Kavyalankarasarasamgraha 7.9

7.9

ārjavo mūrkhaḥ /
ṛjutvayogāt /
atra śaṅkha upameyaḥ /
yaśaḥsaṃcayo haṃsaścopamānam /
tayośca pūrvamabhedasaṃdehavyājenābhihitaḥ kimeṣa yaśaḥsaṃcayaḥ syāditi, tathā kiṃ haṃsa iti punaścātropamānādupameyasya bhedo varṇitaḥ /
yaśaḥsaṃcayāttāvadbhedopavarṇanaṃ piṇḍībhāvo 'sya kiṃkṛta ita /
yaśaḥsaṃcayaḥ khalu prasaraṇaśīlaḥ /
asya tu tadviruddhaḥ piṇḍībhāvo dṛśyate /
tena nāyaṃ yaśaḥsaṃcaya iti /
haṃsāttu bhedābhidhānaṃ naiva cañcala iti /
haṃsasya ha cañcalatvaṃ nāma dharmaḥ /
ihaca tannopalabhyate, tasmānnaiva haṃsa iti /
evaṃ vidhasya cātrābhidhānasya phalaṃ stutiḥ, yaśaḥsaṃcayo bhagavatā svahastavartī kṛta iti, tathāsaṃbhāvyamānahaṃsāgamanaṃ tribhuvanotpattinibandhanaṃ yattannābhinalinaṃ tadvān bhagavāniti //

'Naive' (ārjavaḥ) means foolish,
because of association with simplicity (ṛjutva).
Here, the conch is the subject of comparison.
The mass of fame and the swan are the standards of comparison.
And of both, non-difference was first stated under the guise of doubt: “Could this be a mass of fame?” and likewise “Is it a swan?” And then, a difference of the subject of comparison from the standard of comparison is described.
First, the description of difference from the mass of fame is: “How has it become a solid mass?”
A mass of fame indeed has the nature of spreading;
its solid massing, which is opposed to that, is seen here;
therefore, this is not a mass of fame.
And the statement of difference from the swan is: “It is not at all restless.”
For restlessness is indeed a property of a swan;
and here that is not perceived; therefore, it is not a swan at all.
And the purpose of such an expression here is praise: that the mass of fame has been placed in his own hand by the Lord, and likewise, that the Lord possesses that lotus of the navel, the ground of the world's origin, to which the arrival of a swan is easily imagined.