Text 10.38

परा यथा,

parā yathā,

This illustrates an implicit utprekṣā,

tanv-aṅgyāḥ stana-yugmena mukhaṃ na prakaṭī-kṛtam |
hārāya guṇine sthānaṃ na dattam iti lajjayā ||

tanu-aṅgyāḥ—of the slender-bodied girl; stana—of breasts; yugmena—by the pair; mukham—the face (i.e. the nipples); na prakaṭī-kṛtam—was not made manifest; hārāya—to the pearl necklace; guṇine—which has a thread (or which is excellent); sthānam—a place; na dattam—did not give; iti—thus; lajjayā—out of shame.

The breasts of the slender woman do not show their faces out of shame since, being so plump, they did not offer a place to the valuable (guṇin) necklace. (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.43)

Commentary:

The verse features an implicit hetu utprekṣā inasmuch as lajjayā (out of shame) logically stands for lajjayā iva (as if out of shame), according to Viśvanātha Kavirāja.^[1] The expression “the faces of the breasts” is the paryāyokta onament (circumlocution) and signifies the nipples, which are red out as if out of shame because not offering a place to sit to a qualified (guṇin) guest is a source of embarrassment: This is an implied kāvya-liṅga ornament (explanatory reason). The word guṇin is paronomastic by referring to a necklace, which has a string (guṇa).

The difference between a literal utprekṣā and an implicit utprekṣā is that the latter occurs when the term “as if” needs to be added for logical congruity. However, Viśvanātha Kavirāja points out that an implicit svarūpa utprekṣā cannot possibly exist. He says an implicit utprekṣā is either a hetu utprekṣā or a phala utprekṣā.^[2] The purport is this: What might otherwise be called an implicit svarūpa utprekṣā is actually the virodha ornament (contradiction) (10.127). For example, the above sentence “The breasts do not show their faces” is the virodha ornament because breasts cannot possibly do an action.

Neither Mammaṭa nor Kavikarṇapūra discusses the topic of implicit utprekṣā. The concept originates from Ruyyaka. In certain contexts, when high-flying imagination involves many clauses, one clause which by itself would be considered virodha is classed as an utprekṣā for that reason (10.32; 10.245). Arguably, the above verse is another example of that. The aforesaid virodha is overshadowed by the pervasive poetic fancy in the verse, so that the whole text is one utprekṣā, and consequently there is no need to single out lajjayā and say that it stands for lajjayā iva (as if out of shame). The same scheme occurs in verse 10.36. A poetic expression is classed as a virodha if the charm lies in the contradiction itself, but is classed as an utprekṣā if the charm lies in the imagination.

Similarly, most implied utprekṣās are very fanciful virodha-dhvanis. The difference between an implied utprekṣā and a literal utprekṣā is that the literal sense of the text is logically sound even without the implied utprekṣā.^[3] Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha emphasizes the concept of implicit utprekṣā as well as the difference between that and an implied utprekṣā.^[4]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

atra lajjayeveti ivādy-abhāvāt pratīyamānotprekṣā. (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.43)

[2]:

pratīyamānā-bhedāś ca pratyekaṃ phala-hetu-gāḥ || (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.44); svarūpotprekṣāpy atra na bhavati (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.44).

[3]:

vyaṅgyotprekṣāyāṃ “mahilā-sahassa” ity-ādāv utprekṣaṇaṃ vināpi vākya-viśrāntiḥ (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.43).

[4]:

prāg-udāhṛteṣv eva padyeṣu vācakānām ivādīnāṃ tyāge pratīyamānā, artha-sāmarthyāvaseyatvāt. na tu vyaṅgyeti bhramitavyam, tasyāḥ prakṛte prasaṅgābhāvāt. (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 295)