Alamkaras mentioned by Vamana
by Pratim Bhattacharya | 2016 | 65,462 words
This page relates 鈥楧efinition of Tulyayogita Alamkara鈥� of the study on Alamkaras (鈥榝igure of speech鈥�) mentioned by Vamana in his Kavyalankara-sutra Vritti, a treatise dealing with the ancient Indian science of Rhetoric and Poetic elements. Vamana flourished in the 8th century and defined thirty-one varieties of Alamkara (lit. 鈥渁nything which beautifies a Kavya or poetic composition鈥�)
Go directly to: Footnotes.
25: Definition of 罢耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 础濒补峁僰腻谤补
罢耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 is a well -known figure of speech in Sanskrit Poetics.
叠丑腻尘补丑补 is the first rhetorician to define and illustrate 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻. He defines the figure as鈥�
ny奴nasy膩pi vi艣i峁ａ弓ena gu峁嘺s膩myavivak峁y膩/
tulyak膩ryakriy膩yog膩dityukt膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补 (of 叠丑腻尘补丑补) 3.27.
鈥擳his definition of the figure corresponds to the definition of the figure 诲墨辫补办补 furnished by Mamma峁�, 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补 etc[1] .
The definition put forth by 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 is also quite dissimilar from some of the popular definitions of the figure鈥�
vivak峁tagu峁噊tk峁涐梗峁璦iryatsam墨k峁泃ya kasyacit/
办墨谤迟补苍补峁� stutinind膩rtha峁� s膩mat膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� K膩vy膩dar艣a (of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍) 2.330.
鈥擜ccording to 顿补峁囜笉颈苍, in 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 a statement is made about a thing in order to make it equal with things possessing similar qualities. This statement is made for the sake of praising or blaming that thing. Bhoja is the only later rhetorician to support such a treatment of the figure.
He gives an identical definition of the figure with that of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 and also adds鈥�
anye sukhanimitte ca du岣hahetau ca vastuni/
stutinind膩rthamev膩hustulyatve 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻m//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨-办补峁囜弓丑腻产丑补谤补峁嘺 (of Bhoja) 4.55.
痴腻尘补苍补 also gives a peculiar definition of the figure鈥�
vi艣i峁ａ弓ena s膩my膩rthamekak膩lakriy膩yogas迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴trav峁泃ti (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.26.鈥擶hen, for the purpose of showing similarity with a superior person or thing, the mentioned person or thing is provided with the same action at the same time, the figure is called 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻.
According to 痴腻尘补苍补, 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 indicates a connection between the 耻辫补尘腻苍补 and the upameya with the help of an action. The purpose of this figure is to compare the upameya with the superior 耻辫补尘腻苍补 by mentioning a common action happening at the same time between the upameya and the 耻辫补尘腻苍补.
The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator clarifies this feature of the figure as鈥�
vi艣i峁ａ弓ena gu峁嚹乨hikenopam膩neneti 测腻惫补迟 / arth膩datra ny奴nasyetyanenopameyasyetyavagamyate/ eka岣� k膩lo yasy膩岣� s膩ekak膩l膩tasy膩峁� kriy膩y膩峁� 蝉腻尘补谤迟丑测补峁� yo 测辞驳补岣� s膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 /
鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴trav峁泃ti (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.26.
痴腻尘补苍补 illustrates the figure as鈥�
箩补濒补苍颈诲丑颈谤补蝉补苍腻尘颈尘腻峁� 诲丑补谤颈迟谤墨峁� vahati bhuja峁単avibhurbhavadbhuja艣ca/
鈥�碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴trav峁泃ti (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.26.鈥�(翱丑 king!), this whole world surrounded by the ocean is being shouldered by the Lord of Serpents as well as your arm.
鈥擧ere the arm of the king is compared with the Lord of the Serpents. The common action which is performed at the same time by the king鈥檚 arm and the Lord of the Serpents is sustaining the burden of the earth. The purpose of the speaker is to indicate the equality of the king鈥檚 greatness with that of the Lord of the Serpents. Thus, the figure 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 is formed here.
鲍诲产丑补峁璦 is the first rhetorician to furnish the definition of 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 which later became the foundation-stone of the conventional definitions of the figure鈥�
耻辫补尘腻苍辞辫补尘别测辞办迟颈艣奴苍测补颈谤补辫谤补蝉迟耻迟补颈谤惫补肠补岣�/
s膩my膩bhidh膩yiprast膩vabh膩gbhirv膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s膩rasa峁僩raha (of Udbha峁�) 5.7.鈥擳he expression which conveys similarity between things that are all aprastuta or all prastuta is called 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻.
There is no scope of 鈥�耻辫补尘腻苍辞辫补尘别测补产丑腻惫补鈥� in the figure because in 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 the things between which similarity is expressed are either all aprastuta or all prastuta.
Two varieties of 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 naturally arise from Udbha峁佲�檚 doctrine鈥�
- the first one where all the things mentioned are aprastuta and
- the second one where all the things described are prastuta.
This concept of 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 is very much different from that of 叠丑腻尘补丑补, Da峁嘾in and 痴腻尘补苍补. Moreover, it is quite opposite to that of 痴腻尘补苍补 as he trie s to impart 鈥�耻辫补尘腻苍辞辫补尘别测补产丑腻惫补鈥� as an essential feature of the figure.
惭补尘尘补峁璦 defines the figure as鈥�
niyat膩n膩峁� sak峁沝dharma岣� s膩punas迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 (of 惭补尘尘补峁璦) 10.104.
鈥擳his definition is quite similar to Udbha峁乥ut Mamma峁乤dds that only one 鈥�蝉腻诲丑腻谤补峁嘺 dharma鈥� or common quality of the things which are similar must be stated in 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻.
The 鈥�叠腻濒补产辞诲丑颈苍墨鈥� commentator tries to justify this definition of 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 by analyzing the name of the figure鈥�
tulya艣c膩sau 测辞驳补岣� sambandha艣ca anva ya艣ca tulya测辞驳补岣� ekadharm膩nvaya岣� ityartha岣� soasti ye峁Ｄ佱箖 te tulyayogina岣� te峁Ｄ佱箖 bh膩vastulyayogiteti vyutpattiriti vodhyam/
鈥�叠腻濒补产辞诲丑颈苍墨, 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 (of 惭补尘尘补峁璦) 10.104.
鈥擧e also quotes 鈥�础濒补峁僰腻谤补-诲墨辫颈办腻鈥� of 膧艣腻诲丑补谤补, a commentary on Appayya D墨k峁ta鈥檚 鈥�碍耻惫补濒补测腻苍补苍诲补办腻谤颈办腻鈥�, in his support[2] .
惭补尘尘补峁璦, like Udbha峁�, furnishes two varieties of the figure鈥攐ne which indicates similarity between the 辫谤腻办补谤补峁噄办补 or prastuta objects and the other between the a辫谤腻办补谤补峁噄办补 or aprastuta objects.
Ruyyaka follows Udbha峁乤nd Mamma峁乮n the treatment of the figure and also points out that in the figure 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 the sense of similitude is always suggested鈥�
aupamyasya gamyate pad膩rthagatatvena prastut膩n膩maprastut膩n膩峁� v膩
sam膩nadharm膩bhisambandhe 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 础濒补峁僰腻谤补sarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-70.
鈥擧e also clarifies that this similarity related to a single attribute between the objects should be mentioned in the form of a common action or quality鈥�
tatra pr膩kara峁噄k膩n膩mapr膩kara峁噄k膩n膩峁� v膩sam膩nagu峁嘺kriy膩sa峁僢andhe anvit膩rth膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻/
鈥� 础濒补峁僰腻谤补sarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-70.
鈥擱uyyaka divides 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 into four types on the basis of this theory鈥�
- Where all mentioned objects are 辫谤腻办补谤补峁噄办补 and the similarity is based on a common action.
- Where all mentioned objects are 辫谤腻办补谤补峁噄办补 and the similarity is based on a common quality.
- Where all mentioned objects are a辫谤腻办补谤补峁噄办补 and the similarity is based on a common action.
- Where all mentioned objects are a辫谤腻办补谤补峁噄办补 and the similarity is based on a common quality.
Kuntaka, Hemacandra and V膩gbha峁両I have not admitted 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻.
痴腻驳产丑补峁璦 I furnishes a definition of the figure which is very much similar to that of 痴腻尘补苍补鈥�
耻辫补尘别测补峁� sam墨kartumupam膩nena yojyate/
tulyaikak膩lakriyay膩yatra s膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� VKL. 4.88.
鈥擳hough V膩gbha峁両 does not clearly state that the purpose of the figure is to compare the upameya with a superior 耻辫补尘腻苍补 as advocated by 痴腻尘补苍补, his illustration of the figure supports 痴腻尘补苍补鈥檚 doctrine distinctly[3] .
The definitions furnished by Jayadeva[4] , 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补[5] , 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补[6] , 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补[7] , 碍补惫颈办补谤峁嘺辫奴谤补[8] and 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补[9] contain the conventional features of the figure mentioned by Udbha峁�, 惭补尘尘补峁璦, Ruyyaka.
Appayya D墨k峁Ｄ玹a, in his 鈥�碍耻惫补濒补测腻苍补苍诲补鈥�, has put forth three kinds of 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻. In the first type only the similarity of attribute (dharmaikyam) of the objects on hand (prastuta) or of objects not on hand (aprastuta) is mentioned鈥�
var峁噛膩n膩mitare峁Ｄ佱箖 v膩dharmaikya峁� 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 碍耻惫补濒补测腻苍补苍诲补 (of Appayyad墨k峁Ｄ玹a) 43.
鈥擨n the second type the similarity of the behavior towards a friend and an enemy is described鈥�
hit膩hite v峁泃titaulyamapar膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 碍耻惫补濒补测腻苍补苍诲补 (of Appayyad墨k峁Ｄ玹a) 45.
鈥擨n the third type of 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 an object is described equal with those possessed by superior qualities鈥�
gu峁噊tk峁涐梗峁璦i岣� sam墨k峁泃ya vaco'ny膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 碍耻惫补濒补测腻苍补苍诲补 (of Appayyad墨k峁Ｄ玹a) 46.
鈥擨t is clear from the definitions that the first type of 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 matches the common concept of the figure promoted by Udbha峁�, 惭补尘尘补峁璦 etc. The third type is a specific match to 痴腻尘补苍补鈥檚 definition. The second type is quite unique in itself.
From the various doctrines of Sanskrit rhetoricians about the figure 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 it can be concluded that there is more than one conception of the figure amongst the rhetoricians. 鲍诲产丑补峁璦, 惭补尘尘补峁璦, Ruyyaka, 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补 etc have furnished a conventional and popular concept of the figure. On the other hand 叠丑腻尘补丑补, 顿补峁囜笉颈苍, 痴腻尘补苍补 etc have provided some unusual and remarkable features of the figure.
The common attributes of the figure are as follows鈥�
i) In 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 the similarity between the prastuta objects or the aprastuta objects is indicated by one common attribute.
ii) This common attribute could be one common action or one common quality.
iii) The similarity in 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻 is suggested.
痴腻尘补苍补鈥檚 treatment of the figure adds certain criteria to it which are remarkable from its conventional conception. The special feature advocated by 痴腻尘补苍补 for the figure enhances its charm and makes it more distinguished among the figures based on similarity.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
[2]:
tulyayogitetvanvartheya峁� sa峁� j帽膩/ tath膩c膩hu岣� kuvalay膩nandak膩rik膩vy膩khy膩y膩m膩艣膩dharabha峁弓膩岣� 鈥渢uly膩yogit膩anvaya yatreti vyutpatte岣�'iti/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�叠腻濒补产辞诲丑颈苍墨, 碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 (of 惭补尘尘补峁璦) 10.104.
[3]:
tamas膩lupyam膩n膩n膩峁� lokeasmin s膩dhuvartman膩m/
辫谤补办腻艣补n膩ya prabhut膩m膩nostava ca d峁浥泍ate//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� VKL. 4.89.
[4]:
kriy膩dibhiranekasya tulyat膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 颁补苍诲谤腻濒辞办补 (of Jayadeva) 5.46.
[5]:
aupamyagamyat膩y膩峁� prak峁泃膩n膩峁� tulyadharmasa峁僢andhe/
aprak峁泃膩n膩mathav膩caturvidh膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻j帽ey膩//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 贰办腻惫补濒墨 (of 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补) 8.14.
[6]:
[7]:
pad膩rth膩n膩峁� prastut膩n膩mnye峁Ｄ佱箖 v膩yad膩bhavet/
ekadharm膩bhisambandha岣� sy膩ttad膩迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 厂腻丑颈迟测补-诲补谤辫补峁嘺 (of 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补) 10.46.
[8]:
prak峁泃膩n膩帽caikadoktirucyate 迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� 础濒补峁僰腻谤补-kaustubha (of Kavikar峁嚹乸奴ra) 8.266.
[9]:
prak峁泃膩n膩mev膩prak峁泃膩n膩meva v膩gu峁嘺kriy膩dir奴paikadharm膩- nvayas迟耻濒测补测辞驳颈迟腻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥� Rasa-驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 (of 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补) Chapter-II, p-317.