215 काव्यवाक्येषु व्यञ्जकत्वापरपर्यायस्य शक्त्यन्तरस्य परिकल्पनं प्रयासमात्रमित्याह ईदृशे चेत्यादिना ।

तात्पर्यान्तरितेति1026 । काव्यवाक्येषु द्वितीयां तात्पर्यकक्ष्यामुल्लङ्घ्य तृतीयकक्ष्यायां व्यञ्जकत्वापरपर्यायं ध्वनिर्नाम शक्त्यन्तरमस्तीति चोदितं1027 निराकरोति न चेति1028 । हेतुमाह किमुक्तं स्यादिति । अश्रुतार्थतात्पर्येऽन्योक्तिरूपिणि= अश्रुते ‘मास्य गृहे भुक्थाः’ इत्यर्थे तात्पर्यं यस्य विषभोजनादिवाक्यस्य, अन्योक्तिरूपिणि1029 तस्मिंस्तात्पर्यपर्यवसायिन्यपि ध्वनित्वप्रसङ्गे किमुक्तं स्यात्= कः परिहार इत्यर्थः । तस्मादविभागेन त्वदभिमतध्वनिरहिते तद्वति वा वाक्ये व्यञ्जकत्वाविशेषे ध्वनिप्रसङ्ग इत्याह विषं भक्षयेति1030 । प्रधानत्वादिति । प्राधान्ये हि ध्वनित्वमप्राधान्ये तदभाव इत्युक्तम् । इह तु प्राधान्यमेवास्ति । अतो ध्वनित्वं 1031प्रसज्यत इत्यर्थः । शङ्कते ध्वनिश्चेदिति । वाक्यं स्वीये संसर्गार्थे विश्रान्तमुपर्यपि प्रसर्पति चेद् ध्वनिर्भवति । अविश्रान्तौ तु तात्पर्यमेव भवति । तत्र विश्रान्त्यसंभवादिति तत्र1032=स्वार्थे विषभोजनादिवाक्यानां विश्रान्त्यसंभवादिति विभाग इति । परिहरति एतावतैवेति1033 । एतावन्मात्रेणैव तात्पर्यं पर्यवस्यतीति कस्य न्यायस्य विषयोऽयमित्यर्थः । यदुद्देशेन1034 वाक्यं प्रयुक्तं तदवधि प्रसरति तद् वाक्यम् । उद्देश्यार्थ एव तात्पर्यार्थः । कथं स मध्ये पर्यवस्यतीत्यर्थः । स्वार्थविश्रान्तौ ध्वनिरिति यदुक्तं स्वार्थे विश्रान्तस्य वाक्यस्य तृतीयकक्ष्यावर्तित्वे ध्वनिरिति तदपि दूषयति भ्रमधार्मिकेति । भ्रमधार्मिकेति वाक्यं संसर्गार्थे विधीयमाने भ्रमे सति विश्रान्तमुपरि यदि न 1035व्याप्रियते तर्हि स व्यङ्ग्यो निषेधः कथं शाब्दः स्यादित्यर्थः । पुनरपि शङ्कते प्रतिपाद्यस्येति । प्रतिपाद्यपुरुषाकाङ्क्षया हि प्रतिपादको वाक्यं प्रयुङ्क्ते । सा तु तस्याकाङ्क्षा ध्वनिवाक्येषु मध्ये विश्रान्तैव भवति । अतस्तात्पर्यपर्वणि पर्यवसितान्येव तानि वाक्यानीत्यर्थः । दूषयति वक्तुरिति । वक्तापि खलु कमप्यर्थमुद्दिश्य वाक्यं प्रयुङ्क्ते । तदुद्देश्यार्थाप्राप्तौ कथमिव तद् वाक्यं विश्रान्तं भवेदित्यर्थः । ननु सर्वत्र वाक्ये वक्ता नास्ति । अपौरुषेयस्यापि वाक्यस्य संभवात् । तत्राह पौरुषेय

  1. Of these seven kārikās cited by Dhanika from his Kāvyanirṇaya, which is not available, some of the lines presented previously a number of problems and difficulties in offering correct and exact interpretations, as correct readings could not be seen in print. Many subsequent writers who had occasions to refer to these verses, quoted one or two of these verses which did not present any problems, and never touched difficult and problematic lines according to their habit of skipping over, as one may guess in the case of many other difficult portions of the Avaloka. Here again it is Bhaṭṭanṛsiṃha whose brilliant commentary throws some welcome light. According to this pratīka, the first verse should have this expression in the beginning, and not tātparyānatirekā ca, as given in N.S.P. and other previous editions. Many scholars have reproduced incorrect readings from N.S.P. in this context. See, for instance, Prof. Raghavan’s work on S.P. (1963), page 183, and compare the portion with the one now given. A.T.A. also confirms this pratīka and gives the verse as shown by me in the text now. The following is to be, it appears, the proper construing:

    tātparyāntarite vākye vyañjakatvaṃ na ca dhvaniḥ=tātparyāntargate vākye=bhrama dhārmiketyādau, yat vyañjakatvam abhimataṃ (tava) sa ca dhvanir iti na pṛthak kaścid asti; kiṃ tu tat tātparyāntargatam eva.

  2. All MSS. read here ced iti. Perhaps it should be coditam.

  3. The pratīka again cited here as na ceti is confirmed by A.T.A. So, it should not read as vyañjakatvasya na dhvaniḥ given in previous editions and quoted by all modern writers as such.

  4. This expression anyokti was used by Dhanika before also under I.14. See Bh.Nṛ’s commentary thereon and Note 47. Here it does not seem to be the same anyokti, but it seems to be in the sense of anyasya=tātparyaviṣayāt niṣedhād itarasya vidheḥ, uktiḥ=kathanaṃ, yatra sā anyoktiḥ.

  5. The third line of these verses given in the previous editions is: viṣaṃ bhakṣaya pūrvo yaś caivaṃ parasutādiṣu the meaning of which was not clear, and consequently I suggested some emen- dations to this and other lines in my paper on the Daśarūpaka, published in the Journal of the University of Gouhati, 1960, pp. 125-45. Unfortunately Bh.Nṛ. does not use the full line in the course of his comments. A.T.A., on the other hand, which agrees in many other places with the pratīkas cited by Bh.Nṛ., gives here the following reading: viṣaṃ bhakṣaya pūrvo’yaṃ samānaḥ paśutādiṣu which again is not clear. On the basis of the comments of Bh.Nṛ. and the context of discussion, and on the basis of the resembling syllables in the A.T.A. reading I thought that the line might be uiṣam bhakṣaya pūrvo ’yaṃ samau tatparatādiṣu in the sense to be conveyed by having the sentences thus:

    (1) viṣaṃ bhakṣaya is to be connected with the previous line aśrutārthatātparye ’ nyoktirūpiṇi viṣaṃ bhakṣayeti vākye kim uktaṃ syāt?

    (2) The next sentence will be: pūrvaḥ=tvadabhimatadhvaniḥ, ayam=viṣaṃ bhakṣaya iti prayogaś ceti dvāv api, tatparatādiṣu=tatparatādiviṣaye=aśrutārthaparatādiviṣaye, samau=tulyayogakṣemau.

  6. This use of prasajyate is also confirmed by A.T.A. So it should be the reading, and not prasahyate or anything else.

  7. From these and previous comments of Bh.Nṛ. it appears that the line should read:

    dhvaniś cet svārthaviśrāntaṃ vākyam arthāntarāśrayam |
    tatparatvaṃ tv aviśrāntau tara viśrānty asaṃbhavāt ||
    A.T.A. however gives here an incorrect reading of the second half as tatparatvaṃ ca viśrāntau tanna viśrānty asaṃbhavāt whereas N.S.P. reads tatparatvaṃ tv aviśrāntau, tanna, etc. (This perhaps may be justified.)

  8. etāvataiva is the pratīka and it is clear in all the MSS. and in A.T.A. B.M. also gives this verse with this reading alone. So etāvaty eva does not seem to be original.

  9. The T.MS. very unfortunately stops here.

  10. This explanation shows that the reading nirvyāpṛti found in A.T.A. was what Bh.Nṛ. too had. N.S.P. reads nirvyāuṛtti which is thus definitely wrong. See Prof. Raghavan’s Bhoja’s Śṛṅgāra Prakāśa (1963), p. 183.