Text 2.3

तात्पर्यार्थोऽपि केषुचित् ॥ २.६d ॥

tātparyārtho'pi keṣucit ||2.6d||

tātparya-arthaḥ—the meaning which is the drift (the sense of the sentence); api—also; keṣucit—among some (among the Mīmāṃsakas).

According to some persons, there is also the tātparya artha (the meaning which is the drift of the sentence).

ṣaṣṭhy-arthe saptamī. keṣāñcin mate vākyārthas tātparyākhya-vṛtti-gamyaḥ. ekaika-padārtha-bodhanenābhidhāyā viratatvād vākyārtha-svarūpasya padārthānām anvaya-bodhanāya tātparyanāmnī vṛttiḥ. tad-arthas tātparyārthaḥ. tad-bodhakaṃ tu vākyam ity abhihitānvaya-vādinaḥ.

The locative case has the sense of the genitive: In the opinion of some (keṣucit = keṣāñcit mate), the sense of a statement is to be grasped by means of the rhetorical function called tātparya (the Drift, i.e. the overall sense): Since Denotation (abhidhā-vṛtti) has ceased, by making one understand the meaning of each word, the rhetorical function named tātparya exists for the sake of making one understand the syntactical connection of the words’ meanings which relate to the nature of the sense of the sentence. The sense of it is the tātparya artha (the drift). However, what makes one understand that is the sentence (the words as a whole, not the words one by one). Such is the opinion of the Abhihitānvaya-vādīs.

Commentary:

Abhidhā-vṛtti (Denotation), also called mukhyā-vṛtti, is expounded from text 2.10.

The Abhihitānvaya-vādīs are the followers of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa. Further, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s elaboration is a paraphrase of Sāhitya-darpaṇa 2.20. He is not implying that he accepts his own explanation, because in text 2.5 he uses the word vācya artha, instead of tātparya artha, to denote “the literal meaning of the text.” He is not the exception, because Mammaṭa, Viśvanātha Kavirāja and Kavikarṇapūra do the same. Nonetheless, tātparya-vṛtti is the referential scheme of lāṭa anuprāsa (9.13) and of a double meaning of a whole verse (9.33-34). This tātparya (the Drift) should not be confused with Mammaṭa’s tātparya (the Purport), which is the referential scheme of vākya-vaiśiṣṭya (the suggestive specialty of the real statement) (3.2-3). This discussion about tātparya should have occurred after an explanation of abhidhā-vṛtti. Indeed, in Sāhitya-darpaṇa Viśvanātha Kavirāja discusses tātparya at the end of his corresponding chapter. A disquisition on tātparya is in Commentary 2.8 and in the appendix in chapter three.