṇaiḥ’ are different, yet that does not
make any difference in the form of the connected word
‘prathitaḥ’ ] ;—or in the passage—(b) ‘Tadveṣo’ sadṛśhonyā-
bhiḥ strībhirmadhuratābhṛtaḥ dadhate sma parāṁ shobhāṁ
tadīyā vibhramā iva’—‘Her apparel was lovely as her
graces, sweet and unequalled by other women’ ; [ where
the compounds ending with ‘sadṛshaḥ’ and ‘bhṛtaḥ’
are such as can be made applicable to both nouns ‘veṣaḥ’,
singular and ‘vibhramāḥ’, plural.]

482 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
कालपुरुषविध्यादिभेदेपि न तथा प्रतीतिरस्खलितरूपतया
विश्रान्तिमासादयतीत्यसावपि भग्नप्रक्रमतयैव व्याप्तः। यथा
अतिथिं नाम काकुत्स्थात् पुत्रमाप कुमुद्वती ।
पश्चिमाद् यामिनीयामात् प्रसादमिव चेतना ॥५९४॥
अत्र चेतना प्रसादमाप्नोति न पुनरापेति कालभेदः ।
प्रत्यग्रमज्जनविशेषविविक्तमूर्तिः
कौसुम्भरागरुचिरस्फुरदंशुकान्ताः ।
विभ्राजसे मकरकेतनमर्चयन्ती
बालप्रबालविटपप्रभवा लतेव ॥५९५॥
Diversity in Tense, Person, and the Imperative and
other endings interferes with the clear comprehension of
the idea ; so that this also would be included under
‘ Broken Uniformity ’. For example, in the passage—
‘ Atithiṁ nāma kākutsthāt putramāpa kumudvatī, pashchimād
yāminīyāmāt prasādamiva chetanā ’—‘ Kumudvatī obtained
from Kākutstha, the son named ‘ Atithi ’—just as Intellect
obtains enlightenment from the last quarter of the night ’,—
where the verb as applying to the Intellect should be in the
present tense—‘ āpnoti ’,—and not in the past, ‘ āpa ’ ; hence
here we have diversity of tense (which mars the clear
comprehension of the Simile).
And in the following passage—
‘ Pratyagramajjanaviśeṣaviviktamūrtiḥ
kausumbharāgaruchirasphuradamshukāntā
vibhrājase makaraketanamarchayantī
bālaprabālaviṭapaprabhavā lateva ’,
‘ Having the body brightened by a fresh bath and
clothed in a dress coloured red with Kusumbha, while
thou art worshipping the Love-god, thou shinest like a
creeper growing out of the branch of a tree with fresh
leaves ’,—the proper verb with ‘ latā ’ would have
been ‘ vibhrājate ’, in the third person ; and as this would

CHAPTER X 483
अत्र लता विभ्राजते न तु विभ्राजसे इति संबोध्यमाननिष्ठस्य
परभागस्य असंबोध्यमानविषयतया व्यत्यासात् पुरुषभेदः ।
गङ्गेव प्रवहतु ते सदैव कीर्तिः ॥५९६॥
इत्यादौ च गङ्गा प्रवहति न तु प्रवहतु इति अप्रवृत्तप्रवर्त-
नात्मनो विधेः । एवंजातीयकस्य चान्यस्यार्थस्य उपमानगतस्या-
संभवाद्विध्यादिभेदः ॥
ननु समानम् उच्चारितं प्रतीयमानं वा धर्मान्तरमुपादाय
पर्यवसितायाम् उपमायाम् उपमेयस्य प्रकृतधर्माभिसंबन्धान्न
कश्चित्कालादिभेदोस्ति । यत्राप्युपात्तेनैव सामान्यधर्मेण उपमा
अवगम्यते यथा “युधिष्ठिर इवायं सत्यं वदति” इतितत्र युधिष्ठिर
mean a change consequent upon the last portion of the
verb referring to the person addressed being applied to
an object not addressed; and thus there comes about
a diversity in the Person.
In the passage ‘Gaṅgevā pravahatu te sadaiva kīrtiḥ’—
‘May your reputation flow on for ever like the Gaṅgā’—
the form of the verb applicable to ‘Gaṅgā’ would be
‘pravahati’ and not ‘pravahatu’; so that the text involves
the diversity of the Imperative, whose function lies in
urging that which is not already engaged in the work
(which in this case is the ‘Reputation’, and not the Gaṅgā,
which is always flowing).
Many such diversities of the injunctive and other
factors are possible, as most of them are not applicable
to the object compared to.
An objection is raised—“As a matter of fact, the con-
ditions of the Simile are fulfilled when a property common
to the two objects has been comprehended, either as ex-
pressed by the words uttered or implied; and when the

484 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
इव सत्यवाद्ययं सत्यं वदतीति प्रतिपत्स्यामहे । सत्यवादी सत्यं
वदतीति च न पौनरुक्त्यम् आशङ्कनीयम् रैपोषं पुष्णातीतिवत्
युधिष्ठिर इव सत्यवदनेन सत्यवाद्ययमित्यर्थावगमात् । सत्यमेतत्
किं तु स्थितेषु प्रयोगेषु समर्थनमिदं न तु सर्वथा निरवद्यम्
प्रस्तुतवस्तुप्रतीतिव्याघातादिति सचेतस एवात्र प्रमाणम् ।।
असादृश्यासंभवावप्युपमायाम् अनुचितार्थतायामेव पर्यवस्यतः ।
object compared is found to be possessed of this property,
there is nothing objectionable in any diversity that there
may be as regards the tense and other details. Even in
cases where the Simile is comprehended through a directly
expressed common property,—e. g., in such expressions
as ‘he tells the truth like Yudhiṣṭhira’,—the idea we
derive from it is that—‘this person, who is as truthful
as Yudhiṣṭhira, tells the truth’. It need not be argued
against this that such an expression as ‘the truthful
man tells the truth’ involves a tautology.—Because the
idea derived is that ‘by telling the truth this man is
truthful like Yudhiṣṭhira’; and this stands on the same
footing as such (seemingly tautological) expressions as
‘raipoṣaṁ puṣṇāti’, ‘he develops with the development
of wealth”.
All this is quite true. But this can be a justification
only for such expressions as are actually found in standard
works ; but such usage cannot be regarded as entirely
unobjectionable ; for in reality it does mar the due com-
prehension of the thing meant to be described.
On this point the only right judges are persons endowed
with poetic sensibility.
As regards the defects of ‘absence of similitude’

CHAPTER X 485
यथा
ग्रथ्नामि काव्यशशिनं विततार्थरश्मिम् ॥५९७॥
अत्र काव्यस्य शशिना अर्थानां च रश्मिभिः साधर्म्यं
कुत्रापि न प्रतीतमित्यनुचितार्थत्वम् ।
निपेतुरास्यादिव तस्य दीप्ताः
शरा धनुर्मण्डलमध्यभाजः ।
जाज्वल्यमाना इव वारिधारा
दिनार्धभाजः परिवेषिणोऽर्कात् ॥५९८॥
अत्रापि ज्वलन्त्योम्बुधाराः सूर्यमण्डलात् निष्पतन्त्यो न
संभवन्तीत्युपनिबध्यमानोऽर्थोनौचित्यमेव पुष्णाति ॥
उत्प्रेक्षायामपि संभावनं ध्रुवेवादय एव शब्दा वक्तुं सहन्ते
न यथाशब्दोपि केवलस्यास्य साधर्म्यमेव प्रतिपादयितुं पर्याप्त-
त्वात् तस्य चास्यामविवक्षितत्वादिति तत्राशक्तिरस्यावाचकत्वं
दोषः । यथा
and 'impossibility', which have been attributed to Simile,—
these are included under the 'Impropriety of Meaning'.
For example, in the expression 'I am stringing the moon
of poetry with the rays of ideas',—Poetry is described as
similar to the Moon, and Ideas to the rays ; while as a
matter of fact, no such similarity is known to any one ;
hence here we have the defect of the 'Impropriety of
meaning'.
Similarly in the following verse—'Out of the mouth
of the king who was occupying the centre of the bow-
circle, there fell resplendent arrows, like the flaming
showers of rain from the encircled Sun occupying the
meridian sky ;'—the 'falling of the flaming showers of
rain out of the solar disc' is an impossible phenomenon ;
hence the expression of such an idea only serves to lend
support to the idea that it is 'improper'.
In Poetical Fancy also, the fancy or imagination or

486 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
उद्ययौ दीर्घिकागर्भान्मुकुलं मेचकोत्पलम् ।
नारीलोचनचातुर्यशङ्कासंकुचितंय था ॥५९९॥
उत्प्रेक्षितमपि तात्त्विकेन रूपेण परिवर्जितत्वात् निरूपाख्य-
प्रख्यम् । तत्समर्थनाय यत् अर्थान्तरन्यासोपादानम् तत् आलेख्य-
मिव गगनतलेऽत्यन्तमसमीचीनमिति निर्विषयत्वमेतस्य । अनुचि-
तार्थतैव दोषः । यथा
assumption can be expressed by only such things as
‘dhruva’ ‘iva’ and so forth,—and not such terms as
‘yathā’ and the like ; as all that the latter, by itself, signifies
is the presence of a common property, which is not in-
tended to be expressed in Poetical Fancy. Hence when-
ever the assumption involved in this latter figure is ex-
pressed by ‘yathā’ or some such word, it involves the
defect of ‘In-expressiveness’. For example, in the
following verse,—
‘The tender lotus-bud rose from amidst the tank,—
shut up as being afraid of the superior elegance of the
girl’s eyes’;—[where the term ‘yathā’, ‘as’, is not ex-
pressive of the idea of ‘as it were’, which is what the
Poetic Fancy requires].
Another defect attributed to the Figure of Poetic
Fancy is ‘objectlessness’ (‘nirviṣayatva’), which has been
found in those cases of Poetic Fancy where what is imagined
(fancied, or assumed) having no real existence, and hence
being as good as non-existent,—a ‘Transition’ is put
forward for its justification, and this ‘Transition’ is
as improper as painting in the sky.—But here also the
defect is that of ‘Improper Signification’. For example,
in the following verse—

:CHAPTER X 487
दिवाकराद्रक्षति यो गुहासु लीनं दिवा भीतमिवान्धकारम् ।
क्षुद्रेऽपि नूनं शरणं प्रपन्ने ममत्वमुच्चैः शिरसामतीव ॥६००॥
अत्राचेतनस्य तमसो दिवाकरात्त्रास एव न संभवतीति
कुत एव तत्प्रयोजितमद्रिणा परित्राणम् । संभावितेन तु रूपेण
प्रतिभासमानस्यास्य न काचिदनुपपत्तिरवतरतीति व्यर्थ एव
तत्समर्थनायां यत्नः ।
साधारणविशेषणवशादेव समासोक्तिरनुक्तमपि उपमान-
विशेषं प्रकाशयतीति तस्यात्र पुनरुपादाने प्रयोजनाभावात् अनु-
पादेयत्वं यत् तत् अपुष्टार्थत्वं पुनरुक्तं वा दोषः । यथा
‘Who, during the day, protects, from the sun, Dark-
ness, which, is as it were, afraid and hidden among the
caves : Persons with magnanimity (high heads) sympathise
even with an insignificant thing that seeks shelter with
them’.
Here, in the first place, it is not possible for Darkness,
which is an insentient thing, to have any fear from the
sun; wherefore then could there be any protection by the
mountain, incited by that fear? And yet there is no
incongruity in the imaginary semblance of fear (which
is all that the Poetic Fancy has set forth); so that the attempt
(made in the second line) to justify the preceding state-
ment (by means of ‘Transition’) is entirely unnecessary.
Another defect attributed to the figure of Modal
Metaphor is ‘anupādeyatva’, ‘unmentionability’, which
has been found in cases where,—the particular object
compared to, which is not expressly stated, is indicated
by the figure (Modal Metaphor), through the force of
common epithets,—yet the said object is mentioned again,
for which really there is no use at all. This however,

488 KĀVYAPRAKĀŚA
स्पृशति तिग्मरुचौ ककुभः करैर्दयितयेव विजृम्भिततापया ।
अतनुमानपरिग्रहया स्थितं रुचिरया चिरयापि दिनश्रिया ॥६०१॥
अत्र तिग्मरुचेः ककुभां च यथा सदृशविशेषणवशेन व्यक्ति-
विशेषपरिग्रहेण च नायकतया नायिकात्वेन च व्यक्तिः, तथा
ग्रीष्मदिवसश्रियोऽपि प्रतिनायिकात्वेन भविष्यतीति किं दयित-
येति स्वशब्दोपादानेन ॥
श्लेषोपमायास्तु स विषयः यत्रोपमानस्योपादानमन्तरेण
साधारणेष्वपि विशेषणेषु न तथा प्रतीतिः । यथा
is the same as the defect of either 'Irrelevancy' or 'Tauto-
logy' (already described under chapter VII). For
example, in the following verse,—
'Spṛshati tigmaruchau kakubhaḥ karair
Dayitayeva vijṛmbhitatāpayā
Atanumānaparigrahayā sthitaṁ
Ruchirayā chirayāpi dinashriyā'.
'On the sun touching the quarters with his hands
(rays), day-light oppressed with grief (heat), continued
to be indignant for a long time (of long duration), just like
a girl beloved of him'.
Here, through the force of the common epithets,
and through the choice of the genders of the nouns
used, it is clearly indicated that the Sun is the lover and
the quarters, the loved woman; equally clearly would
it also be indicated that the Summer Day-light is the
rival-beloved; so that where was the use of his being
mentioned directly by the term 'dayitayā' 'girl beloved' ?
[It would not be right to contend that the use of the
addition of the word in question serves to make the figure
the Punning Simile; because [as a matter of fact, it is a
case of Punning Simile where, even on the mention of the

CHAPTER X 489
स्वयं च पल्लवाताम्रा भास्वत्करविराजिता ।
प्रभातसंध्येवास्वापफललुब्धेहितप्रदा ॥६०२ ॥ इति॥
अप्रस्तुतप्रशंसायामपि उपमेयम् अनयैव रीत्या प्रतीतं न
पुनः प्रयोगेण कदर्थतां नेयम् । यथा
आहूतेषु विहंगमेषु मशको नायान् पुरो वार्यते
मध्येवारिधि वावसंतृणमणिर्धत्ते मणीनां रुचम् ।
खद्योतोपि न कम्पते प्रचलितुं मध्येपि तेजस्विनां
धिक् सामान्यमचेतनं प्रभुमिवानासृष्टतत्त्वान्तरम् ॥६०३॥
अत्र अचेतनस्य प्रभोरप्रस्तुतविशिष्टसामान्यद्वारेणाभि-
व्यक्तौ न युक्तमेव पुनः कथनम् ॥
common properties, the Simile is not comprehended,
unless the object compared to is also mentioned. For example,
in the verse;—‘ Svayañcha pallavātāmra etc. etc. ’ (See
above, stanza No 377), [ where, if the ‘ dawn ’ had not
been mentioned, the Simile could not have been grasped ].
Similarly in the figure Indirect Description also, the
object compared should be comprehended in the same
manner (i. e. by the force of common epithets), and
should not be degraded by being directly mentioned. For
example, in the following verse.—
‘ On flying objects being invited, even the mosquito,
if it comes, is not prevented ; even the coral lying in the
bed of the ocean bears the splendour of a gem ; the firefly
also is not excluded from among shining objects ;—fie upon
this unintelligent and indiscriminate classification,
which resembles a dull and unappreciative master ’,—the
unintelligent master being already indicated by the mention
of such common properties as are not meant to be des-
cribed,—it was not right to mention him by name.