Shringaraprakasha 8.p1.18

8.p1.18

yañcānabhihitapadārthāntarānvisvārthābhidhānapakṣe padāntaroñcāraṇaivayarthyamityādi, abhidhānapakṣe punaritaretarāśrayādidūṣaṇamuktaṃ tadubhayapakṣānabhyupagamenaiva nirastam | yato nāsmākamayaṃ pakṣaḥ, prathamaśrutānyeva padāni svārthānanyonyamanvitānabhidadhati | api tu yasya yāvanto'rthāḥ sambhavanti tacchravaṇe tāvantaḥ smṛtāvupasthāpyante, tataścākāṅkṣāsannidhiyogyatādisampāditaniyatamithassamanvayāḥ padaireva smṛtyupāruḍhairabhidhīyante | tathāhi---yastāvadguhicasambandho yasya ca sambandhadagrahaṇasaṃkāro notepannaḥ pradhvasto vā sa vākyārthapratipattau nādhikriyate, yastvanavabhraṣṭasambandha grahaṇasaṃskāraḥ sapadaṃ padaṃ śrutvā nūnaṃ tāvadidaṃ smarati idamidamasyārthasyākāṅkṣitasannihitaparijanavidhitsitaḥ priyāpravṛttipraśno niṣidhyate | dvitīyā yathā--- piasaṃgama kiṃ vahi ddaḍipi ahoparokkhahokkeva | maivennivinnāsi āṇiddaṇaeva na teva || atra samastaprāṇahṛdbhedasādhāraṇyena pravṛtto nidrārthastadvirodhibhyāṃ priyasaṅgamaviyogābhyāṃ niṣidhyate, yatrārthitvāpravṛttamanyenaiva tatkāryasiddhau niṣidhyate sākṛtārthatvanaiṣedhikī | yathā--- kiṃ tassa pāraeṇaṃ kimaggiṇā rki vagabbhapparaeṇa | jassaurammi ṇisammai uhmāaṃ tatthaṇī jāā || atra prāvāravilāsāgnigarbhagṛhakāṇi haimanaśītārtinivṛttaye pravṛttiāni tadarthakāriṇopāruḍhyauvanopagūḍhapriyākucoṣmamaṇā nivartyante | yatra parisaṅkhyātenārthena śeṣaṃ niṣidhyate sā parisaṅkhyānaiṣedhikī | yathā--- vevāvallaci udeddhamuhe sajjiatiitakaṃḍa | kaakaṇṇāppaliṃpacasaratahakāmaho koaṃḍa ||

As for the claim that in the view where a word denotes its own meaning connected with another word-meaning that has not been denoted, the utterance of another word would be futile, and in the view of [direct] denotation, defects like mutual dependence were stated—that is refuted simply by our non-acceptance of either of these two positions. For this is not our view, that the words, merely upon being first heard, denote their own meanings as mutually connected. Rather, whatever meanings can possibly belong to a word, so many are presented in memory upon hearing it; and then, having acquired a fixed mutual connection brought about by expectancy, proximity, and semantic fitness, they are denoted by the words themselves mounted upon memory. To explain: a person who has not grasped the relation, or whose impression from grasping the relation has not arisen or has been destroyed, is not qualified to understand the sentence-meaning. But one whose impression from grasping the relation is uncorrupted, upon hearing word after word, certainly remembers this: ‘This and this is desired to be done by the attendant, proximate and expected for this meaning...’ [where] an inquiry about the beloved's activities is prohibited. The second is as follows: / ‘Why, when there is union with the beloved, do you burn outside or remain absent? / Do not be despondent; in this way sleep does not come to you.’ // Here, the purpose of sleep, which occurs commonly to divide the hearts of all living beings, is prohibited by the two opposites: union with the beloved and separation. Where something commenced out of desire is prohibited when its purpose has already been accomplished by another, that is a prohibition based on accomplishment of purpose. As in: / ‘What use to him is a cloak? What use is a fire or an inner room? / On whose chest rests his wife, her breasts warm!’ // Here, cloaks, pleasures, fires, and inner chambers, which were undertaken to remove the affliction of winter cold, are averted by the heat of the breasts of the beloved who has mounted youth and is embraced, since that achieves the same purpose. Where the remainder is excluded by a specified meaning, that is a restrictive prohibition (parisaṅkhyā). As in: / ‘...on her face, the arrows are readied... Kāma's bow...’