Shringaraprakasha 7.p1.9

7.p1.9

kathaṃ punarayaṃ bhedo gauṃṇyāḥ pṛthagbhavati yatra pasiddharupamānopameyaṃ gamyate tāṃ guṇavyavahitārthāmagauṇīyāmanyoktiṃ samāsoktiṃ vā varṇayanti | yasyāṃ punarupameyena guṇasāmyādupamānaṃ gamayte tāṃ gauṇyavyavahitārthā gauṇīyāṃ samādhimityācakṣate | taduktam---uktāsyāprākaraṇiktave samāsoktiḥ, prākaramikatve samādhirati | svarūpanimittā yathā--- kasya nāvanitaṃ kuryāddainyamātā daridratā | kaṃ vā na madayatyeṣā śrīrunmādakuṭumvinī || yathāvā--- ābharaṇasyābharaṇaṃ prasādhanavidheḥsa prasādhanaviśeṣaḥ | upamānasyāpi sakhe pratyupamānaṃ vapustasyāḥ || atra daridratāyā dainyajanakatvena mātṛsvapādhayāropādapatyatā vyavadhānena sambandho daridratā dainyaṃ janayatīti vakyārthaḥ | tasya ca śaśinamasūta prācītyādivadupacāropapattiḥ | evamuttaratrāpi yojyam ||. jātinimittā yathā --- dhṛtiḥkṣamā damaḥśaucaṃ sāmarthyaṃ* (aucityaṃ -iti mūlapāṭhaḥ) vāganiṣṭhāurā | bhūtānāmanabhidrohassaptaitā samidhaḥ śriyaḥ || yathā vā --- yeṣāṃ prāṇivadhaḥ krīḍā narma marmacchidogiraḥ | paropatāpaḥ kartavyaṃ te mṛtyopari mṛtyavaḥ || atrāgnisamiddharmeṣu martyamṛtyadharmeṣu ca śrīdhṛtyādiṣu mṛtyudurjaneṣu cāropiteṣu saminmṛtyujātyereva guṇabhāvo na tvagnimartyayoriti | amīṣāṃ sākṣādasaṃbandhe dīptivināśādidharmadvāraka upacāraḥ saṃbandhāya kalpate | tenāyamarthaḥ sampadyate | dhṛtyādayaḥ śriyaṃ samedhayanti, durjanā mṛtyumapi mārayanti | sā ceyamanyarūoḍhā kriyā'nyatrāropyata itayupacāravṛttireva bhavati | yaduktaṃ ---- kumudāni nimīlanti kamalānyunminti ca |

How, then, is this division distinct from the secondary function? Where a well-known standard of comparison and an object of comparison are understood, scholars describe that as having its meaning mediated by a quality, being non-secondary, [and termed] anyokti or samāsokti. Where, however, the standard of comparison is understood from the object of comparison due to similarity of quality, they declare that to be the secondary trope samādhi, having its meaning unmediated by the secondary function. Thus it is said: "If what is expressed belongs to the context, it is samādhi; if it is outside the context, it is samāsokti." The one based on essential nature is as follows: / "Whom would poverty, the mother of dejection, not bring low? / Or whom does this fortune, the wife of intoxication, not drive mad?" / Or as in: / "Her body, my friend, is an ornament to ornament, a special decoration to the procedure of decoration, / and even a counter-standard of comparison to the standard of comparison." / Here, because poverty causes dejection, through the superimposition of the status of mother upon its own nature, the relationship of [dejection's] being offspring is mediated; the sentence-meaning is: "Poverty causes dejection." And its metaphoric transfer is explained just as in "The east has given birth to the moon" and so forth. The same should be applied subsequently. The one based on universal is as follows: / "Resolution, forbearance, restraint, purity, ability, speech that is not harsh, / and non-violence toward living beings—these seven are the firewood of prosperity." / Or as in: / "Those for whom slaughtering living beings is sport, jokes are words that cut to the quick, / and afflicting others is duty—they are deaths above Death." / Here, when the attributes of fire and firewood, and the attributes of mortal and death, are superimposed respectively on prosperity and resolution, and on death and wicked people, there is subordination only of the universals firewood and death, but not of fire and mortal. Since these lack a direct connection, a metaphoric transfer operating through attributes such as illumination and destruction brings about the connection. Thereby this meaning results: resolution and the rest cause prosperity to grow; wicked people kill even Death. And this—namely, that an action established in one thing is superimposed onto another—is indeed the secondary function of metaphoric transfer. As it is said: / "Water lilies close and lotuses open."