Text 2.27

तम् उपपादयति,

tam upapādayati,

He explains why Indication has no power to reveal its implied sense:

lakṣyaṃ na mukhyaṃ nāpy atra bādho yogaḥ phalena no |
na prayojanam etasmin na ca śabdaḥ skhalad-gatiḥ ||2.16||

lakṣyam—the indirect meaning; na mukhyam—is not the main [meaning]; na api—nor; atra bādhaḥ—is there an incompatibility in it; yogaḥ—a connection; phalena—with the result; no—not; na—there is no; prayojanam—purpose; etasmin—in this; na ca—nor; śabdaḥ—is the word skhalat—is tottering; gatiḥ—one whose course (or the understanding of which).

The indirect sense is not the main meaning, nor is it incompatible, nor is there a connection with the result, nor is there a purpose in this (in making the result itself an object of another Indication to bring about another result), nor is the word wanting in the required force (the word Ganges in that example, for instance, is fully capable of conveying the senses of coolness and purity).

gaṅgā-śabdasya pravāho mukhyo’rthas tatra bādhaḥ, tasya tīreṇa sambandhaḥ. lakṣite ca tīre śaityādi-phalam iti gaṅgā-śabdena tīraṃ lakṣyate. evaṃ cet tīram api mukhyaṃ syāt tatra ca bādhā bhavet, tīrasya ca śaityādinā sambandhaḥ syāt, phale ca tasmin lakṣite phalam anyad bhavet, tadā phalam api tena lakṣyeta. na caitat kim apy astīti. na ca gaṅgā-śabdas tīram iva śaityādi bodhayituṃ mantharaḥ, lakṣaṇayā tīra-pratyayānantaram eva jhaṭity eva vyañjanayā tat-pratyayāt. tasmād vivakṣitānvayānupapatty-abhāvāc ca phale na lakṣaṇā.

The main meaning of the word Ganges, a current, is incompatible. The connection of the word Ganges is done with its shore. And when the shore is indicated, the result is the notion of coolness and so forth. The shore is thus indicated by the word Ganges. If in the same way it were said that the shore as well is a main meaning and that there is an incompatibility of it at that time, there might be a connection of the shore with the notion of coolness and so on, and when that result^[1] is indicated, there would have to be another result, which would have to be indicated by that.^[2] But in fact this does not happen at all, nor is the word Ganges slow like the shore is in terms of making one understand coolness and so on, because the result is made to be perceived by vyañjanā right after the sense of ‘shore’ is made to be perceived by lakṣaṇā. Therefore there is no lakṣaṇā in the result, also because there is no lack of proper reasoning in the logical connection of the ideas meant to be expressed.

Commentary:

Kavikarṇapūra and Viśvanātha Kavirāja skip these technical details and only state that Indication cannot give rise to an implied sense simply because Indication has already been used one time.

In various places in Kāvya-prakāśa, Mammaṭa’s aim was to fine-tune Ānandavardhana’s Dhvani theory. Mammaṭa’s kārikā corresponds to this kārikā by Ānandavardhana: mukhyāṃ vṛttiṃ parityajya guṇa-vṛttyārtha-darśanam, yad uddiśya phalaṃ tatra śabdo naiva skhalad-gatiḥ (Dhvanyāloka 2.17).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

This is the indirect meaning in the second application of Indication, which is called the result in our one and only application of Indication.

[2]:

In his elaboration, Mammaṭa only says that if the implied sense of the first Indication were obtainable only by reapplying Indication so that the desired implied sense only takes the form of a meaning indicated by the sense of “shore” (purity and coolness thereupon), there would be no purpose in doing that because only the literal sense of “purity and coolness” is desired. By his threefold rule, the purpose of the indicated meaning of “purity and coolness” would have to be explained, and that would be pointless (it would defeat the purpose, so to speak): na ca taṭaṃ mukhyo’rthaḥ, nāpy atra bādhaḥ, na ca gaṅgā-śabdārthasya taṭasya pāvanatvādyair lakṣaṇīyaiḥ sambandhaḥ, nāpi prayojane lakṣye kiñcit prayojanam (Kāvya-prakāśa 2.16).