Alamkaras mentioned by Vamana
by Pratim Bhattacharya | 2016 | 65,462 words
This page relates 鈥楧efinition of Samsrishti 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.
29: Definition of 厂补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 Ala峁僰膩ra
痴腻尘补苍补, after dealing with the individual figures of sense, finally proceeds to a figure which arises from the commixture of two or more figures. He designates the term 鈥�蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱鈥� to this conglomeration of figures.
厂补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 along with 蝉补峁僰补谤补 are the two common and popular figures which are created from the combination of figures. 叠丑腻尘补丑补, 顿补峁囜笉颈苍, 痴腻尘补苍补 and Bhoja have only accepted 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 while Rudra峁�, Hemacandra and the two 痴腻驳产丑补峁璦蝉 have only recognised 蝉补峁僰补谤补. Later rhetoricians like Mamma峁�, Ruyyaka and 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 have accepted both these two figures and they have also clearly differentiated between the two figures. 鲍诲产丑补峁璦 is the first rhetorician to recognise both these two figures but his distinction between the two figures is different from later writers like Mamma峁�. He regards the independent commixture of figures based on word and sense (艣补产诲腻濒补峁僰腻谤补 and 补谤迟丑腻濒补峁僰腻谤补) as a variety of 蝉补峁僰补谤补 while Mamma峁乧onsiders it to be a variety of 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱.
Later rhetoricians have put forth two popular maxims to describe the nature of the two figures 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 and 蝉补峁僰补谤补. When the relation between the combining figures is independent and they can be easily recognised and differentiated in the commixture, the figure is called 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱. This type of combination of figures is like the mixture of rice and sesame (迟颈濒补迟补峁囜笉耻濒补苍测腻测补) which can be separately recognised at ease even if they are in a conglomeration. If the relation between the combining figures is mutually inter-dependent and their individual identity is not distinct or evident, the figure is called 蝉补峁僰补谤补. This combination of figures is like the mixture of milk and water (办峁Ｄ玶补苍墨谤补苍测腻测补) in which the individual identity of the components are impossible to recognise separately. Bhoja (厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨-办补峁囜弓丑腻产丑补谤补峁嘺 4.87-89.), Ruyyaka (Ala峁僰膩rasarvasva p-192.), 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补 (贰办腻惫补濒墨 8.76.) and 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补 (Prat膩parudraya艣obh奴峁峁嘺 Chapter-VIII, p-472.) have included the maxim 鈥�迟颈濒补迟补峁囜笉耻濒补苍测腻测补鈥� in their definition of the figure 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱. The feature 鈥�苍颈谤补辫别办峁迟腻鈥� or the mutual independent nature of the combining figures involved in 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 has been mentioned in the definitions of the figure furnished by Udbha峁� (碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s膩rasa峁僩raha 6.5.), 惭补尘尘补峁璦 (碍腻惫测补-辫谤补办腻艣补 10.207.), 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 (厂腻丑颈迟测补-诲补谤辫补峁嘺 10. 97.) etc.
Ruyyaka has justified the claim of 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 (or even 蝉补峁僰补谤补) as a separate figure. According to him, the combination of figures in 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 renders an additional charm to a poetic combination just like the wearing of multiple ornaments brings out an additional tinge of beauty to a lady[1] . 叠丑腻尘补丑补 has also asserted the beauty of the figure 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱.
He regards it as superior among figures because beautiful and striking figures are stringed together in it just like a necklace studded with gems鈥�
var膩vibh奴峁Ｄ伈醪贯箖s峁涐梗峁璱rbahvala峁卥膩rayogata岣�/
racit膩ratnam膩leva s膩caivamudit膩yath膩//
&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) 3.49.
顿补峁囜笉颈苍 (K膩vy膩dar艣a 2.359.) designates 鈥�ala峁卥膩ra蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱鈥� as 鈥�蝉补峁卥墨谤峁嘺鈥�. He observes that the fusion of figures can be accomplished in two modes鈥攂y 鈥�补峁単腻峁単颈产丑腻惫腻惫补蝉迟丑补苍补鈥� (in a preponderating relationship) and by 鈥�sarve峁Ｄ佱箖 samakak峁t膩鈥� (in a coordinating relationship). Later rhetoricians like Mamma峁�, Ruyyaka, 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补 etc. have furnished three basic types of the figure 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 depending upon the nature of figures involved in the fusion.
They are鈥�
i) When all the combining figures are 艣补产诲腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s, it is called 艣补产诲腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱.
ii) When all the combining figures are 补谤迟丑腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s, it is called 补谤迟丑腻濒补峁僰腻谤补蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱.
iii) When the figures involved in commixture are both 艣补产诲腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s and 补谤迟丑腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s, the figure is called ubhaya蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱.
痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补 furnishes two basic varieties of the figure鈥�
- saj膩t墨ya蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 (combination of figures of the same sort) and
- vij膩t墨ya蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 (commixture of figures of different types).
痴腻尘补苍补 defines 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 as the general combination of figures鈥�
ala峁卥膩rasy膩la峁卥膩rayonitva峁� 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯灞共饽灞舨贯箖k腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.30.
According to him, the word 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 means relation or conjunction鈥�
蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱岣� 蝉补峁僺补谤驳补岣� sambandha iti/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯灞共饽灞舨贯箖k腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.30. 惫峁泃迟颈.
The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator adds that the relation of figures bound by the rule of cause and effect is called 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱鈥�
办腻谤测补办腻谤补峁嘺产丑腻惫腻辫补苍苍补测辞谤补濒补峁僰腻谤补测辞岣� 蝉补尘产补苍诲丑补岣� 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱rityartha岣� /
鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.30.
痴腻尘补苍补 gives a two-fold classification of the figure鈥�
迟补诲产丑别诲腻惫耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办辞迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补耻/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯灞共饽灞舨贯箖k腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.31.鈥�鲍辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 and 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补 are the divisions of 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱.
He first defines 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 补蝉鈥�
耻辫补尘腻janya峁� 谤奴辫补办补m耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补m/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯灞共饽灞舨贯箖k腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.32.
He illustrates 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 with the following verse鈥�
niravadhi ca 苍颈谤腻艣谤补测补峁� ca yasya sthitamanivartitakautukaprapa帽cam/
prathama iha bhav膩n sa 办奴谤尘补尘奴谤迟颈rjayati 肠补迟耻谤诲补艣补濒辞办补惫补濒濒颈办补苍诲补岣�//鈥�(Oh Lord!) The endless, independent and magnificent world is resting upon you. You are one and like the Tortoise-incarnation being the root of the creeperlike fourteen worlds.
Here the 谤奴辫补办补 is present in the word 鈥�肠补迟耻谤诲补艣补濒辞办补惫补濒濒颈办补苍诲补岣�鈥� and it is based upon 耻辫补尘腻 present in the root of the verse. The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator raises an argument in this context. According to him, this verse can be considered by someone as a case of 谤奴辫补办补janya谤奴辫补办补 or paramparita谤奴辫补办补 because the imposition of 鈥�kandatva鈥� on the 鈥�办奴谤尘补尘奴谤迟颈鈥� is the reason for further imposition of 鈥�vallitva鈥� on the 鈥�lokas鈥�. The commentator refutes this possibility by admitting 耻辫补尘颈迟补办补谤尘补诲丑腻谤补测补蝉补尘腻蝉补 in the word 鈥�濒辞办补惫补濒濒颈岣�鈥�. He thus shows the 鈥�耻辫补尘腻janyatva鈥� of the 谤奴辫补办补 in the verse.
痴腻尘补苍补 gives another example of 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 补蝉鈥�
谤补箩补苍墨辫耻谤补苍诲丑谤颈濒辞诲丑谤补迟颈濒补办补岣� (艣补艣墨)/
鈥擳丑别 moon is like a sectarian mark painted on the forehead of the nightwoman.
鲍辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 has been treated as a separate individual figure by 叠丑腻尘补丑补. He defines the figure 补蝉鈥�
耻辫补尘腻nena tadbh膩vamupameyasya s膩dhayan/
y膩峁� vadaty耻辫补尘腻metad耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补峁� yath膩//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯灞共饽灞舨贯箖k腻谤补 (of 叠丑腻尘补丑补) 3.35.鈥擨f a description of similarity is made by assuming the identity of the upameya with the 耻辫补尘腻na, the figure is called 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补. The full force of 谤奴辫补办补 in 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 is not felt as it is hindered by an 耻辫补尘腻 which prevails in the background.
顿补峁囜笉颈苍 is the only other rhetorician who treats the figure. He, however, does not consider it as an individual distinct figure but rather recognizes it as a sub-variety of 谤奴辫补办补[2] . He regards 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 as a 谤奴辫补办补 which states similarity between the principal and the secondary objects. This concept of the figure is very much different from that of 叠丑腻尘补丑补. But it has a certain proximity to the idea of the figure put forth by 痴腻尘补苍补. The basic area of difference between the concepts of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍 and 痴腻尘补苍补 is that in 顿补峁囜笉颈苍鈥檚 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 the 谤奴辫补办补 which exists earlier than the 耻辫补尘腻 actually brings out an idea of similarity whereas in 痴腻尘补苍补鈥檚 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 the 耻辫补尘腻 pr-eexists 谤奴辫补办补 and it is the cause for the super-imposition involved in the figure.
痴腻尘补苍补 defines 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补 补蝉鈥�
耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乭etur耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯灞共饽灞舨贯箖k腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.33.鈥擳丑别 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补 is the root of the figure 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� i.e. if a figure of speech serves as the root cause for the introduction of the figure 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� in a verse, the figure is called 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补.
The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator remarks that the term 鈥�avayava鈥� used to designate the figure means 鈥�腻谤补尘产丑补办补鈥� or 鈥�hetu鈥� (cause)[3] . 痴腻尘补苍补 illustrates the figure 补蝉鈥�
补峁単耻濒墨产丑颈谤颈惫补 ke艣asa帽caya峁� sannig峁沨ya 迟颈尘颈谤补峁� 尘补谤墨肠颈产丑颈岣�/
ku岣峬al墨k峁泃asarojalocana峁� cumbat墨va 谤补箩补苍墨尘耻办丑补峁� 艣补艣墨//鈥擜fter having grabbed (removed) the hair-like darkness of the night-lady by his finger-like beams, the moon kisses the night-lady who has blooming lotuslike eyes.
Here the figure 艣濒别峁 which is instigated by 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 form the root cause of the 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� present in the verse. The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator thus asserts鈥�
atropam膩r奴pak膩nupr膩峁噄tasya 艣濒别峁sya utprek峁pap膩dakatv膩d耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补tvam /
鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.33.
叠丑腻尘补丑补 has also recommended the use of the figures 艣濒别峁, 谤奴辫补办补 and 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ� in an 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补鈥�
艣濒颈峁ａ弓补蝉测腻谤迟丑别苍补 蝉补峁儁耻办迟补岣� 办颈峁僣颈诲耻迟辫谤别办峁测腻苍惫颈迟补岣�/
r奴pak膩rthena ca punar耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿ayavo yath膩//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯灞共饽灞舨贯箖k腻谤补 (of 叠丑腻尘补丑补) 3.47.
顿补峁囜笉颈苍 (K膩vy膩dar艣a 2.358.) has only mentioned this figure and he observes that this figure can be easily included under a regular figure like 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�. Bhoja (厂补谤补蝉惫补迟墨-ka峁囜弓h膩bhara峁嘺 4.51.) has incorporated the figure under the broad sphere of 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ�. He also cites the same example verse of the figure put forth by 痴腻尘补苍补. According to him, in the example verse the kissing of the face is the primary action and the grabbing of the hair etc. are all secondary actions. When the primary action incites the secondary actions to create poetic fancy, the figure is called 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补. Bhoja, however, states that there is a different school of thought which considers that when the secondary actions instigate the poetic fancy of the primary action, the figure is called 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补[4] . The followers of this school of thought reject the verse 鈥�补峁単耻濒墨产丑颈谤颈惫补鈥� etc. as an instance of the figure 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补.
It is clear from the above discussion that the concept of 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 advocated by 痴腻尘补苍补 is unique in Sanskrit Poetics. He recognises the 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 only as a commixture of 补谤迟丑腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s which naturally limits the scope of the figure. Again, by admitting 耻辫补尘腻谤奴辫补办补 and 耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补 as two basic varieties of the figure he indicates that the figures which are spontaneously created by the fusion of figures and are designated likewise can only be regarded as variants of 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱. Thus he discards all other cases of commixture of figures which can be anonymously formed by combining various figures of both word and sense. These combinations are considered as either 蝉补峁僺峁涐梗峁璱 or 蝉补峁僰补谤补 by later rhetoricians depending upon the nature of their conjunction.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
[2]:
颈峁ａ弓补峁� s膩dharmyavaidharmyadar艣an膩d gau峁嘺mukhyayo岣�/
耻辫补尘腻vyatirek膩khya峁� 谤奴辫补办补dvitaya峁� yath膩//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擪膩vy膩dar艣a (of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍) 2.88.
[3]:
avayava 膩rambhako heturityartha岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻, 碍腻惫测腻濒补峁僰腻谤补s奴tra惫峁泃迟颈 (of 痴腻尘补苍补) 4.3.33.
[4]:
anye punaryatra pradh膩nakriy膩notprek峁ate, avayavakriy膩t奴tprek峁ate tam耻迟辫谤别办峁Ｄ乿补测补惫补峁� var峁嘺yanti/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敵Р拱共醣共钩倌�-办补峁囜弓丑腻产丑补谤补峁嘺 (of Bhoja) 4.51. 惫峁泃迟颈.