Dhvanyalokalocana 41

English (machine translation) 41

Language: English

41.2

The intention to employ it as subordinate to that, never as the principal element; / taking it up and setting it aside at the proper time, not seeking to pursue it too far;

41.3

and attentive monitoring even when sustained as subordinate: / [these] accomplish the subordinacy of the class of poetic figures, metaphor and the rest.

41.4

The poet, whose mind is intensely attentive in compositions of aesthetic relish, intends a poetic figure as subordinate to that. As in [Śakuntalā 1.20]:

You touch her glance whose tremulous outer corner belongs to the fair-eyed daughter of a cowherd; / hovering softly near her ear, you hum as though telling a secret; / drinking her lower lip, the all-in-all of love-pleasure, as she waves her hand— / we, bee, are ruined by our search for the truth, while you indeed have won the prize!

41.7

For here the natural description of the bee is a poetic figure conforming to the aesthetic relish. 'Never as the principal element' means not prominently. For sometimes a poetic figure, even though intended with purport toward aesthetic relish and the like, is seen to be intended as the principal element. As in:

41.8

He who, by the sheer imperious stroke of his discus, made the festival of love / of Rāhu's wives bereft of the unrestrained delight of embraces, / leaving behind nothing but kisses—

41.9

For here periphrasis is intended as the principal element, even though there is a purport toward aesthetic relish and the like. Even when intended as subordinate, one takes it up at the right moment, not out of turn.

41.10

Taking it up at the right moment is as in (Ratnāvalī 2.4):

41.11

With buds intensely shooting forth, of pale radiance, beginning to unfold, / spreading exhaustion in an instant with ceaseless outpourings of fragrant breezes— / seeing today this garden creeper like another woman in love, / I shall surely make the Queen's face turn crimson with rage!

41.12

[*13] Rasārṇava-sudhākara 2.26.

41.13

Here simile [is subordinate] to double entendre. And one sets aside at the proper moment even what has been taken up, out of conformity to that aesthetic relish, with a view to another poetic figure. As in:

41.14

You are reddened with fresh sprouts, and I am impassioned with the praiseworthy virtues of my beloved; / arrows fly to you, and so do arrows discharged from the bow of Kama fly to me; / the strike of the beloved's sole brings joy to you, and likewise to me; / everything is equal between the two of us, aśoka—only I have been made sorrowful by the Creator.

41.16

For here, though the double entendre (śleṣa) has been sustained through a long passage, its abandonment out of an intention to convey contrast (vyatireka) nourishes a particular aesthetic relish.
If it is argued: "There is no confluence of two poetic figures here; rather, it is just a distinct poetic figure defined as double entendre-contrast, like the Man-Lion deity"—no, because that is established in a different manner. For its domain is where the perception of contrast arises through another manner on the very word that is the domain of double entendre, as in: "He is Hari by name, the lord, accompanied by horses (sa-hariḥ) through a multitude of excellent steeds," and so forth.

41.17

For here one word is the domain of double entendre, and another [word is the domain] of contrast. And if one assumes a distinct poetic figure in such a case, the domain of combination (saṃsṛṣṭi) would simply be eliminated. If it is argued: "Since contrast gains its existence here solely through double entendre, this is not a domain of combination"—no, because contrast is also seen in another manner, as in:

41.18

"Undoused even by the wind of cosmic dissolution, which shatters mountains with merciless velocity,
her brilliance fiercely bursts forth, blazing, not leaving [her] by day, and free from the soot of darkness;
originating from the sun (pataṅga), yet never suffering theft by the sun's scorching heat—
may that unique and wondrous wick, the radiant light of the lamp of all the continents, grant you bliss!"

41.19

For here contrast is demonstrated without presenting an elaboration of similarity at all. Nor should it be said that there is no perception of charm from double entendre alone, and that because double entendre is intended merely as a subordinate element to contrast, it is not a poetic figure in its own right.
For in such cases, charm is certainly seen even from mere similarity when well presented, as in:

41.20

"My cries of grief match your thunders, my tears equal the continuous downpour of clouds,
and the fires of my sorrow born of separation from her are like the flashes of your lightning;
within me is my beloved's face, within you is the moon; our condition is entirely equal—
then why, friend cloud, are you ceaselessly bent only upon burning me?"
and so forth.

41.21

And [it is a subordinate element] when [a poetic figure], which the poet, whose heart is entirely intent upon carrying through aesthetic relish, does not wish to carry through to the very end, as in:

41.22

"Tied firmly out of anger by the fetters of her tender, trembling creeper-arms,
led at evening before her friends to the bedchamber,
his misdeeds indicated in faltering, sweet tones saying, 'Not like this again!',
the fortunate lover, bent on denial, is beaten indeed by her weeping while he laughs."

41.23

For here the metaphor, though touched upon, is not carried out completely, solely for the nourishment of aesthetic relish. [And a poetic figure serves as a subordinate element] when, even though desired to be carried out, he examines it carefully as a subordinate element, as in:

41.24

"In the priyaṅgu creepers I see your slender frame, in the glance of a startled doe your darting gaze,
in the moon the glow of your cheeks, in the peacocks' plumage your hair,
in the gentle ripples of rivers the play of your eyebrows—
alas, timid one, your likeness is nowhere found in a single place!"
and so forth.

41.25

Thus incorporated, a poetic figure becomes for the poet a cause of the manifestation of aesthetic relish. But if he transgresses the manner described, it invariably becomes a cause of the breakdown of aesthetic relish. And such examples are seen abundantly even in the compositions of great poets. But to proclaim the faults of those great souls whose nature is illuminated by thousands of fine sayings would only be a disgrace to oneself, and so it is not analyzed and shown. Rather, if an attentive-minded, good poet, following this direction for defining the group of poetic figures beginning with metaphor with respect to their suggestive function in the domain of aesthetic relish and the rest, and himself conceiving other definitions, incorporates this soul of suggestion mentioned immediately above whose process is imperceptible, then his achievement becomes magnificent. (DhvA 2.18–19)