Text 10.155

उदाहरणम्,
जहौ श्री-कृष्णम् आलोक्य स्थितिं स्वाभाविकीम् अपि ।
दर्पः कन्दर्प-हृदये मानो मानवती-हृदि ॥

udāharaṇam,
jahau śrī-kṛṣṇam ālokya sthitiṃ svābhāvikīm api |
darpaḥ kandarpa-hṛdaye māno mānavatī-hṛdi ||

jahau—relinquished; śrī-kṛṣṇam—Śrī Kṛṣṇa; ālokya—after seeing; sthitim—condition; svābhāvikīm—natural; api—also; darpaḥ—pride; kandarpa—of Cupid; hṛdaye—in the heart; mānaḥ—pique; mānavatī—of the sulky women; hṛdi—in the heart.

Upon seeing Kṛṣṇa, the pride in Cupid’s heart gave up its natural state, and so did the pique in the hearts of the sulky girls. (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 8.203)

atra kandarpo nirdarpaḥ. māninyo nirmānā iti vyaṅgyam api bhaṅgyā śabdenābhidhīyate.

Here the implied sense, expressed with words by a roundabout mode of expression, is: Cupid became prideless and the sulky girls ceased being sulky.

Commentary:

Kavikarṇapūra says there is no implied sense at all in his verse nor in any other instance of paryāyokta. According to him, the meaning “Cupid became prideless and the sulky girls ceased being sulky” is literally expressed (vācya).^[1] In this way he seemingly contradicts his own definition.^[2] The reconciliation is that sometimes the purport is classed as vācya (literal).^[3]

This is Mammaṭa’s example:

yaṃ^[4] prekṣya cira-rūḍhāpi nivāsa-prītir ujjhitā |
madenairāvaṇa-mukhe mānena hṛdaye hareḥ ||

“Upong seeing Rāvaṇa, the pleasure of having a place to stay was given up, even though the pleasure was longstanding, by the rut fluid on Airāvaṭa’s face and by the arrogant pride in Indra’s heart.”

Mammaṭa elaborates:

atra, airāvaṇa-śakrau mada-māna-muktau jātāv iti vyaṅgyam api śabdenocyate tena yad evocyate tad eva vyaṅgyam. yathā tu vyaṅgyaṃ na tathocyate,

“Although implied, the idea “Airāvaṭa became free of rut fluid and Indra became bereft of arrogant pride” is literally expressed with the words. Therefore the implied sense is the same as what is literally expressed, yet the manner in which the implied sense occurs is not the same as the manner in which the same idea is literally expressed with words” (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 504 vṛtti).

Commenting on the verse, Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha points out that it makes no sense to say that the implied sense is the same as the literal meaning. He tries to reconcile the matter as follows: Paryāyokta occurs here because the intended idea is as if said by means of stating its effect, thus the cause is implied by the effect.^[5] In this way Jagannātha equates Mammaṭa’s paryāyokta with Ruyyaka’s paryāyokta, defined next (10.156).

Arguably, Mammaṭa is not the author of the above elaboration. This is explained below. Mammaṭa’s paryāyokta is exactly the same as his tātparya-vṛtti (the Purport), which is avācya (not exactly the literal sense). Mammaṭa’s definition of paryāyokta is taken from Udbhaṭa.^[6] The old-school poetical rhetoricians created the paryāyokta ornament to include any notion of implied sense (vastu-dhvani). Udbhaṭa’s example of paryāyokta, shown in Commentary 10.156, is the same as Mammaṭa’s variety of aprastuta-praśaṃsā where a cause is implied from its effect. Further, when Mammaṭa’s Purport gives rise to an implied sense, that is the suggestive factor called vākya-vaiśiṣṭya (the specialty of the real statement) (3.2).

This is Mammaṭa’s example (cited in text 3.3):

tadā mama gaṇḍa-sthala-nimagnāṃ dṛṣṭiṃ na nayasy anyatra |
idānīṃ saivāhaṃ tau ca kapolau na sā dṛṣṭiḥ || (Sanskrit rendering)

“At that time you did not cast your eyes, which were glued to my cheeks, anywhere else. Now, even though I am the same and I have the same cheeks that I had, Your glance is not like that anymore.”

Mammaṭa elaborates:

atra mat-sakhīṃ kapola-pratibimbitāṃ paśyatas te dṛṣṭir anyaivābhūt calitāyāṃ tu tasyām anyaiva jātety aho pracchanna-kāmukatvaṃ te iti vyajyate,

“She means to say, “At that time You were looking at my friend’s reflection on my cheeks. Your glance is not like that now that she is gone.” The implied sense is: “Aha, You are a stealthily lusty man!”” (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 16 vṛtti).

Here, paryāyokta gives rise to an implied sense. The verse is the literal statement (vācya), whereas the rewording in the elaboration is the Purport (avācya). Naturally, the suggestion is implied (vyaṅgya). Had Mammaṭa thought that the implied sense is directly derived from the wording of the verse, he would have classed the verse as an example of an implied sense derived from the literal meaning (vācya-vaiśiṣṭya), and had he thought that his rewording is an implied sense, he would have classed this verse as an example of an implied sense derived from another implied sense (his rewording) (vyaṅgya-vaiśiṣṭya).

It should be kept in mind that Mammaṭa passed away before completing Kāvya-prakāśa. Another Kashmiri, named Alaka (also called Alaṭa and Allaṭa), brought Kāvya-prakāśa to completion. According to tradition, Mammaṭa passed away while writing the tenth chapter. Rājānaka Ānanda (c. 1665 CE),^[7] a late commentator on Kāvya-prakāśa, says Mammaṭa wrote the book up to the parikara ornament (10.176).^[8] He does not state the reason for his speculation. Perhaps Mammaṭa composed all the kārikās and inserted illustrative examples, and later Alaka completed the remaining portions of the vṛtti. At any rate, when the present writer uses the name Mammaṭa in reference to an elaboration in this chapter, it is most likely a pen name for Alaka.

This is Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha’s example of paryāyokta,

sūryācandramasau yasya vāso rañjayataḥ karaiḥ |
aṅgarāgaṃ sṛjaty agnis taṃ vande parameśvaram ||

“I praise that Parameśvara whose garment the sun and the moon color with rays and whose bodily powder Agni creates” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara).

In other words “I praise Śiva, who is naked and has ashes on his body.”^[9]

This verse by Jagannātha is another example:

ālīsu kelī-rabhasena bālā muhur mamālāpam upālapantī |
ārād upākarṇya giraṃ madīyāṃ saudāminīyāṃ suṣamām ayāsīt ||

“In the course of having fun with her friends, the young woman repeatedly imitated the way I talk, yet she assumed the resplendence of lightning upon hearing my voice far away” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara).

Jagannātha cites the above to illustrate the vyabhicāri-bhāva called trāsa (sudden fear). The woman is Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha’s wife.^[10] The verse also features paryāyokta because the meaning “She assumed the resplendence of lightning” is only a poetical way of saying “She ran away” and adds nothing from a semantic perspective insofar as there is no intent to signify a similarity of color, and so on, between lightning and the woman. Therefore it is not the nidarśanā ornament (Commentary 10.68).

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

atra kandarpo nirdarpaḥ, mānavatyo’pi māna-rahitā iti yadyapi vastu śabdenaiva pratīyate, tathāpi na vācaka-mukhena, na ca vācya-mukhena. vācaka-mukhena ced abhaviṣyat tadā tasyānyārtho’bhaviṣyat. atra vācakā eva śabdāḥ, na tūktārtha-vyañjakāḥ. evaṃ vācya-mukhena ced abhaviṣyat tadā anyo’py artho’bhaviṣyat. ayaṃ tu vācya evārthaḥ, na tu vyaṅgyaḥ, tarhi sa-bādham idam ity api na vaktavyam. tathā hi, gavi śukle calati dṛṣṭe gauḥ śuklaś cala iti tritaya-vikalpo yad eva dṛṣṭaṃ tad eva vikalpayati. tac cābhinnāsaṃsṛṣṭatvena darśanaṃ bheda-saṃsargābhyāṃ vikalpayati. (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 8.203)

[2]:

vinā vācaka-vācyatvaṃ yatra vastu pratīyate paryāyoktaṃ tat (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 8.202).

[3]:

Ānandavardhana paraphrases Mīmāṃsakas: tasmāt tātparya-viṣayo yo’rthaḥ sa tāvan-mukhyatayā vācyaḥ, “Therefore, the meaning that is the object of the tātparya is vācya, due to being primary to that extent” (Dhvanyāloka 3.33). For the details, consult the appendix in chapter three.

[4]:

Narahari Sarasvatī Tīrtha and Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa say the pronoun yam refers to Rāvaṇa: yaṃ rāvaṇam (Bāla-cittānurañjinī) (Uddyota).This shows that the verse is a citation.

[5]:

evam, “yaṃ prekṣya cira-rūḍhāpi nivāsa-prītir ujjhitā, madenairāvaṇa-mukhe mānena hṛdaye hareḥ” iti prācīna-padye’pi śakrairāvaṇau mana-mada-muktau jātāv iti vyaṅgyam api māna-mada-moka-mātrasya vyaṅgyatve paryavasyati, dharmy-aṃśasyābhidhā-gocaratvāt. evaṃ ca yo vyaṅgyāṃśaḥ sa na kadāpi rūpāntara-puraskāreṇābhidhīyate, yaś cābhidhīyate dharmī sa tu tadānīm abhidhāśrayatvād vyañjana-vyāpārānāśraya eveti vyaṅgyasya prakārāntareṇābhidhānam asaṅgatam eva. tasmāt kāryādi-mukhenoktam iva paryāyoktam. tenākṣiptam ity evārthaḥ (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM pp. 410-411).

[6]:

paryāyoktaṃ yad anyena prakāreṇābhidhīyate |
vācya-vācaka-vṛttibhyāṃ śūnyenāvagamātmanā || (Kāvyālaṅkāra-sāra-saṅgraha 4.6)

[7]:

Kane, P.V. (1998), History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 271.

[8]:

kṛtaḥ śrī-mammaṭācārya-varyaiḥ parikarāvadhiḥ |
granthaḥ sampūritaḥ śeṣaṃ vidhāyāllaṭasūriṇā || (Kāvya-prakāśa-nidarśana) (Kane, P.V. (1998), History of Sanskrit Poetics, p. 271)

[9]:

atrāpi gaganāmbara iti sūrya-candra-kara-rajyamāna-vastra ity ākāreṇa bhasmāṅga-rāga ity agni-sṛjyamānāṅga-rāga ity ākāreṇa ca nirūpitaḥ (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 410).

[10]:

atra patyā sva-vacanākarṇanaṃ vibhāvaḥ, palāyanam anubhāvaḥ. na cātra lajjāyā vyaṅgyatvam āśaṅkanīyam, śaiśavenaiva tasyā nirāsāt (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 86).