Adhyaya 346

Verse 1

इत्य् आग्नेये महापुराणे काव्यगुणविवेको नाम पञ्चचत्वारिंशदधिकत्रिशततमो ऽध्यायः अथ षट्चत्वारिंशदधिकत्रिशततमो ऽध्यायः काव्यदोषविवेकः अग्निर् उवाच उद्वेगजनको दोषः सभ्यानां स च सप्तधा वक्तृवाचकवाच्यानामेकद्वित्रिनियोगतः

Thus, in the Agni Mahāpurāṇa ends the three-hundred-and-forty-fifth chapter, called “Discrimination of the Qualities of Poetry.” Now begins the three-hundred-and-forty-sixth chapter, “Discrimination of Poetic Faults.” Agni said: A poetic fault is that which produces uneasiness (or aesthetic disturbance) in the cultured audience; it is sevenfold, arising from improper employment—singly, doubly, or in triple combination—of the speaker, the expression, and the intended meaning.

Verse 2

तत्र वक्ता कविर्नाम प्रथते स च भेदतः सन्दिहानो ऽविनीतः सन्नज्ञो ज्ञाता चतुर्विधः

There, the speaker is known as the ‘kavi’ (poet/author). By distinction, he is taught to be fourfold: (1) the doubting one, (2) the undisciplined one, (3) the half-knowing one, and (4) the knower (fully competent).

Verse 3

निमित्तपरिभाषाभ्यामर्थसंस्पर्शिवाचकम् तद्भेदो पदवाक्ये द्वे कथितं लक्षणं द्वयोः

That which, by means of a causal basis (nimitta) and a conventional definition (paribhāṣā), denotes a meaning that truly connects with the referent is called a ‘meaning-touching’ expression. Its two divisions are the word (pada) and the sentence (vākya); thus the defining mark of both has been stated.

Verse 4

असाधुत्वाप्रयुक्त्वे द्वावेव पदनिग्रहौ शब्दशास्त्रविरुद्धत्वमसाधुत्वं विदुर्बुधाः

There are only two grounds for rejecting a word-form: (1) incorrectness (asādhutva) and (2) non-attestation/absence of proper usage (aprayuktva). The learned know ‘incorrectness’ to be that which is contrary to the science of words (grammar/śabda-śāstra).

Verse 5

व्युत्पन्नैर् अनिबद्वत्वमप्रयुक्तत्वमुच्यते छान्दसत्वमविस्पष्टत्वञ्च कष्टत्वमेव च

Among the learned, the term ‘unibaddhatva’ is explained as ‘aprayuktatva’ (lack of proper/accepted usage). Likewise, ‘chāndasatva’ (Vedic/archaic diction), ‘avispaṣṭatva’ (unclearness), and ‘kaṣṭatva’ (harsh/strained expression) are also counted as faults.

Verse 6

तदसामयिकत्वञ्च ग्राम्यत्वञ्चेति पञ्चधा छान्दसत्वं न भाषायामविस्पष्टमबोधतः

Thus, Vedic (chāndasa) usage is fivefold—one aspect being “non-contemporaneity” and another “rustic/colloquiality”; in ordinary (classical) language it should not be employed, for it becomes unclear and unintelligible.

Verse 7

गूडार्थता विपर्यस्तार्थता संशयितार्थता अविष्पष्टार्थता भेदास्तत्र गूढार्थतेति सा

Obscurity of meaning, inverted meaning, doubtful meaning, and unclear meaning—these are the varieties; among them, that defect is termed “obscurity of meaning” (gūḍhārthatā).

Verse 8

यत्रार्थो दुःखसवेद्यो विपर्यस्तार्थता पुनः विवक्षितान्यशब्दार्थप्रतिपातिर्मलीमसा

When the intended meaning is grasped only with difficulty, or when the meaning is inverted/contradictory; and again, when the sense is conveyed through words or meanings other than those intended—this is the blemish called Malīmasā (semantic muddiness/impurity).

Verse 9

अन्यार्थत्वासमर्थत्वे एतामेवोपसर्पतः मनीषयेति ज सन्दिह्यमानवाच्यत्वमाहुः संशयितार्थतां

When the primary (literal) sense is incapable—because it would yield an unintended meaning or is otherwise unworkable—then that secondary sense, approached through contextual reasoning (manīṣā), is said to involve an indeterminate literal expressibility; therefore they call it “doubtful meaning” (saṃśayitārthatā).

Verse 10

दोषत्वमनुबध्नाति सज्जनोद्वेजनादृते असुखोच्चार्यमाणत्वं कष्टत्वं समयाच्युतिः

Even without offending the good, these conditions still entail the status of a poetic defect: (i) being difficult to pronounce (harsh or uncomfortable in utterance), (ii) being hard/strained in expression, and (iii) deviation from established convention (usage).

Verse 11

असामयिकता नेयामेताञ्च मुनयो जगुः ग्राम्यता तु जघन्यार्थप्रतिपातिः खलीकृता

The sages have declared these as faults: untimeliness in expression (asāmayikatā) should be avoided; and “vulgarity” is speech that conveys base meanings, rendering the diction coarse and boorish.

Verse 12

वक्तव्यग्राम्यवाच्यस्य वचनात्स्मरणादपि तद्वाचकपदेनाभिसाम्याद्भवति सा त्रिधा

Regarding something that is to be expressed but is not directly denoted in ordinary speech, that indirect signification arises in three ways: by utterance, by mere recollection, and by resemblance or association with the word that denotes it.

Verse 13

दोषः साधारणः प्रातिस्विको ऽर्थस्य स तु द्विधा अनेकभागुपालम्भः साधारण इति स्मृतः

A defect (doṣa) relating to an article or property is either common (sādhāraṇa) or individual (prātisvika). That doṣa is of two kinds; the state of being encumbered by claims from many co-sharers is remembered as a “common” defect.

Verse 14

क्रियाकारकयोर्भ्रंशो विसन्धिः पुनरुक्ता व्यस्तसम्बन्धता चेति पञ्च साधारणा मताः

Five are held to be common (general) faults: deviation in the verb and in kāraka (case-role) relations, absence of proper sandhi (visandhi), repetition (punarukta), and disordered syntactic connection (vyasta-sambandhatā).

Verse 15

अक्रियत्वं क्रियाभ्रंशो भ्रष्टकारकता पुनः कर्त्र्यादिकारकाभावो विसन्धिःसन्धिदूषणम्

Defects in composition are: absence of proper verbal action (akriyatva), failure or corruption of the action/verb (kriyābhraṃśa), faulty use of kāraka relations, absence of the agent (kartṛ) and other required kārakas, non-application of sandhi (visandhi), and the spoiling of sandhi (sandhi-dūṣaṇa).

Verse 16

विगतो वा विरुद्धो वा सन्धिः स भवति द्विधा सन्धेर्विरुद्धता कष्टपादादर्थान्तरागमात्

Sandhi (euphonic junction) is of two faulty kinds: (1) vigata, where the proper sandhi is absent or dropped; and (2) viruddha, where the sandhi is contrary to rule or propriety. This “contrariety” of sandhi arises from an awkwardly forced pāda (metrical quarter/wording) or from the intrusion of an unintended, different meaning.

Verse 17

पुनरुक्तत्वमाभीक्ष्ण्यादभिधानं द्विधैव तत् अर्थावृत्तिः पदावृत्तिरर्थावृत्तिरपि द्विधा

Punaruktatva (undue repetition) is the repeated stating of something; it is indeed of two kinds: repetition of meaning (arthāvṛtti) and repetition of words (padāvṛtti). Further, repetition of meaning itself is also of two kinds.

Verse 18

प्रयुक्तवरशब्देन तथा शब्दान्तरेण च नावर्तते पदावृत्तौ वाच्यमावर्तते पदम्

In padāvṛtti (repetition of a word), if a synonym is employed or another word-form is used, it is not regarded as faulty repetition; repetition is understood only when the very same word is repeated.

Verse 19

व्यस्तसम्बन्धता सुष्ठुसम्बन्धो व्यवधानतः सम्बन्धान्तरनिर्भाषात् सम्बन्धान्तरजन्मनः

‘Disordered relation’ (vyasta-sambandhatā) occurs when a proper syntactic/semantic connection is (i) interrupted by separation, (ii) obscured by the intrusion of another relation, or (iii) made to arise as a different relation altogether.

Verse 20

मला इति क , ज च कष्टपादादर्थान्तरक्रमादिति ट प्रयुक्तचरशब्देनेति ज , ञ च अभावेपि तयोरन्तर्व्यवधानास्त्रिधैव सा अन्तरा पदवाक्याभ्यां प्रतिभेदं पुनर्द्विधा

‘Malā’—so say the authorities Ka and Ja; and ‘kaṣṭa’ is explained as arising from a difficult, forced pāda or from a shift in meaning and sequence—so says Ṭa. Again, ‘prayukta-cara-śabda’—so say Ja and Ña. Even when those immediate conditions are absent, the internal separation (antar-vyavadhāna) is of three kinds; and that “antarā” is again divided into two types, according to whether it occurs between words (pada) or between sentences (vākya).

Verse 21

वाच्यमर्थार्थ्यमानत्वात्तद्द्विधा पदवाक्ययोः व्युत्पादितपूर्ववाच्यं व्युत्पाद्यञ्चेति भिद्यते

Because the denoted meaning (vācya) is what is made known as the intended sense, it is of two kinds with respect to word and sentence: (1) the denoted meaning already established by prior derivation, and (2) that which is to be derived and newly established by derivation; thus it is distinguished.

Verse 22

इष्टव्याघातकारित्वं हेतोः स्यादसमर्थता असिद्धत्वं विरुद्धत्वमनैकान्तिकता तथा

A reason (hetu) is regarded as defective when it: contradicts the intended thesis, is incapable (of proving it), is unestablished, is contradictory, or is inconclusive/irregular (anekāntika).

Verse 23

एवं सत्प्रतिपक्षत्वं कालातीतत्वसङ्करः पक्षे सपक्षेनास्तितत्वं विपक्षे ऽस्तित्वमेव तत्

Thus, the fallacy called “having a valid counter-opponent”—a confusion involving (the reason being) beyond time (kālātīta)—consists in this: in the thesis (pakṣa) it is established as existent along with supporting instances (sapakṣa), while in the counter-thesis (vipakṣa) it too is established as existent (there as well).

Verse 24

काव्येषु परिषद्यानां न भवेदप्यरुन्तुदम् एकादशनिरर्थत्वं दुष्करादौ न दुष्यति

In poetry, even among learned critics in an assembly, the (so‑called) fault called “aruntuda” is not truly admitted; and the ‘elevenfold meaninglessness’ (nirarthatva) is not considered a defect when it occurs in contexts such as deliberate difficulty (duṣkara) and the like.

Verse 25

दुःखीकरोति दोषज्ञान्गूढार्थत्वं न दुष्करे न ग्राम्यतोद्वेगकारी प्रसिद्धेर् लोकशास्त्रयोः

Obscurity of meaning distresses even a connoisseur who knows faults; therefore, a poem should not be hard to understand (duṣkara), should not be vulgar or jarring, and should conform to established usage in common speech and in the śāstras.

Verse 26

क्रियाभ्रंशेन लक्ष्मास्ति क्रियाध्याहारयोगतः भ्रष्टकारकताक्षेपबलाध्याहृतकारके

A lakṣa (grammatical defect) arises from the corruption of the verb, and likewise from ellipsis of the verb. When the kāraka-relations (case-role factors) are disrupted, the required kāraka must be supplied by implication, on the strength of contextual indication.

Verse 27

प्रगृह्ये गृह्यते नैव क्षतं विगतसन्धिना कष्टपाठाद्विसन्धित्वं दुर्वचादौ न दुर्भगम्

In the case of a pragṛhya (a vowel-form exempt from sandhi), it is not to be taken up, i.e., merged by sandhi; a broken form (kṣata) remains without sandhi. Double sandhi (dvi-sandhi) may arise from difficult recitation; in expressions beginning with durvacādi (hard-to-pronounce words), this is not uncommon.

Verse 28

अनुप्रासे पदावृत्तिर्व्यस्तसम्बन्धता शुभा नार्थसंग्रहणे दोषो व्युत्क्रमाद्यैर् न लिप्यते

In anuprāsa (alliteration), the recurrence of words is commendable, and even an inverted syntactic relation can be aesthetically pleasing. In conveying the intended sense, no fault is imputed merely because of inversion and similar arrangements.

Verse 29

विभक्तिसंज्ञालिङ्गानां यत्रोद्वेगो न धीमतां संख्यायास्तत्र भिन्नत्वमुपमानोपमेययोः

Where the wise feel no difficulty regarding vibhakti (case-endings), saṃjñā (technical designation), and liṅga (grammatical gender), there—on account of saṃkhyā (number)—the upamāna (standard of comparison) and the upameya (the compared object) are to be understood as distinct, not necessarily grammatically identical.

Verse 30

अनेकस्य तथैकेन बहूनां बहुभिः शुभा कवीमां समुदाचारः समयो नाम गीयते

A well-established convention among poets—whether one is used to denote many, or many are used to denote many—is called samaya (poetic convention).

Verse 31

एकादशनिरस्तत्वमिति ञ समान्यश् च विशिष्टश् च धर्मवद्भवति द्विधा सिद्धसैद्धान्तिकानाञ्च कवीनाञ्चाविवादतः

The learned declare that the state of being free from the eleven (poetic) faults is twofold—general and particular—just like “dharma”. This is undisputed among accomplished authorities of established doctrine as well as among poets.

Verse 32

यः प्रसिध्यति सामान्य इत्य् असौ समयो मतः सर्वेसिद्धान्तिका येन सञ्चरन्ति निरत्ययं

What is well established as “general” is regarded as a convention (samaya); by means of it, exponents of all doctrinal systems proceed without deviation.

Verse 33

कियन्त एव वा येन सामान्यस्तेन सद्विधा छेदसिद्धन्ततो ऽन्यः स्यात् केषाञ्चिद्भ्रान्तितो यथा

Or rather, a “universal” (sāmānya) is posited only to the extent by which it is established; otherwise, by the doctrine of analytical division (cheda-siddhānta) one might reach a different conclusion—just as error (bhrānti) does for some people.

Verse 34

तर्कज्ञानं मुनेः कस्य कस्यचित् क्षणभङ्गिका भूतचैतन्यता कस्य ज्ञानस्य सुप्रकाशता

For which sage does inferential reasoning (tarka) count as valid knowledge? For which doctrine is everything momentary, perishing in an instant? For which view is there consciousness (chaitanya) in beings as an essential principle? And for which system is knowledge self-luminous (svayaṃ-prakāśa)?

Verse 35

प्रज्ञातस्थूलताशब्दानेकान्तत्वं तथार्हतः शैववैष्णवशाक्तेयसौरसिद्धान्तिनां मतिः

The doctrines of the Śaivas, Vaiṣṇavas, Śāktas, Sauras, and the Siddhāntins are characterized by their use of the terms ‘prajñāta’, ‘sthūlatā’, ‘śabda’, ‘anekāntatva’, and likewise ‘arhata’.

Verse 36

जगतः कारणं ब्रह्म साङ्ख्यानां सप्रधानकं अस्मिन् सरस्वतीलोके सञ्चरन्तः परस्परम्

Brahman is the cause of the universe; for the Sāṅkhyas it is spoken of together with Pradhāna, the primordial matter. In this Sarasvatī-world, beings move about in mutual relation, among one another.

Verse 37

बध्नन्ति व्यतिपश्यन्तो यद्विशिष्टैः स उच्यते परिग्रहादप्यसतां सतामेवापरिग्रहात्

Those who discriminate by comparison and thereby bind (others) are called “asat” because of possessiveness; but the “sat” are so called precisely because of non-possessiveness (aparigraha).

Verse 38

भिद्यमानस्य तस्यायं द्वैविध्यमुपगीयते प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणैर् यद् बाधितं तदसद्विदुः

In the case of that cognition which is being sublated (shown to be erroneous), a twofold status is taught: that which is contradicted by valid means of knowledge such as perception is known to be unreal (“asat”).

Verse 39

कविभिस्तत् प्रतिग्राह्यं ज्ञानस्य द्योतमानता यदेवार्थक्रियाकारि तदेव परमार्थसत्

That alone is to be accepted by poets: the luminous clarity of knowledge. Whatever is efficacious in producing its intended result—only that is truly real in the highest sense (paramārtha-sat).

Verse 40

अज्ञानाज्ज्ञानतस्त्वेकं ब्रह्मैव परमार्थसत् विष्णुः स्वर्गादिहेतुः स शब्दालङ्काररूपवान् अपरा च परा विद्या तां ज्ञात्वा मुच्यते भवात्

From the standpoints of ignorance and of knowledge, the one Brahman alone is the supreme reality (paramārtha-sat). That same reality, as Viṣṇu, is the cause of heaven and the like, and is embodied as word and ornamentation—language and poetic figures. Knowledge is of two kinds, lower and higher; by knowing that higher knowledge, one is released from saṃsāra, the cycle of worldly becoming.