Essay name: Kavyalankara-sara-sangraha of Udbhata
Author: Narayana Daso Banhatti
This is the Sanskrit edition Kavyalankara Sara Sangraha, including the Laghuvritti commentary of Induraja, an English introduction, notes and appendices. The 鈥淜avyalamkara Sara Samgraha鈥� by Udbhata is a significant work in the field of Sanskrit poetics, primarily focusing on poetic figures and rhetoric (alamkara). It dates back to the late 8th century.
Preface
185 (of 361)
External source: Shodhganga (Repository of Indian theses)
Download the PDF file of the original publication
Notes. 53 implies some special excellence (a) residing in the
principal meaning ( 啶掂た啶оた啶む啶膏た啶むぞ啶班啶�). 啶ㄠた啶粪啶� 啶囙さ 啶� 啶む 啶ㄠた啶粪啶� 啶忇さ- [vidhitsit膩rtha). ni峁dha iva na tu ni峁dha eva-] negation
as it were, but not actual negation.
P. 31, L. 16- 啶囙し啷嵿啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ啶ㄠた啶班ぞ啶曕ぐ啶｀じ啷嵿く 啶侧啶多啶� 啷� [i峁ａ弓膩rthanir膩kara峁嘺sya le艣ena | ] With only a bit of the
negation of desired meaning i. e. with practically no nega-
tion. 啶膏啶さ啶︵ぞ啶曕啶粪啶じ啶傕啷嵿啶曕 - [sa峁僢havad腻办峁辫补sa峁僯帽aka岣� - ] Construe as follows: [啶囙し啷嵿啶距ぐ啷嵿ぅ啶ㄠた啶班ぞ啶曕ぐ啶｀じ啷嵿く 啶侧啶多啶� ]
啶膏啶さ啶ㄠ啶む 啶嗋啷嵿し啷囙お啶膏啶溹啶炧ぞ 啶じ啷嵿く 啷�
[i峁ａ弓膩rthanir膩kara峁嘺sya le艣ena ]
sa峁僢havant墨 腻办峁辫补sa峁僯帽膩 yasya |
] Indur膩ja's comment on K膩rika 25 directly explains
the nature of Aksepa and does not diviate from the text
at all. But the f here refers to a fanciful objection
and gives its rebuttal along with it. But further on he
says that both the objection and its refutation are out of
place here as they cannot arise out of the definition of
Ak峁pa as it stands. The whole passage reads thus-
啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ 啶囙さ啷囙し啷嵿啶膏啶イ [辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补 ive峁ａ弓asya|] 鈥� (K膩rika 25)鈥�-啶呧き啶苦ぎ啶むじ啷嵿く啶距ざ啶曕啶さ啶氞え啶む啶掂ぞ啶︵た啶掂た啶多啶粪お啷嵿ぐ啶むた [补产丑颈尘补迟补蝉测腻艣补办测补惫补肠补苍补迟惫腻诲颈惫颈艣别峁辫谤补迟颈] 鈥�
啶ぞ啶︵え啶距く 啶 啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ啶� 啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ 啶囙さ 啶啶栢 啶う啷嵿ぎ啶� 啶う啷嵿ぎ啶た啶掂啶むた啶掂い啷� 啶� 啶む 啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ 啶忇さ 啶むぎ啶距啷嵿し啷囙お
啶掂う啶ㄠ啶むた 啷� 啶� 啶� 啶掂ぞ啶氞啶 啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ啷� 啶膏い啶� 啶囙し啷嵿啶た啶粪啶熰ぎ啶苦さ 啶さ啶む啶掂た啶むた 啷� 啶じ啷嵿ぎ啶距い啷嵿お啷嵿ぐ啶距啶班ぃ啶苦啶む啶掂ぞ啶侧が啷嵿ぇ-
啶膏啶ム啶ぞ 啶囙し啷嵿啷嬥そ啶班啶ムじ啷嵿い啶膏啶� 啶� 啶ㄠた啶粪啶о 啶曕啶班た啶ぎ啶距ぃ啷嬥そ啶權啶椸い啶距 啶啶班い啶苦お啶︵啶い啷� 啶ㄠぞ啶膏 啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ 啶囙さ 啶� 啶む啶掂た啶粪啶� 啶囙し啷嵿
啶囙さ啷囙い啷嵿く啶啶曕啶む 啶氞啶︵啶お啷嵿ぐ啶むた啶膏ぎ啶距ぇ啶距え啷� 啷� 啶い啷嬥そ啶膏啶む啶掂啶掂 啶むぅ啶距お啶� 啶ㄠぞ啶曕啶粪啶げ啶曕啶粪ぃ啶啶班じ啶曕啶むた啶班た啶粪啶熰じ啷嵿く啷囙さ 啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ
啶囙い啷嵿く啶ㄠき啶苦ぇ啶距え啶距い啷� 啷� [p膩dan膩ya ya岣� 辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补岣� 辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补 iva mukha峁� padma峁� padmamivetivat na tu 辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补 eva tam腻办峁辫补
vadanti | na ca v膩cya峁� prati峁dhe sati 颈峁ａ弓补m颈峁ａ弓补miva bhavatviti | yasm膩tpr膩kara峁噄katv膩labdha-
sthem膩 i峁ａ弓o'rthastasya ca ni峁dha岣� kriyam膩峁噊'峁単at膩峁� pratipadyate n膩sau 辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补 iva na tv颈峁ａ弓补 颈峁ａ弓补
ivetyayukte codyapratisam膩dh膩ne | yato'stveva峁� tath膩pi n腻办峁辫补濒补办峁峁嘺prasaktir颈峁ａ弓补syeva 辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补
ityanabhidh膩n膩t | ] The gist of the objection is : Why should
not the am itself be regarded as instead of regard-
ing the 啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ [辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补 ] as 啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ 啶囙さ. [辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补 iva. ] That is, why should we not
regard the negation as real and the desired meaning only
apparently so, instead of regarding the negation as unreal ?
But this objection cannot, says the 啶掂た啶掂啶むた啶曕ぞ啶�, [惫颈惫峁泃颈办腻谤补, ] arise out of
the 啶侧啷嵿し啶� [濒补办峁峁嘺 ] of 啶嗋啷嵿し啷囙お [腻办峁辫补] ; for 啶囙さ [iva ] cannot be construed with 啶囙し啷嵿 [颈峁ａ弓补 ] as the
author has not said 啶囙し啷嵿啶膏啶啶�. [颈峁ａ弓补syeva. ] The wording is 啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ 啶囙さ, [辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补 iva, ] and 啶囙さ
[iva
] can go only with 啶啶班い啶苦し啷囙ぇ.
[辫谤补迟颈峁诲丑补.
] P. 31, L. 20- 啶掂啷嵿し啷嵿く啶ぞ啶｀ぇ啶距え啶距い啷� 啷� [vak峁am膩峁嘺dh膩n膩t | ] The negation refers to
the desired thing (2) which is to be said, or is already
said.
P. 31, L. 21 to P. 32, L. 2- 啶囙し啷嵿啶む啶掂 啶氞啶氞啶涏ぞ啶曕ぐ啷嵿ぎ啶むぞ.啶曕ぐ啷嵿ぎ啶む啶掂
啶さ啶むた 啷� [颈峁ａ弓补tva峁� cecch膩karmat膩.karmatva峁�
bhavati | ] Now 啶囙し啷嵿 [颈峁ａ弓补 ] means the object of one's wish ; and it is not
necessarily always the object of expression. A thing which
is (desired) may or may not be actually expressed. The
division 啶掂啷嵿し啷嵿く啶ぞ啶｀さ啶苦し啶� [惫补办峁补尘腻峁嘺惫颈峁测补 ] and 啶夃啷嵿い啶掂た啶粪く [耻办迟补惫颈峁测补 ] would not therefore be proper,
for both these terms would require the desired thing (g)
to be the object of actual speech. To remove this difficulty
