365bet娱乐

VARGA II. This Varga treats of six alankaras. The order of enumeration is the same as that of Bhamaha and Dandin. Bhamaha:-- akseporthantaranyaso vyatireko vibhavana | samasatisayokti ca sadalamkrtayoparah || Dandin :- - bhamahalamkarah-2 .66 . akseporthantaranyaso vyatireko vibhavana | samasatisayotpreksa hetuh suksmo lavah kramah || - kavyadarsah- 2 . 4-5 . This order is quite unscientific and is not followed by modern authors. The figures hetu, suksma and lava of Dandin are not accepted by Bhamaha and Udbhata, and generally by

52 Kavyalankara-sara-sangraha. Kasmirian writers, although some of them recognise A See our Introduction pp. xi-xii. P. 31, L. 3. - samasatisayokti ca | Here the word uktih is tc be connected with both and so that the alankaras are samasoktih and atisayoktih, 3 P. 31, LL. 6-7 ... (Karika 25) 1 "Poets always call that [figure] Aksepa which is an apparent negation of the desired meaning with a view to convey some speciality [of it].". This definition of Aksepa is practically the same as that of Bhamaha. Mammata also speaks of in nearly the same terms. bhamahah - pratisedha ivestasya yo visesabhidhitsaya | vaksyamanoktavisayastatraksepo dvidha matah || kavyalamkarah-2 .67 . mammatah -- nisedho vaktumistasya yo visesabhidhitsaya | vaksyamanoktavisayah sa aksepo dvidha matah || --kavyaprakasah- 10 .106 . P. 31, L. 8: Artificial form of description. In the thing of which some fa is to be eventually impressed is apparently negatived. The negation is not real. Hence P. 31, LL 9-11-- sa pritisedhah paryavasanat | Supply nisedhasya before avantara0 . avantara vakyartha - Subordinate meaning of the sentence . The sentence then means: The negation of the desired sense being subordinate, the sentence does not culminate in it; therefore the negation becomes an apparent one and not a real one. P. 31, LL. 11-14- avantaram dhadbhavati | The subordinate position of in the sentence arises from its conflict with the meaning desired to be prominently established. tatra hi ...... thakaroti | tatra - vakye . The meaning desired (vidhitsitartha ) being introduced first in the sentence stands as firm and predominent, and deprives (etc.) the negation of its negatory purport as it is contradictory to itself (i. e. vidhitsitartha ) Therefore the nisedha assumes position before it and loses its reality; and instead of a subordinate opposing the faff by its subordinate position, it even

Notes. 53 implies some special excellence (a) residing in the principal meaning ( vidhitsitartha ). nisedha iva na tu nisedha eva- negation as it were, but not actual negation. P. 31, L. 16- istarthanirakaranasya lesena | With only a bit of the negation of desired meaning i. e. with practically no negation. sambhavadaksepasamjnakah - Construe as follows: [istarthanirakaranasya lesena ] sambhavanti aksepasamjna yasya | Induraja's comment on Karika 25 directly explains the nature of Aksepa and does not diviate from the text at all. But the f here refers to a fanciful objection and gives its rebuttal along with it. But further on he says that both the objection and its refutation are out of place here as they cannot arise out of the definition of Aksepa as it stands. The whole passage reads thus- pratisedha ivestasya| " (Karika 25)--abhimatasyasakyavacanatvadivisesaprati 鈥� padanaya yah pratisedhah pratisedha iva mukham padmam padmamivetivat na tu pratisedha eva tamaksepa vadanti | na ca vacyam pratisedhe sati istamistamiva bhavatviti | yasmatprakaranikatvalabdha- sthema isto'rthastasya ca nisedhah kriyamano'ngatam pratipadyate nasau pratisedha iva na tvista ista ivetyayukte codyapratisamadhane | yato'stvevam tathapi naksepalaksanaprasaktiristasyeva pratisedha ityanabhidhanat | The gist of the objection is : Why should not the am itself be regarded as instead of regarding the pratisedha as pratisedha iva . That is, why should we not regard the negation as real and the desired meaning only apparently so, instead of regarding the negation as unreal ? But this objection cannot, says the vivrtikara, arise out of the laksana of aksepa ; for iva cannot be construed with ista as the author has not said istasyeva . The wording is pratisedha iva, and iva can go only with pratisedha . P. 31, L. 20- vaksyamanadhanat | The negation refers to the desired thing (2) which is to be said, or is already said. P. 31, L. 21 to P. 32, L. 2- istatvam cecchakarmata .karmatvam bhavati | Now ista means the object of one's wish ; and it is not necessarily always the object of expression. A thing which is (desired) may or may not be actually expressed. The division vaksyamanavisaya and uktavisaya would not therefore be proper, for both these terms would require the desired thing (g) to be the object of actual speech. To remove this difficulty

54 Kavyalankara-sara-sangraha. the author says nisedheneva etc. The vivrtikara introduces the Karika nisedheneva 鈥� thus : nanu cestamicchakarma tatkadacinnaivocyeta | tadvaksyamanokta- visayataya dvaividhyamityaha - nisedhenaiva 0 . P. 32,L. 3- ......(Karika 26 b) 1- vidheyasya nisedheneva tad (-aksepa ) bandhah | " Aksepa is made up by the appa鈥� rent negation of the thing to be asserted," The chief point is that the word is used here. instead of . In the first definition it was the negation of vaktumista and here it is the negation of the actual vidheya . Combining these two definitions Induraja says - vidhanakarmatadvarenaivatra istatvamavasiyate nibandhanantarabhavat istatva can only be known in a sentence by the fact that a thing is being asserted (lit. being made the object of the action of ass, for there is no other clue to know it. Thus when a thing desired to be asserted () is actually expressed (either verbally or by implication) then the apparent negation of it is called aksepa . P. 32, LL. 6-11-vidhanakarmata uktavisayata aksepasya | vidhana that which is asserted, an assertion. An assertion is of two kinds: (1) implied and (2) verbal. When the faafar is not directly expressed in words but is learnt from the (helped by other clauses) made of it then the assertion (vidhanakarmata ) is only implied (arthi ). But when it is directly expressed, it is verbal (a). In the first case viz. when the assertion is not made but is understood by the negation of it, the aksepa is vaksyamanavisaya . In the second case it is uktavisaya . vivrtikarah-vivaksitatvarupam vidheyatvamatrestatvam | tena vidheyasyavasya muktikriya- sambhavadarthatve sabdatve ca sati dvaividhyam | P. 32, LL. 15-16-Y ANNETH | - mahatmyam | "Oh, the greatness of the God of love that even Rudra should be reduced to such a plight! (Or) let us forbear, what are we to measure off the water of the occan by pitchers ?" This is vaksyamanavisaya aksepa . Here the vidhitsitartha or vaktumista artha is manmathamahatmyam tadavasthavisesayuktam . Here nisedha is expressed by words iyadastam ' let us forbear. The nisedha is made because the manmathamahatmya and its visesa s are impossible of description on

Notes. manmathamahatmya 55 account of their infinity. Therefore is not elaborately described, but only in a meagre way such as rudrepi nama idrsi dasa etc. The vivrtikara 's comment on the verse is--atra smaramahatmyam pratipadayitumistam | tasya ceyadastamiti nisedhah | sa cangatvadasakyatadvarnanatvam visesa pratipadayatiti nisedha iva | mahatmyasya ca yadbhudra ityadina samanyenaivokteh visese- nanabhidhanadvaksyamanavisayatvam | Thus obviously the nisedha of smaramahatmya is here an appa rent one, because it is subordinate to the faafar viz. vivaksitartha smaramahatmya . Now, by the clause samudrambhah kumbhairmatum tu ke vayam, the anantya of smaramahatmya is set forth by the similarity of samudrambhasa with smaramahatmya . The anantya of smaramahatmya is the principal vakyartha and nisedha is the avantara vakyartha . The rest of Induraja's discussion amounts to nothing more; it only elaborately shows the subordinate nature of nisedha . He means to say:-'It cannot be said, in this example, that the sentence culminates in pratisedha, and therefore pratisedha is principally meant. In raktah pato bhavati no one can say that the principal meaning of the sentence is only patabhavana as the sentence culminates in bhavati . But the principal aim in the sentence is on the raktatva of pata . Similarly in Aksepa the sentence cannot be said to convey negation as it is not the meaning desired to be expressed." In Aksepa the fc does not obliterate the principal artha ; on the contrary it heightens the greatness of the principal artha by the semblance of pratisedha . Thus here the pratisedha - iyadastam brings into prominence the infiniteness of smaramahatmyavasthavisesa 8. P. 33, LL. 12-15 - atra ca ......vaksyamanataya sucanam | In this example the manmathamahatmyavisesa s are not verbally stated; they are only understood by the nisedha made of them by 'iyadastam ' etc. Therefore this is vaksyamanavisaya aksepa . The vaksyamanavisayata of this example is really open to objection as the is actually stated by the words aho smarasya mahatmyam eto. This objection is elaborated by the far for which see our extract infra. P. 33, L. 19 - iti cintayatastasya ...... | While musing in this way, it is strange that his thoughts had no end';

56 Kavyalankara-sara-sangrapha. or (there is no strangeness in this) where is the end seen of thoughts inspired by Cupid as well as of time?" ...... aksipyate | The assertion of citatva which is expressed is objected to by a ar etc. on account of the celebrity of the anantya of kamavikalpa s ). As the infiniteness of musings inspired by love is well-known, there could be no strangeness (f) in Siva's endless musings. The vidyutikara follows rudrata and apparently induraja . He says atra citratvasyoktih ka veti nisidhyate | prasiddhatvam catrahetuh | purvatra viruddhatvam | na hi tadvarnanasambhavah | abhyameva nimittabhyamaksepo bhavati | P. 33, L. 21-purvatra khalu paridrstatvaditi | Induraja here introduces 's definition and divisions of Aksepa and applies the same to 's examples. 's definition is a rudrata 's ' vastu prasiddhamiti etc. (rudrata 's kavyalamkara, 8 .89 ). It means - ' when a thing (vastu ) described is prasiddha or viruddha and the statement about it is objected to by another statement, the intention being to affirm the thing (a) figure is .' , then th aksepa .' Induraja says that the first example viz. aho smarasya mahatmyam etc. is viruddha aksepa . For, the words smarasya mahatmyam etc. are asakya useless and therefore they are objected to. In the Ex. iti cintayatastasya, kamavikalpanamanantya is prasiddha, and therefore it is prasiddha aksepa . To support the prasiddhatva of kamavikalpanamanantya the similitude of time () is introduced. a We see here no propriety in introducing the definition of and trying to apply it to 's examples. His definition is of a different type and only with great difficulty can be applied to 3's examples. Some confusion of ideas is to be seen as regards the example safa According to the definition of Kudrata the c itself should be objected to to constitute aksepa ; while in the example iti cintayatastasya, all that Induraja has been able to prove is that citratvasya ukti is objected to on account of prasiddhatva of something else i. e. kamavikalpanantatva . The citratva itself cannot be said to be f. For Rudrata's Aksepa and its examples, see his kavyalamkara 8,89 ; P. 117. P. 34, LL. 2-6- kalatulyataya uktavisayata aksepasya | In the example iti cintayatastasya, the vidhitsitartha is the endlessness of kamavikarupa s. The samvijnanapadanya (incomprehensible) anantya-

Notes. 57 tmaka visesa is the principal vakyartha and hence the nisedha is the avantaravakyartha . Thus the nisedha is only apparent, therefore this is aksepa ; and the citratva of which nisedha is made is expressly stated, therefore it is uktavisaya aksepa . It should be noted here that the meaning of which faia is established is the endlessness of kamavikalpa s. But the nisedha is not made of it but of citratva . And by the nisedha of citratva the visesa of the endlessness of kamavikalpa s is understood. It will be seen from this that it is not quite necessary that the nisedha should always directly apply to vaktumista . The visase understood must, however, always pertain to the vaktumista . Induraja does not seem to have noticed the fact that the nisedha here is not of vaktumista but of citratva which can only be identified with vaktumista by a far fetched relation kamavikalpana- manantya is really the vaktumista . P. 34, LL 7-8 - sabdasprstethavapyarthe ......1 Construe - ( vaktu- mistasya ) nisiddhata yatra tadvirodhena tadangam bhavati asau aksepo bhavet | nisiddhata = (apparent) pratisedha . tadvirodhena vaktumistasya virodhena tadangam = vaktumistasya angam . The vitratikara, at the end of his comment on aksepa, brings in the views of other critics who regard both the examples of Aksepa given by Udbhata as improper. He plunges into a prolonged discussion stating the pros and cons on each side, though at the end he seems to have thrown his weight on the side of those who demur to Udbhata's examples as improper. He says- atra kecidacaksate | etadudaharanadvayamapi na yuktam | tada (-dyama- ) pyudaharanamuktavisayameva | aho smarasya mahatmyamiti samanyena yadudre'pi dasedrsiti ca visetrena smaramahatmyasyoktatvat | yacca samanyavisesabhyamuktam tadyadya- nuktamucyate, sarvamidanimanuktam syadevamapi va citratvamapyanuktamiti kathamuktavisayata | pratyumatra samanyenaivoktih | athocyate natra smaramahatmyamaksipyate api tu rudrada- sedrsiti, tadayuktam | tasya istatvenapratiteh | 'yadudre'pi dasesi 'ti smaramahatmyopo- ilanartham na tu viparyayah | prakaranikatvadarthamasyah pradhanyamiti cet evamapidrsityetatpadam pratyaksanirdesyavisayatvat nirakanksamato natra kimcidraksyamanam na hi tadrsiti padavadasya sakanksatvamiti punarapyuktavisayata | katham catraksepavyapadesah | na hi tannimittatra carutva- pratitirapitvatisayoktih svahitaksepahetuka | tena samkaro'yam | dvitiyasminnapi sloke kvavetyanena na citratvamaksipyate | api tvanteksitatvam | taccaksepaparyavasanamiti cedananvaye- 'pyaksepaprasaktirapahnutirupakadipakadavapi upamaprasangasca | atha tatra bhangayantarena aksepadinam sthitiriti naksepaditvamihapi vicchittyantarenaksepasthitiriti kathana- nyatvam | atha gamyamanotpreksavat gamyamanatve'pyaksepasyalamkarantaratvanabhidhanada- 8 [K. 8. s.] 1

ksepamevesyate | tatpreksalaksanavadiha viseso vaktavyah | tadevamanyatrapi vaibhavi vicarah | prakrtaksatimadadhati namamidarsita ityanaya disa sarva vicaryam | ete tudaharane vaksyama- navisaye- suhaa vilambasuthoyam javalammavirahata arihiaam | uviviunabhirnisam ahava bolesu ki bhanimo || balaanahaduram taavidasimtinamhavavaro | samarai tujjhaasee amdhamakkharam bhanimo || At least he seems to have decided that the verse aho smarasya mahatmyam cannot be cited as an example of vaksyamanavisaya aksepa as the ag is directly expressed therein. He, therefore, brings in his own examples to illustrate vaksyamanavisaya . It will be observed that Udbhata's definition of Aksepa is practically the same as that of Bhamaha. Bhamaha has :----- pratisedha ivestasya yo visesabhidhitsaya | aksepa iti tam santah samsanti dvividham yatha || - kavyalamkara, 2 .68 . Udbhata extends this definition and adds the appendage- vaksyamanoktavisayah sa ca dvividha isyate | nisedheneva tadbandhi vidheyasya ca kirtitah || (Karika 26) by way of further explanation. Having stated the of Aksepa here (in karika 26 ) he substitutes kavayah sada for Bhamaha's dvividham yatha in the first Karika. Bhamaha states here that Aksepa is of two kinds. But in the immediately preceding verse No 67, i. e. after the enumeration of the 6 alankaras beginning with c, he gives the explanatory clause-- vaksyamanoktavisayastatraksepo dvidha matah | ekarupataya sesa nirdeksyante yathakramam || (Verse 67.) Bhamaha first introduced the varieties and named them as vaksyamanavisaya and uktavisaya which are accepted by Uabhata, Mammata and others after him. Mammata has in fact borrowed all ingredients of his definition from the two Karikas 25 and 26 of Udbhata. He has- nisedho vaktumistasya yo visesabhidhitsaya | vaksyamanoktavisayah sa aksepa dvidha matah || - kavyaprakasa ; 10, pr . 654 . Mammata substitutes nisedho vaktumistasya for Uabhata's pratisedha

Notes. 59 ivaistasya . But he brings in the sense of iva by his vrtti 'nisedho etc.' He also omits (Karika 25 b) which serves no useful purpose in the definition. Thus we see that the figure Aksepa of these Kasmirian writers is essentially of the same type and that their definitions closely resemble each other. Now if we see the treatment and definitions of Aksepa given by such writers as Dandin, Vagbhata and Bhoja we shall have a clear idea how these authors intrinsically differ from Kasmirians like Bhamaha, Udbhata and others, and at the same time resemble one another as exponents of one school are expected to do. Dandin defines Aksepa thus --' pratisedhoktiraksepah ' - kavyadarsah, 2 .120 . Bhoja has : - vidhinatha nisedhena pratisedhoktiratra ya | suddha misra ca saksepo rodho naksepatah prthak || sarasvati- kanthabharanam, 4 .64 . 8.68 . Vagbhata (of Vagbhatalankara) says- uktiryatra pratitirva pratisedhasya jayatem | acaksate tamaksepalamkaram vibudha yatha || -- vagbhatalamkarah, 4 .75 . It will be seen that all of them have pratisedhasya uktih as the principal constituent of Aksepa; none of them does say that pratisedha should be pratisedha iva, and none of them does notice the varieties vaksyamanavisaya and uktavisaya . From what has been said above it will be noticed that the figure Aksepa is treated mainly in two ways by different writers. One way is that adopted by Udbhata. Other writers of the same type are Bhamaha, Mammata, Ruyyaka and the writers of modern times who follow Mammata. In the opinion of these writers Aksepa is only an apparent denial for the purpose of putting special emphasis on the faff. The other way of defining is that of Dandin, Bhojaraja and others, whose Aksepa may include real contradiction. The need not be apparent. Thus the treatment of c, it will be seen, the Kasmirian writers are marked out as distinct from the non-Kasmirians or Vaidarbhas like Dandin, Bhoja and others. Vamana has a peculiar kind of Aksepa, viz. the denial of 17. "upamanaksepascaksepah | " kavyalamkarasutra - 4, 3 . 27 . in P. 34, LL. 14-17--arthantaranyasah | samarthakasya purva yat ...... (Karikas 27, 28 a¹) The four varieties of Arthantaranyasa are (1) yat samarthakasya purva vacah (uktih ) anyasya (samarthyasya ) ca prsthatah [uktih ] |

60 Kavyalankara sara sangraha.. (2) yad va [ prathamabhedasya ] viparyayena syat | (3) hisabdoktatha | (4) anyathapi va | It will be seen that Udbhata is only explaining the four varieties of Arthantaranyasa; he does not give any regular definition of the figure. Induraja notices this and gives a definition gleaned form the above in his own words, ---yatra samarthya samarthaka bhavah sorthantaranyasah which is the same BB samarthakasya samarthyasya ca uktih | The fan explains the Karika and gives the varieties in his own way, thus :- anupapadyamanataya asambhavyamanasyarthasya samarthanarthamarthantarasyaiva yannyasanam so'rthantara- nyasah | sa ca samarthakasya pragupadane samarthyasya veti dvibhedah, pratibhedam ca hisabdena yogo viyogo veti caturvidhah | P. 34, LL. 18-20 - tatra hi ...... garbhikrtatvat | Really speaking the figure Arthantaranyasa is very meagrely connected with the of Logicians; but Induraja seems to indicate that Arthantaranyasa is really having the vyapti and paksadharmata in & veiled form. Arthantaranyans& requires samarthya samarthakabhava which is not the same as karyakaranabhava or vyapyavyapakabhava that is required for the logical anumana . As a matter of fact the figures and are somewhat allied to the logical anumana and the figure anumana is still more akin to it, in fact it is the same as logical (inference) plus the poetical charm. 6 P. 34, L. 19 vyaptih "yatra yatra dhumastatra tatra vahniriti sahacaryaniyamo vyaptih | " tarkasamgrahah | The invariable conoomitance of the thing to be inferred ( vyapaka ) and the indicatory mark (vyapya ) is vyapti . This vyapti is the basis on which anumana or inference is founded. paksadharmata - " vyapyasya (dhumasya ) parvatadivrttitvam paksadharmata | "- tarkasamgrahah | ' The connection of the vyapya (the indioatory mark i. e. dhuma ) with the paksa (i. o. parvata etc. ) is paksadharmata . e. The students will not fully understand the process of inference from the above scanty explanation. Some more lines are therefore added with a view to bring to their mind a clear idea of the process as treated in our Indian logic.

Notes. 61 vyapti is of three kinds - kevalanvayi, kevalavyatiroka and anvayavyatireki anvayavyapti is the positive concomitance, eg. yatra yatra dhumosti tatra tatra vahnirasti vyatirekavyapti is the negative concomitance, e. g yatra vahnirnasti tamtra dhumapi nasti The which holds good both positively and negatively is called anvayavyatirekavyaptih Where it holds good only in the positive way it is kevalanvayavyapti and where it holds good only in the negative way it is kevalavyatirekavyapti . linga is the cause or indicatory mark of anything that is inferred. lingaparamarsa or simply paramarsa is the whole process of infernce as vahnivyapyadhumavanayam parvatah . These are the important terms concerning the anumana . Now the nature of the whole process of is shortly this. We must have first three things for a valid inference- (1) paksa ie the thing about which something is to be proved, eg . parvata ; (2) sadhya i. e. the thing which is to be proved in connection with paksa, eg agni ; and (3) sadhana or the cause, o.g. dhuma . This last is also called linga or vyapyam . Two things are necessary for the fulfilment of the inference, viz. vyapti and paksadharmata . yatra yatra dhumah tatra tatra vahnih is vyapti, tatha vahnivyapyadhumavan ayam parvatah is paksadharmata, tasmat vahnimanayam parvatah is the inference. If either the vyapti or the paksadharmata does not exist the sadhya cannot be proved.. For instance, parvato vanheman pasanamayatvat or asmavattvat ; here the vyapti i. 0. yatra yatra asmavattvam tatra tatra vahnimatvam does not exist. Therefore the anumana is false. Also, parvato vahniman mahanasi- yadhumavattvat ; here the paksadharmata i. o merely dhumavanayam parvatah does not exist. Therefore the is invalid. " : Now take any example of arthantaranyasa . It will be seen that the logical cannot be said to be existing there. Take the verse tannasti yanna kurute etc. There the meaning stated in a logical form will be : sarvo babhuya vartata, atyantakaryikasya agatikagatitvat . The paksa here will he sarva, the sadhana or vyapya (cause) will be agatikagatitvam and the sadhya will be bahabhuyavartanam . Here the paksadharmata viz. sarvah agatikagatitvan holds good. But the vyapti viz yatra yatra agatikagatitvam tatra tatra babhavanam cannot hold good, All people who have pressing needs do not become as or celibates. Thus the real process of causation or inference does not exist in arthantaranyasa . What exists is the samarthya samarthaka bhava and not karyakaranabhava or vyapyavapakabhava .

62 Kavyalan kara-sara-sangraha. P. 34, L. 21: ts. The four varieties are :- (1) samarthaka first and samarthya afterwards, hisabda present ; (2) 29 66 hisabda absent; (3) samarthya first and samarthaka afterwards, hisabda present ; (4) 99 .9.9 The examples of these are given in order. 5 hisabda absent. P. 34 LL. 25-27 etc. Example of the first variety. One having very pressing needs and having no ostensible means of satisfying them. P. 35, L. 11-eto. paraphrase of esa sarvopi bhagavan batubhuya sma vartate . 66 This half is only a P. 35, L. 22-tc. The meaning isThen Hara having settled himself began to meditate; for the knowledge gained by meditation does not fail to agree with the reality ()." A different meaning of the second half is also possible- Even the knowledge gained directly by the senses () would disagree with the reality, but the knowledge gained by meditation will never do so." P. 35, L. 24-atra harasma hara iti | Induraja shows here the propriety and the necessity of the Hara has his own power of senses unimpeded; therefore he can have of anything he chooses. Thus his resorting to meditation would be improper; for the knowledge gained by meditation would only be secondary and inferior to the knowledge. Now to remove this impropriety and to support hara 's dhyanasrayana the author says that the knowledge gained by meditation is not at all liable to be mistaken. P. 36, L. 5- tapyamanam tapamsyumam | Here the form tapyamanam is passive but its significance is active. When the verb tapati has tapas for its object, then the subject of tapati acts like the object. Compare-41.3.9.cc. When a subject acts like an object the form of the verb is made passive and it is made to agree with the real object viz. tapas (karmani ). The prathama vibhakti of the subject is retained but the verb is conjugated in the passive form, 8.g. aaya alga:. In Sanskrit the relations of the subject, object and the verb with one another are peculiar and intricate; and a special

Notes. 63 study of Grammar, especially the Karakas, only will reveal the real nature of the subject. Our author's definition of af has hitherto been something like samarthya samarthakayorvacah arthantaranyasah . He has not given a clear definition himself but the above definition can be gleaned from his Karika. Now this sort of definition is rather loose from the modern point of view. Dandin has also a very loose statement- jneyah sorthantaranyaso vastu prastutya kimcana | tatsadhanasamarthasya nyaso yo'nyasya vastunah || - kavyadarsah, 2 .169 . Bhoja has adopted this same definition of Dandin. Bhamaha also gives quite a simple definition- upanyasanamanyasya yadarthasyoditadrte | jneyah sorthantaranyasah purvardhanugato yatha || bhimahalamkarah, 2, 71 . Vamana has: uktasiddhaye vastuno'rthantarasyaiva nyasanamathantiranyasah | In the first place these authors seem to have very imperfect ideas about the two parts of From Y the modern point of view the peculiar feature of is that one part of it is always a (a general statement) and the other part af (a particular example of that eneral statement). And one of these parts (either or visesa ) is prakrta and samarthya, and the other is samarthaka and aprakrta . The samarthya samarthaka bhava is present in many other alankaras such as aprastutaprasamsa, drstanta, samasokti ete. This is not the only distinguishing feature of arthantaranyasa . It is the samanyavisesabhava that is the chief characteristic of Thus it will be arthantaranyasa . seen that the definition of Dandin, Bhamaha and Udbhita will equally apply to drstanta, aprastutaprasamsa, samasokti and others of like nature. The second thing is that these early authors seem to have had no idea of the divisions sadharmyena and vaidhamryena samarthanam . Out of the Vaidarbha school of alankarikas only has noticed it. But the first in respect of time, to notice the sadharmya samarthana and vaidharmya samarthana seems to be Rudrata, the author of Kavyalankara. For his treatment of a kavyalamkara, 8, 79-84, see his

64 Kavyalankara sara sangraha. Thus although Udbhata's definition seems to be crude before the precise statement of Mammata, viz.- samanyam va viseso va tadandena samarthyate | yattu sorthantaranyasah sadharmyenetarena va || - kavyaprakasa, 10, p. 661. on the whole he seems to be more advanced than Dandin and even Bhamaha For he has noticed that only samarthya- samarthakabhava is not a sufficient description of arthantaranyasa, though The has not exactl hit upon the characteristic feature of it, namely the samanyavisesabhava . aprastutaprasamsa and drstanta also contain samarthya samarthakabhava, and Udbhata tries to distinguish arthantaranyasa from these by the Karika prakrtarthasamarthanat | aprastutaprasamsaya drstantacca prthak sthitah || 28 . The vivrtikara in introducing the Karika prakrtarthasamarthanat similarly observes: - nanvaprastutaprasamsa drstantabhyam nayam bhidyate | tatha hi | prinitapranayi svadu kale parinatam bahu | vina purusakarena phalam pasyata sakhinam || itya prastutaprasamsaya visesena sakhivrttantena vacyena sarva jagaccestitam devapradhanamiti samanyam gamyamanam samarthyate | tatha- tvayi drsta eva tasya nirvati mano manobhavajvalitam | aloke hi himamsorvikasati kumudam kumudvatyah || iti drstantena dastantikam samarthyate | tenasya laksanasyativyaptirityaha prakrtartha- samarthanaditi | The vivrtikara, however, being thoroughly imbued with the modern notions on the nature of alankaras, chiefly brought into vogue by the samanyavisesabhava which is the chief characteristic of arthantaranyasa . He also notices the varieties caused by sadhamryena samarthana and vaidharmyena samarthana which are not noticed by Uabhata and by Induraja too. He says by way of commenting on Karika, prakrtarthasamarthanat etc. (28 a. b) - idamatra tatparyam | visese samanyena samanye va visesena samarthya samanyasya tathabhutam nittamucyate | visesasamarthyatpratipannam samarthya- syanupapadyalanatam nirasyati | visayapeksayam svasamanyamarthantaramivaprastutaprasamsayame- kasyanupadanameva drstante bimbapratibimbanyayenaiva nyasanahetukathanam tena naitalaksanam | What the commentator drives at in this passage is that a cause or nimitta of the general proposition ie samanya is stated in arthantaranyasa . This cause is abtained on the strength of the facts of the a statement; and this cause, therefore 3. Genius of Mammata, brings in the

Notes. 65 being connected both with samanya and visesa removes the incapability of one of them supporting the other. While such is the case in arthantaranyasa, in aprastutaprasamsa there is only the statement of the arthantara and in drstanta the motive of mentioning the two parts is vimbaprativibhatra and not samanya- visesabhava . Therefore this definition of arthantaranyasa does not apply to them ( naitalaksanam ). Again at the end of his whole comment on arthantaranyasa the vivrtikara observes :- hoina gunanurao jadananaparam pasiddhisarananam | kirapandusa simani candrena via mudde danda || ityadau samanyam visesena samathyate | sasimanesca sitalatvam jadyam | atrapi prcavaro bhedah | evam na param sadhamrmena samarthanam yavadvaidhamrmyenapi | tatra visesasya samanyena samarthanam yatha- udite bhaskare kvapi gamyate timirotkaraih | tejasvinamanalokya prabhavanti malimasah || atrapyanyadbhedatrayam | samanyasya visesena samarthanam yatha Sauraha dauratmyari dhurgom niyujyate | asamjatakinaskandhah sukham svapiti gaurgadih || atrapi bhedatrayamanyat | The vivrtikara has here alluded to 16 vari eties. The four examples given by Udbhata all contain visesasya samanyena samarthanam . The number of varieties will be doubled when we take into account the four types in which the samanya is supported by visesa . These eight varie ties are again made sixteen according as the is either sadharmyena or vaidharmyena . P. 36, LL. 16-17 - prinitapranayi svadu ... svadu ......| Induraja brings in this verse to show that aprastutaprasamsa also contains samarthya- samarthaka bhava just like arthantaranyasa . This verse is given by Bhamaha as an example of aprastutaprasamsa . (See Bhamaha's kavya- lamkara, 3 .35 .) Here purusakarena vina vanasakhinam phalaprasutih is the samarthaka and aprastuta, and atah sarva jagati devapradhanam is the samarthya and prastuta understood. Thus samarthya samarthaka bhava is present here. P. 36, L. 21 - purusakaranvayavyatirekananuvidhayitvat | Not origi nating or vanishing according to the association or dissociation of manly effort. The of trees is produced when go is not present and does not appear even when purusakara 9 [K. S. 8.]

purusakara gq is present. Thus the cause and effect have no invariable concomitance (a) between them. In the same manner there is no relation of cause and effect between purusakara and all happenings in the world. purusakara or the effort of man cannot do or undo anything. Everything is controlled by destiny. Here the alankara is again, for the c which is is only expressed. 路 P. 36, L. 22-alaksyavyapti dosah | alaksye vyaptih yasya | The fault committed when the province of a definition () includes examples which really ought not to come under the definition. It is really a sort of or excessive pervasion. P. 36 LL. 24-25-... This is the example of brought in to show the difference between drstanta and arthantaranyasa . The verse is taken from Rudrata's kavyalamkara, 8 .95, where it occurs as an example of drstanta . It is also quoted as an example of drstanta in kavyaprakasa . Here the first half of the verse is samarthya and the second half samarthaka . But both are particular statements (f). 1 P. 37, L. 4-5-... (Karika 28 a³b) " [arthantaranyasa ] is distinguished from aprastutaprasamsa and drstanta as it supports the original subject of description (f)." This is rather a clumsy way of stating the difference between aprastutaprasamsa, drstanta and arthantaranyasa . It is really no statement of difference; it is only the common characteristic of the three alankaras that is stated as the difference. He gives prakrtarthasamarthana as the distinguishing feature of arthantaranyasa, as if in aprastutaprasamsa and drstanta there is anything like aprakrtarthasamarthana ! Where-ever the exists, the c is always the samarthya and its samarthana is made by the aprakrtartha . In aprastutaprasamsa and drstanta as well as in arthantaranyasa, samarthana is always made of the prakrtartha . The aprakrtartha is never in need of samarthana . ERIEN Really speaking the main difference between and arthantaranyasa is that in aprastutaprasamsa the prakrta is not stated (upatta ) but is understood (em) by the force of the d, while in arthantaranyasa both are stated (svakanthenopatta ). Induraja has brought out this point very ably. To remove the inaccuracy of the text he suggests that in the text should mean

Notes. 67 svakanthopatta prakrtartha . Thus aprastutaprasamsa will be excluded as the prakrtartha is not svakanthopatta in it. About even the Commentator fails to hit the mark. In drstanta, samarthya and samarthaka are both of them either samanya or visesa ; in arthantaranyasa one is samanya and the other is fa. Induraja does not touch this point at all. His point is different and it is also important. In arthantaranyasa, samarthya prominent, in it is not so. In the drstanta between the two statements is chiefly sought to be conveyed; is known in a secondary manner. Having thus pointed out the difference between and to bring out his meaning from the Karika, Induraja suggests that the word in the text is to be taken to mean samarthana in upakramavastha ie the leading position. Thus when thes in the leading position the alankara will be arthantaranyasa . But when vimbapratibimbabhava will be in the leading position it will be . P. 37, LL. 6-8 - natu tatrasamarthanam | But in aprastutaprasamsa and drstanta, the samarthya samarthaka bhava of the type of arthantaranyasa is not possible. For in arthantaranyasa, the samarthana is made of the samarthya which is actually expressed as such, being described as happening either before or after, as the case may be. But in aprastutaprasamsa, by the force of the aprakrta the prakrta is implied, but not actually expressed. P. 37, LL. 10-14 For there, in that instance, the i. e. the predominence of destiny pervading the whole world' is implied by showing the i. e. the fruit of sylvan trees controlled by destiny,' but not actually stated in so many words, just as in artha- ntaranyasa . Therefore, though there is samarthyasamarthakabhava, it does not rest on the expressed in words. P. 37, LL. 14-19- drstante'pivopakramah | Even in drstanta, though the samarthya samarthakabhava rests on the prakrtartha actually expressed, as both the and are stated in so many words, there is no possibility of arthantaranyasa, as drstanta does not become manifest by the pre-eminence of samarthya samarthaka bhava . Indeed, it does not proceed mainly from

68 Kavyalankara sara-sangraha. only the faraaf is there expressed in words, and the samarthya samarthaka bhava is understood by implication. But in arthantaranyasa it is the which takes the lead or makes the beginning. P. 37, L. 23. to P. 38, Is 5 -- vyatirekah | visesapadanam yatsyat ( Karika 29 ) | visesapadanam - visesasya adhikyasya apadanam khyapanam | The statement of the superiority of upamana or upameya (over upameya or upamana respectively ) is vyatireka . It is of two kinds according as the reason (of the superiority) is stated or not." The Madras Ms. gives only the first half of the Karika 29; the second half which contains the name of the is somehow omitted. Bhamaha's definition of an is: upamanavato'rthasya yadvisesanidarsanam | vyatirekam tamicchanti visesapadanadyatha || vyatireka . Udbhata seems to have followed the wording of HE'S definition, but has improved upon it by introducing therein the expression nimittadrstidrstibhyam, thus bringing in the two broad divisions of Udbhata here says nothing abouts. Yet Induraja brings them in here and divides into two more varieties on account of the presence or absence of itra divacaka . The two examples given below do not contain We cannot definitely say whether Udbahta had in his mind divisions of vyatireka based on ivadivacaka s. The one thing which is certain is that Udbhata distinctly lays down only two varieties of and does not say anything about in Kaika 29. Induraja brings in for his support Karika 30, and by combining it with Karika 29 he manages to make the varieties four in number. But we shall see further that Iuduraja's interpretation of Karika 30 need not be accepted as correct as that Karika is capable of being construed in a decidedly better way. Udbhata in this Karika divides into two divisions according as the for the zis stated or nimitta adhikya not. Induraja in his comment further divides these two. into four on the principle that is either ex-

Notes. 69 pressed by ivadivacaka s or is artha (i. o implied). The vivrtikara also mentions four varieties but his principle of division is very different. The according to him is of two kinds : upameyotkarsanimitta and upamananikarsanimitta . Thus the upattanimitta and anupattanimitta varieties of Udbhata are doubled according as the nimitta is either utkarsanimitta or nikarsanimitta . He says:- sa (vyatirekah ) copameyotkarsopama nanika rupavyatirekanimittasyopadane utkarsanikarsobhaya nimittanam paryayenanupadane ca bhavatiti caturbhedah | His comment on the example sa gaurisikharam etc. will illustrate his mode of treating these varieties. He says:-tatra utkarsaninittanupadane udaharanam - 'sa gaurisikharam gatva etc.' | gaurasi varam himavade kadesah | atrendu tanurupamanam | umopameyam jayantimiti vyatirekabhidhanam | rahupitaprabhatvam nirdhanimittam sabdamutkarsanimitta- maksatalavapyatvam tvartham | nikarsanimitte arthe udaharanam - 'sada kantimatimindoriti pathe ubhayanupadane yatha - 'piyutradidhitestasye 'ti pathe | ubhayopadane udaharanam- 'padmam ca nisi nihsrikam etc. Thus he brings out three varieties by proposing changes in the wording of the first example, and by the second example he illustrates his remaining fourth variety. It will be seen that this sort of division is after the manner of Mammata. Mammata has 24 divisions in all and our also states as many in the course of his commentary on vyatireka . Mammata describes his 24 varieties thus : vyatiramkasya hetuh upameyagatamutkarsanimittam, upamanagatamapakarsakaranam, tayordvayoruktih, ekatarasya dvayorva anuktirityanuktitrayam, etadbhedacatustayamupamanopameyabhave sabdena prati- padite, arthena ca kramenoktascatvarava bhedah, aksipte caupamye tavanta eva evam dvadasa ete slese'pi bhavantiti caturvimsatirbhedah | kavyaprakasa - X, p. 647. P. 38, LL. 8-10 - sa gaurisikharam gatva etc. | The Ms.followed by our printed text, reads here sa gauri sikharam gatva etc. This reading m kes no relevant sense. The stanza, therefore, should be read as sa gorisikharam gatva etc. The reading in the Madras Ms. is sa gaurisikharam . This example illustrates anupattanimitta vyatireka . indostanuh is the upamana and uma is the upameya . The superiority of upameya is shown c over the upamana . Here the cause of the superiority is not stated. rahuto'pi tapasah satisayattram or some such thing is to be understood. Even has not made the disc of the moon so thin as chas made c's body thin, For the vikrtikara 's comment on this stanza see above,

P. 38, LL. 22-23-A etc. Here the superiority of over and is described. The reason for the superiority of mukha is stated, viz. satatam sphuracchayena . The reason for the inferiority of and are also stated, viz. diva nisprabhatva and nisi nihsrikatvam respectively. The moon loses her light by day and the lotus loses its beauty by night. But the beauty of Parvati's face is constant. Whether the statement of both these reasons is necessary for f to be or only one of them is sfficient is not made clear either by Induraja or Udbhata; most probably the latter supposition is correct. Udbhata now goes on to describe one more variety of vyatireka by yo vaidhamryena drstanto etc. P. 39, L. 7 iva dhupatte .. tamaha | Induraja has described before his divisions of vyatireka based on ivadivacaka s. He now says that Udbhata describes those divisions in the Karika etc. But really Udbhata is describing here an altogether different variety of, as will be explained presently. . P. 39, LL. 8, 9 - yo vaidhamryena drstanto etc. | vaidharmyena drstantah = An illustration by contrast. The illustration is opposite or antagonistic to the thing illustrated. The Karika means "An illustration by contrast furnished with [the vacaka s ] yatha, iva etc. o vyatireka, for the establishment of superiority (f) exists there". 65 P. 39, LL. 10-12 - yo vaidhamryena pameyabhavasyaha | Induraja has not brought out Udbhata's meaning clearly in the commentary. He says - yo vaidhamryena drstanta iti visesapadananvayaditi ca ....... Of this, Induraja's remark about visesapadananvaya is correct; for it is the vyatirekalaksana . visesapadana is the most important term in Udbhata's definition of (Karika 29 ). But vaidharmyena drstanta is not an item of vyatirekalaksana at all. It is the description of the new variety of which Ubbhata introduces in this Karika. By saying fa Induraja wants to impress the idea that Udbhata is treating the same that he defined in the last Karika, only that he is putting forth the new divisions of it based on afs. But that is not the real purport of the Karika. Udbhata's point is that wherever a i. e. a comparison by contrast occurs, the alankara should be and

Notes. 71 not upama etc. ; for there the constrast shows the visesa of the upameya over the upamana . When the upamana is placed as anta gonistic to the upameya it means that the upamana is deficient in those qualities which the upameya possesses. Thus vyatireka is the proper figure there. But Induraja seems to ignore this point. He has all his eyes on yathevadivacaka s which he wants to make the basis for the division of vyatireka . He misses the real purport of the words vaidhamryena drstantah which are really the nucleus of the Karika. ... P. 39, LL. 14, 15-sirnaparnambuvatara 1 Example of vaidharmya-: drstanta . Here the upameya is uma and the upamana is anyatapasvi yatha anyatapasvinah garva samudvahanti tatha iyam garve na samudvahati | This is a vaidharmya drstanta in as much as the drstanta of garvasamudvahana is opposed to the prakrta statement of garvasamudvahanabhava . The vaidharmya or contrast between uma and anyatapasvi is quite clear. The adhikya of uma over anyatapasvi is indicated, therefore this is vyatireka . The far has a long note on this stanza wherein he brings in the other divisions off by making slight changes in the text of the verse and giving other examples. He observes : - asanamasah | upasantacittatvamutkarsahetuh | tadabhavo nikarsahetuh | tadvayamapyartham | nikarsahetvanupadane udaharanam - 'santah parnambuvate ' tyadau pathe | utkarsahetvanupadane yatha- 'sirnaparnambuvate ' tyadau, 'no garvamanyatucchatapasvivat ' iti ca pathe | ubhayopadane udaharanam - 'santamityadau, 'anyatucche 'tyadau pathe | atra ca vatipratyayopadanasamarthyadaupamyam sabdasprstam 'tenatulyamityadina vatervihitatvat | srautatvam yathevadina 'tatra tasyevetyanena vatina ca bhavati, anyasyevasya na smayah | esa ubhayanupadane | nikarsahetvanupadane yatha- 'sumateranyavannasya smaya ' iti | utkarsahetvanu- padane yatha--- ' anyatucchajanasyeva na smayo'syeti | ubhayopadane yatha -'anyatuccha- janasyeva na smayo'sya mahamateh ' | 鈥� P. 39, LL. 25, 26 - evamayam munneyam | This is written owing to the misunderstanding or rather on the supposition that Uabhata is describing ivadivacakayukta vyatireka . Induraja by his explanations on Karikas 29 and 30 seems to imply that the two varieties viz. upattanimitta and anupattanimitta occurring when ivadisabda s are not upatta are stated in Karika 29 and those varieties occurring when ivadisabda B are 34 are stated in Karika 30. But this position is untenable since sales are not mentioned or even alluded to in Karika 29. Besides Karika 30 mentions & distinct kind of vyatireka which has nothing to do with upatanimitta and

anupattanimitta varieties of vyatireka detailed in Karika 29. The fact that Udbhata has given only one stanza as the exam. ple of Karika 30 also points to the fact that a distinct type of is defined in Karika 30 which cannot be split up into the divisions upattanimitta and anupattanimitta . Thus Induraja's contention that Karika 30 puts forth the broad division 'ivadidyotitopamanopameyabhava ' which is capable of subdivision into the two varieties upattanimitta and anupatta according to the principle laid down in Karika 19, seems to be without foundation. Hence it will be seen that his words evamayam nimittadarsane vatthupa topamanopameyabhavo vyamtareka udahrtah, nimittopadane tu tasyodaharanamunneyam (P. 39, LL. 25, 26 ) do not speak out the real intention of Udbhata. The words tasyodaharanamunneyam really betray the weak point in Induraja's interpretation. If Udbhata had really created two more varieties by his Karika (30) why did he compose the example for one only and leave the example for the other to be understood? Even the example o, if rather closely examined, will be seen to be not fitting in with the interpretation of the Karika as proffered by Induraja. It is an example of Illustration by contrast' which constitutes according to Udbhata. uma is here contrasted with anyatapasvin s anyatapasvin s possess which does not possess. This is the point milarity (vaidharmya ) between uma and anyatapasvin s which are respectively the the dissimilarity between uma and excellence of uma is established. there being visesapadana . and the of dissihere. By pointing out anyatapasvinu s, the superior Hence the alamkara is vyatireka Thus the division of according to Udbhata's standpoint will beI. 1. The general type viz. upamanopameyayoh { II. vaidhamryena drstantah Illustration by contrast. From Induraja's standpoint it will beI. The general type upattanimitta of vyatireka viz. upa- manopameyayoh visesa- padata . anupattanimitta 1. upattanimitta . 2. anupattanimitta . 1. ivadivacakasya upadane . 2. ivadeh anupadane . 3. ivadeh upadane, 24. ivadeh anupadane .

Notes. 73 P. 40, L. 1:... Really speaking only catvarom vyatirekah 1 threes are mentioned by Udbhata. He does not say is to be divided further, and no such that division is really possible. Of course such varieties off as are made by Induraja viz. (1) ivadivacakopadane, and (2) ivadivacakanupadane are quite possible in and Mammata and other authors have actually made divisions on these principles. The only thing is that Udbhata does not speak anything about such varieties. All these varieties containing or not containing as are to be included according to him under the broad divisions upattanimitta and anupattanimitta stated in the 29 th Karika. The intentional solicitude of Induraja in fathering upon Udbhata the further divisions of which he himself recognises as they must have been current in his time is a clear proof of the development which was taking place in the science of Poetics in general and in the province of alankaras in particular from the time of Bhamaha and Dandin to the time of Mammata and even to that of Jagannatha. $.6 P. 40, LL. 6, etc. (Karika 31) | When a word capable of expressing double meaning is repeated separately, if there is establishment of superiority (visesapadana ) then that also is vyatireka . " This cannot be called 鈥� slesayukta vyatireka . slistokta yogya sabdayukta vyatireka would be a proper title for it. If a word stated only once has two meanings it becomes. Here the same word is twice stated having two different meanings in its different positions, therefore it cannot be a dc. DO P. 40, L. 9 -tantrena na kriyate | Repetition of the word having two meanings is necessary. Either the statement of the word only once or the use of a different word having the same moaning will not do. P. 40, LL. 13, 14-:...... The example of the variety described above. Here has two different meanings in its two different positions: (1) the month 10 [K.S.S.]

74 Kanyalankara-sara-sangraha. and (2) austerities. Here uma is upameya, saisiri sri is upamana and the adhikya of uma over saisiri sri is shown by the twice stated word tapas . The nimitta of the superiority of upameya and the nimitta of the inferiority of upamana are shown by sudirghatapastva and ekatapastva respectively. saisiri sri is known to exist only for the single month of tapas while parvati has a very long tapas . The far comments on this stanza according to his own ideas about the divisions of which we have mentioned before. He says: - esam dvadasabhedanam na kevalam gamyamanopadiyamano [0mana upa0 ] va sadharanadharmopamabhulam [0dharma upama0 ], yavacchresena sthita ityaha - slistoktiyogyasabdasyeti | eka prayatnoccaryanamityadivaksyamanatah slistam taducitasya dvayarthasabdasya yadopamanopameye ca prthaguccaranam visesanimitte sati tada so'pivyatirekah vaksyamanodaharanasamgrahaprasangat prthagityadi na vacyam | udaharanam - ya saisiri srirityadi | tapa maghamasah | tapasca vratam | esa cobhayopadane | nikarsahetvanabhidhane 'masena bhuvi visruta ' iti pathah | utkarsahetvanabhidhane 'tapasa sahasaivainamiti pathah | ubhayanabhidhane yathoktam pathadvayam | esa carthe aupamye | [sabde tu ] | natpah kaviriva svalpasloko deva bhavanmahan | atrapyanyadbhedatrayam | He then goes on to criticise the example given by Vamana- satyam harinasavaksyah prasannasubhagam mukham | samanam sasinah kim tu sakalankam vidambitah [sa kalankavidambitah ] || vamana - kavyalamkarasutra ; 4-3-22 . iti vamanena yadhyatirekodaharanamuktam tatprabhrtinam samkarata na vyatirekatvam | atha satya- padenopama na prarohatityucyate tadastu vyatirekatvam | It will be seen that superiority of upamana over upameya might also constitute in the opinion of Udbhata; for his definition upamanopameyayoh visesapadanam vyatirekah is general and can be applied both ways; but he gives no example to illustrate that sort of vyatireka . And that is very easy to explain; for in all cases of 3cthere is already a latent (garbhita ) superiority of upamana over upameya . upamana is always a thing that contains to the utmost the qualities that are desired to be established in upameya . But upamana in all poetry is always aprakrta and any special eulogy of upamana at the expense of upameya which is the prakrta will have a marring effect on poetry. The is always to be extolled and not the This is the reason why examples of the

Notes. 75 Superiority of zcc are not found and are generally not given by alankara-writers though it is included in the definition of the figure by many. The discussion about , ksinah ksinopi sasi ' in kavyaprakasa (Ullasa 10, fig. vyatireka ) shows the sa re thing. The verse ksinah ksinopi sasi is the only one that is given by some few authors to illustrate the superiority of upamana over upameya . And even that is wrongly done, says Mammata, the real aim of the verse not having been properly grasped. Thus it is shown that describing as upameyadupamanasyotkarsah is wrong and useless. Other authors besides Udbhata who sanction the superiority of upamana over upameya as a valid vyatireka are Rudrata and Ruyyaka. Dandin has a loose definition which may in. clude anything. He has- sabdopate pratite va sadrsye vastunordvayoh | tatra yadbhedakathanam vyatirekah sa kathyate || - kavyadarsa, 2 .180 . Nothing definite can be ascertained from this loose statement as to what was really meant by Dandin; from the obvious meaning it can be said to include the superiority of the upameya over the upamana, as well as of the upamana over the upameya . ' Definitions of both the vagbhata s of kavyanusasana and vagbhatalamkara are also of such ambiguous nature. But Rudrata and Ruyyaka are quite definite on this point. Rudrata says- yo guna upameye syattatpratipanthi ca dosa upamane | vyasta samastanyastau tau vyatirekam tridha kurutah || medantaramaha- - kavyalamkara, 7 .86 . yo guna upamane va tatpratipanthi ca dosa upameye | bhavato yatra samastau vyatireko'yamanyastu || -kavyalamkara, 7 .89 . udaharanam (of the second type) - ksinah ksinopi sasi bhuyo bhuyobhivardhate nityam | virama prasida sundari yauvanamanivarti yatam tu || - kavyalamkara 7 .90,

Ruyyaka has :- bhedapradhanye upamanadupameyasyadhikye viparyaye va vyatirekah | alakarasarvasva, P. 9. As the example of the second variety he gives the verse of Rudrata -- ksinah ksinopi sasi etc., and explains candrapeksaya ca yauvanasya nyunagunatvam | sasivailaksanyena tasyapunaragamat | The verse ' ksinah ksinopi sasi ' must be a composition of Rudrata as it is found in his and is in the arya metre. All the verses in are his own. Therefore if we accept the view of Mammata we must say that Rudrata himself did not grasp the real meaning of his verse; for he has cited it to illustrate the superiority of upamana over upameya . Mammata has very clearly shown that the adhikya in this verse is of upameya over upamana i e of yauvana over sasi and not vice versa. He says - 'ksinah ksino'pi sasi ......' -- ityadavupamanasyopameyadadhikyamiti kenaciduktam tadayuktam | atra yauvanagata- sthairyadhivayam hi vivaksitam | kavyaprakasah, X, p. 645. It is peculiar to note that Bhamaha does not include adhikya of upamana over upameya . He says- upamanavatorthasya yadvisesanidarsanam | vyatirekam tamicchanti visesapadanadyatha || vyatireka . - bhamahalamkara, 2 .75 . But Udbhata who always follows Bhamaha seems to have intentionally abandoned him here. Bhamaha has attempted no divisions of af. But we have seen that Udbhata does so though his divisions are not so scientific and exact as those of Mammata. Mammata has 24 divisions in all. See the passage partially quoted above from pp. 646-47. X P.40, L. 24-vibhavana | This figure and visesokti are complements of each other and they are consecutively treated by modern Rhetoricians like ruyyaka, mammata, appayadiksita, and others. But the old order of generally accepted by Bhamaha, Udbhata, Dandin and others seems to have followed no scientific principle. DOG P. 40, LL. 25, 26 - kriyayah pratisedhe ya 1 "The dis playing of the result [of any action] while the action (i. e. the cause) itself is denied, is to be regarded as fa satisfaction (as to how the result took place) is easily obtained. when

- Notes. P. 41, LL. 1-3. iha yatkicitkaranam | Whatever is produced in this world is the result of action. Action is the immediate cause of all things. All other causes can only produce a through action alone. It is a matter of every day exprience pratitikena rupena paridrsyamanatvat .. The vivrtikara has karanabhutakriyapratisedhe tatkaryasya yatprakatanam sa vibhavana | na daivasamgatetyaha samadhaviti | parihare satityarthah | P. 41, L. 5. - viruddhabhasa vibhavana | -- A production ( bhavana ) that seems unnatural ( virudvabhasa ) ie without causes is therefore vibhavana . This is a new and certainly original and ingenious way of accounting for the name vibhavana . The general method of derivation is : aprasiddhakaranasya svabhavikatvasya va vibhavanat kalpanat vibhavana, or phalaprakasanam vibhavana . --P. 41, LL. 10-11. - angalekhama kasmira samalambhana | Example of vibhavana . Here the kriya s (causes) kasmirasamalambhana and salaktakatva are denied. Therefore the results pinjaratva and tamrabhatva seem for a time to be unaccounted for. But then svabhavikatva removes the anomaly. samalambhana = Smearing, anointing. The expression of sealed or closed lips. -In order to bring in the idea of karanabhutakriya in the case of osthamudra, the vivrtikara suggests tamrostatvasyalaktaka yojanakriyatmakam karanam | alaktakasabdohyatra tadyojanayam vartate | anyatha vibhavanodaharane tvasyanupapatteh | taccatra karanam nisiddham | pariharascatra svabhavikah sulaksanatvam | In the definition Udbhata has used the word in the sense of . According to grammarians alone is the cause of a thing. The word has been used in the definition of fcby four authors viz. Bhamaha, Vamana, Udbhata and Mammata. Of these Udbhata and Bhamaha have the same definition. Mammata has kriyayah pratisedhepi phalavyaktirvibhavana | Vamana has kriyayah pratisedhe prasiddhatatphalavyaktirvibhavana | kavyalamkarasutra 3 . 2. Other authors use the word karana . P. 41, LL. 23-24. -samasoktih | prakrtarthena vakyena | ( Karika 33. ) - " In a sentence which deals with the principal theme of discription, when some other sense not belonging to the theme is conveyed by common adjectives, the figure becomes samasokti ." The vivrtikara 's comment on this is : prastutarthena vakyenaprastuto'pyartho yadabhidhiyate sa samasoktih | nanveva slesatam praptetyaha tatsamanavisesanaih | visesyapadam tu prastutarthabhidhayyeva |

+8 Kavyalankara sara-sangraha. 1 P. 42, LL. 2-3 - dantaprabhasumanasam panipallava ... Here the prakrta ( principal theme ) is bhagavati and the aprakrta which is conveyed by implication (aksipta ) is lata . All the adjectives dantaprabhasumanasam etc. are applicable to both lata and bhagavati . All these adjectives contains, one set of the cs (viz. dantaprabha, pani and jata ) belonging to bhagavati and the other (viz. sumanas, pallava and satcarana ) to lata . dantaprabha, pani and jata become the upameya s and sumanas, palva and satcarana become upamana s when the adjectives are applied to cd, and vice versa when they are applied to . is a common property applicable to both bhagavati and lata as well. In this verse all the adjectives are applicable both to to lata and tanvi ( slender Parvati ). But the visesya is only tanvi and the sense of a is understood by the force of the adjectives. If the fa had also been f (i. e. applicable to both and the alankara would have become lata tanvi ) If the fhad contained words expressive of both and lata, such as tanulatam or strilatam, then the alamkara would become a samastavastu visaya rupaka vanagatam - vana is slista here. It means 'water' with reference to and 'forest' with reference to, and so it gives rise to a distinct notion of rupaka i. e. ekadesavrtti or slistaparamparitarupaka . The vidyutikara has his own way of interpreting the verse. He says : - dantaprabhavacchobhanam hrdaye yasyah paneh pallavavagre tabhyam sobhate, vanam jalam, lina jatasu satcaranavalisca yasyah sa [ga]vatiti prastuto'rthah | dantaprabhavaddhavalani puspani yasyah iti tu vyakhyana ...... | ekadesavivartirupakata | The omission is probably vyakhyanamasat . Udbhata's definition of this figure is more complete and exact than that of Bhamaha. He has advanced greatly in point of exactness and accuracy. Bhamaha (and Dandin also) are not at all particular as to whether the abhipretartha (the intended sense) should be aprakrta and uktartha (the expressed sense) to be or vice versa. Bhamaha's difinition is - yatrokte gamyate'nyorthastatsamanavisesanah | sa samasoktiruddista samksiptarthataya yatha || -- bhamahalamkara, 2 .79 . But later writers beginning with our author have stipulated that the expressed sense must be belonging to the subject of description (i. e. a) and the sense implied by the force

Notes. 179 of the slista adjectives is to be the aprakrta . If the aprakrta or aprastuta thing is expressed and the a is conveyed by implication the alanikara would be aprastutaprasamsa . P. 42, LL. 12-13. - atisayoktih | nimittato yattu ... | (Karika 34 ) - " A statement, with a cause, surpassing the common perception of people-the learned consider it to be the alankara atisayokti ." P. 42, LL. 14-17.-(Karikas 35, 36) The four divisions of atisayokti of Udbhata are : (1) bhede'nanyatvam | Imposing sameness where there is difference in reality. (2) anyatra (abhede ) nanatvam | Imagining difference where there is really no difference. (3) sambhavyamanarthanibandhah | Describing some imaginary thing [which is really impossible]. sambhavyamana = imaginary. (4) karyakaranayoryatra paurvaparyaviparyayat | asubhavam samalambya badhyate || The reversion of cause and The fa effect to show the quickness of effect. explains the Karikas very succinctly as kinciddhetumavalambya yadalaukikam vaco nibadhyate satisayoktih | tasyascatvaro bhedah | tatha hi | bhede abhedah, abhede bhedah, bahirasatah sambhavanayam nibaddhah, karyasya sighra- kalatapratipadanaya purvabhavitvam karanaditi | Of these the first two varieties Mammata's atisayokti ; because in both the varieties one thing (a) is described as another thing. The first variety of Mammata viz. nigiryadhyavasana (complete submerging of the upemaya by the upamana ) does not find place in Ubdhata's classification. The third and fourth divisions of Udbhata correspond to the same divisions of Mammata. The second variety of Mammata is prastutasya yadanyatvam and it is equal to the first two varieties of Udbhata. yadyarthokto va kalpanam of Mammata is Udbhata's sabhavya- manartha nibandha . The full description of atisayokti given by Mammata in his Karikas is : - (1) nigiryadhyavasanam tu prakrtasya parena yat | (2) prastutasya yadanyatvam (3) yadyarthoktau ca kalpanam | (4) karyakaranayoryasca paurvaparya- vipayaryah | vijneyatisayoktih sa | - kavyaprakasa X. p. 628. the second variety (prastutasya yadanyatvama / ill probably fall under

P. 42, LL. 24-25. -- tapastejah sphuritaya | Example of the first variety. Here parvati was first akrsa, then by tapas she became. Now by reason of the lustre of her austerities she is again described as appearing akrsa . Thus here bhinna ( from her original condition ) ie krsa parvati is described as abhinna . 9. akrsa . The vivrtikara has bhagavatyah karyamakarye cabhinnikrtam | hetuscatra tapastejojanita saundaryasamrddhih | P. 43, LL. 6-7 - acintayanca bhagavan | Here parvati though she is kumari is imagined to be bhinna i. e. yauvanavati . Thus abhedepi nanatvam is illustrated vivrtikarah - ekaivatra kumari bhagavati taruni cetyanyatvam gamita | hetusca tapojanitam ramaniyakam | a. P. 44, LL. 8-9 - manye ca nipatantyasya 1 The reversion of cause and effect is quite obvious. The smarabanaparampara shoots out so immediately after the that it is described as going ahead and as following afterwards. The extreme efficacy of Parvati's glances is here established. vivrtikarah-- kataksapatasya pascadbhavah | smarabanaparamparagamanasya purvabhavitvamuktam samana jatitvapratipadanaya | evam ca 'daho'mbhah prasrtim paca ' ityadavatisayoktih samanyalaksananaiva na tu visesalaksanena samgrhiteti kecit | prasiddhajvalitanaladahabhede- naivayamadhyavasita iti visesalaksanamapyatrastiti na dosah | evamanyatra bodhyam | 1 鈥� P. 43, LL. 12-13. - patedyadi sasidyota ... The example of the third variety. The meaning is: If a pencil of moon's rays will fall on a blooming sun-lotus then that will be a fit comparison for the rosary of pearls that is in her hand. vivrtikarah - praphule padme candrakaraprakarabhavadasambhavannayamarthah sambhavanayam nibaddhah | hetusca gaurikare aksamalavalokanam | P. 43, L, 13. - muktaphalaksamala ... | muktaphalanyeva aksah tesam mala | Here the and are respectively compared to a blooming sua lotus (vikasi padma ) and 's pencil of moon's rays ' (sasidyotacchata ). When bhagavan began to look at Parvati he saw the and H. The combined beauty of them was so exquisite that he could not find a fit comparison for it in all the existing things of the world. Hence he had to fancy a combination of vikasipadma and sasidyotacchata, not found in the existing world, to be the fit upamana for kara and mala . [ padma is a sun lotus and is closed during the night. Thus the rays of the moon falling on a sun-lotus is an utter impossibility in the world.] This sambhavyamanarthanibandhana is the

Notes. 81 same as of Mammata. Mammata gives the example-rakayamakalankam cedamrtasorbhavedvapuh | tasya mukham tada samyaparabhavama- vapnuyat || ka . pra . 10 . p. 632. As regards Udbhata has improved a great deal upon Bhamaha. No doubt he has taken the definition of almost verbatim from him as he does many a time when he thinks that Bhamaha's definition is correct and fit to be adopted. Yet Bhamaha and Dandin have made no attempt to divide the figure into classes and their ideas about the figure seem to be somewhat general and inexact. Udbhata has not only attempted classification but has succeeded a great deal in making distinct divisions of the figure, which have become the bases of the treatment of later. authors like Mammata; who have treated the figure very much in the same manner as Udbhata. It will be noticed, however, that Mammata does not give any definition as such off. He only describes the four varieties of atisayokti one after another, beginning with nigiryadhyavasana . (See his Karikas on quoted above on p. 79.). The nigiryadhyavasana is the only feature of atisayokti mentioned by modern Rhetoricians which is not noticed by Udbhata. nigiryadhyavasana is establishing the upamana by submerging the upameya altogether'. Take the example ayurevedam and ayurdhrtam . ' This is life itself' becomes the nigiryadhyavasana, for the upameya which is a is totally enveloped by or submerged in the ghrta 'ghee is life' there is only a charge made of 'life' upon. This first constitutes a variety nigiryavyavasana of an according to Mammata and others. The variety bhede ananyatvam of Uabhata is not the same as this nigiryavyavasana . The bheda need not be between the upamana and upameya ; it may be between two attributes even, such as and as set forth in the example tapastejahsphuritaya etc. Thus although the nigiryadhyavasana variety of Mammata is not to be found among the varieties put forth by Udbhata, all other varieties of e given by Mammata are the same as those propounded by Udbhata. The wording of Mammata is naturally more neat and concise but that does not conceal his indebtedness to Udbhata which is so largely apparent. in his work. upamana . But 11 [X.s.s.]

It is very interesting to see through the works of all alankara writers the development going on in the ideas about. The first writer Bhamaha has only the vague definition-nimittato yattu vaco lokatikrantagocaram . Udbhata, coming after him, first classifies the figure into the four divisions which are accepted, in one form or another, by all Alankarikas coming after him. But Udbhata's classification still lacked the definite mention of nigiryadhyavasana . This important variety which is based on (similitude) is first included by Mammata among the divisions of atisayokti . But later on the idea of adhyavasaya ( identification ) was generalised. It was not regarded as being restricted to upamanopameyabhava, but any particular thing established in the place of another thing for some reason or other came to be called. Thus the establishment of in the place of abheda, of abheda in the place of bheda, the assertion of & sambandha as subsisting between two things where no really exists, the paurvaparyaviparyaya of karya and karana, were all regarded as different species of the genus adhyavasaya . The sphere of adhyavasaya being thus widened and made to include all the varieties of atisayokti, the figure atisayokti itself was defined in terms of avyavasaya . siddha or complete adhyavasaya was regarded as constituting atisayokti and sadhya adhyavasaya or 'avyavasaya in the process of making' was called. This stage of development we see reached in of Ruyyaka who came a little after Mammata. Ruyyaka's definition is- pradhanye khatisayoktihh . Visvanatha, (14 th. cent.) author of . , follows upon the footsteps of Ruyyaka. A still further stage in the development of ideas about is depicted in the rasagangadhara of jagannatha ( middle of 17 th century ). He defines atisayokti as - visayina visayasya nigaranamatisayah, tasyoktih . He does away with the term and substitutes the word in its place. By doing so he does not bring in any new idea into the definition. He describes atisaya as visayina visayasya nigaranam which is practically the same as the adhyavasaya of alamkarasarvasva and others. He also includes all the varieties-bhede ananyatvam, abhede nanatvam, sambandhe'pyasambandhah etc. under his atisaya . Thus his atisaya is the same as the all-comprebending of Ruyyaka and others. But by adopting

Notes. 83 the term he is able to show the propriety of the name atisayokti by giving, by the way, its nirvacana which no other author before him had thought of doing. passed We have thus seen that the figure through various stages of development. First the crude definition of Bhamaha, then the careful delineation of the four divisions bhede'nanyatvam, abhede nanatvam, sambandhe'pyasambandhah and karyakaranayoh a of Udbhata; to these four Mammata adds the all important division. After Mammata the idea of is made still more comprehensive and predominant so that fan itself came to be defined in terms of adhyavasana . Lastly the word atisaya is substituted for adhyavasana and thus an explanation is given of the name atisayokti . The foregoing analysis is restricted to the line of authors who are Kashmirians or who generally follow the Kashmirian trend of thought. But even amongst such authors there will be found some who do not fall in line with the development we have traced above. Thus Hemachandra, author of who came after Mammata, defines atisayokti thus - visesavivaksaya bhedabhedayogayogavya- syayo'tisayoktih | - kavyanusasana P. 264. Here, although ho men tions the general varieties such as bhede'pyabhedah, abhede'pi bhedah, sambandhe'pyasambandhah etc., he omits to mention nigiryadhyavasana . It cannot be said in his case, as it can be said in the case of Udbhata, that he was not aware of for that he did not accept it as a type of atisayokti . For, he includes nigiryadhyavasana unders: and gives its examples under that variety. His omission thus seems to be intentional. nigiryadhyavasana 1