365bet

Alamkaras mentioned by Vamana

by Pratim Bhattacharya | 2016 | 65,462 words

This page relates ‘Definition of Dipaka Alamkara� of the study on Alamkaras (‘figure of speech�) 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. “anything which beautifies a Kavya or poetic composition�)

Go directly to: Footnotes.

18: Definition of ī貹첹 Alaṃkāra

ī貹첹 is an ancient figure and is first mentioned by Bharata in his ṭyśٰ.

Bharata defines the figure �

nānādhikaraṇasthānā� śabdānā� saṃpradīpana�/
ekavākyena saṃyogo yastadī貹첹mucyate//

&Բ;&Բ;—ṭyśٰ (of Bharata) 17.96.

—The combination of words relating to different topics in a single sentence for their mutual illumination is called ī貹첹.

This definition also highlights the etymological significance of the name ī貹첹 (light or illuminator).

justifies the name ī貹첹 by considering the figure as an illuminator of meaning�

amūni kurvate'nvarthāmasyākhyāmarthadīpanāt/
&Բ;&Բ;�屹ṃk (of 峾) 2.26.

Բٳ has also thrown light on the implication of the name ī貹첹 given to the figure�

ṛtٳ󲹳ܱٳٴ 󲹰� prasaṅgādaṛtmapi dīpayati śyati sundarīkarotīti ī貹첹m / yadvādīpa iva ī貹첹m / saṃjñāyā� kan / dīpasādṛśya� ca prakṛtāṛtśkatvena vodhyam /
  �Rasa-ṅg󲹰 (of Բٳ) Chapter-II, p-

Ruyyaka also explains the word ī貹첹

첹ṇi첹ṇi첹ǰ첹ٰ Ծ徱ṣṭ� samāno 󲹰� prasaṅgenānyatropakārāddīpanāddipasādṛśyena dīpakākhyālaṃkārotthāpaka� /
&Բ;&Բ;—Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) pp-71-72.

These rhetoricians hold the view that in ī貹첹 one common property present in the sentence throws light upon both the ṛt or 첹ṇi첹 (contextual) and the aṛt or a첹ṇi첹 (non-contextual) objects. This common property in the figure ī貹첹 acts like a lamp which if placed anywhere in a dark room illuminates the room entirely.

峾 is the next rhetorician after Bharata who treats the figure. His definition of the figure is based on its classification�

adimadhyāntaviṣaya� ٰī貹첹miṣyate/
ekasyaiva vyavasthatv徱ti tadbhidyate ٰ//

&Բ;&Բ;—屹ṃk (of 峾) 2.25.

ī貹첹 is of three kinds referring to the beginning, the middle and the end. This three-fold classification is done because in this figure only one thing (common property) can occur in three places.

These three varieties of ī貹첹 (徱ī貹첹, madhyaī貹첹 and antaī貹첹) have been also accepted by ṭa, 峾Բ and 岵ṭa I[1] .

ṭa improves on 峾 in defining ī貹첹

徱madhyāntaviṣayā� prādhānyetarayogina�/
antargatopamādharmāyatra tadī貹첹� vidu�//

&Բ;&Բ;—屹ṃksārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭ�) 1.14.

—I ī貹첹, the properties belonging to the ṛt and the aṛt who have a sense of similarity implied in them are mentioned in the beginning, the middle or the end of a poetic composition.

The commentator Indurāja clarifies that in ī貹첹, the properties of the ṛt and the aṛt should be stated only once. If these properties are repeatedly mentioned, they give rise to the figure پū貹[2] . He also explains the definition of Udbhaṭāin the light of the etymological meaning of the word ī貹첹[3] .

ٲṇḍ defines the figure �

پ岵ṇaⲹ峦Բ첹ٰپ/
sarvavākyopacāraścet tamāhurī貹첹� ⲹٳ//

&Բ;&Բ;—Kāvyādarśa (of ٲṇḍ) 2.97.

—If a word indicating پ (genus), (action), ṇa (quality) or dravya (subject-matter) and remaining in one place of a sentence, goes on to help (to understand the meaning of) the entire sentence, the figure thus formed is called ī貹첹.

This definition clearly points out four primary varieties of the figure�

  1. پī貹첹,
  2. ī貹첹,
  3. ṇaī貹첹 and
  4. dravyaī貹첹.

These four varieties are each sub-divided into, madhya and anta variants depending on the position of the common word.

ٲṇḍ also illustrates four more varieties of the figure called:

  1. mālāī貹첹,
  2. viruddhārthaī貹첹,
  3. ekārthaī貹첹 and
  4. śliṣṭārthaī貹첹.

He states that many more such varieties of the figure can be enumerated by the wise[4] .

Bhoja almost follows ٲṇḍ in verbatim while defining the figure ī貹첹[5] . He admits the primary divisions of the figure admitted by ٲṇḍ. He also furnishes some interesting variants of the figure which are not found in ٲṇḍ’s treatment of ī貹첹[6] . 岵ṭa II seems to borrow from both ٲṇḍ and Bhoja in his treatment of the figure[7] . ܻṭa (屹ⲹlaṃkāra (of Rudraṭ�) 7.64-65.) has admitted six varieties of the figure which includes ī貹첹 and 첹ī貹첹 as the basic variants and , madhya and anta as sub-varieties of each of them.

峾Բ seems to admit only ī貹첹 out of the three primary varieties mentioned by ٲṇḍ. He defines the figure ī貹첹

upamānopameyavākyeṣvekāī貹첹m/
&Բ;&Բ;—屹ṃksūtraṛtپ (of 峾Բ) 4.3.18.

—If a single verb is common to the sentences bearing the ܱ貹Բ and the upameya, the figure is called ī貹첹.

In the following ṛtپ this definition gets more clarified�

ܱ貹Բvākyeṣūpameyavākyeṣu caikāanuṣaṅgata� sambaddhamānā ī貹첹m/
&Բ;&Բ;—屹ṃksūtraṛtپ (of 峾Բ) 4.3.18. ṛtپ.

In ī貹첹, the single verb which is common to both the ܱ貹ⲹⲹ and the ܱ貹Բⲹ helps in the comprehension of the relation between the two sentences.

The 峾Գ commentator, like Indurāja, mentions that this common verb should be stated only once to constitute the figure ī貹첹[8] . Later on Ѳṭa adds this feature in the very definition of the figure[9] .

峾Բ follows the path of his predecessors in classifying the figure ī貹첹 into , madhya and anta variants depending on the position of the common verb�

tattrividhyam, 徱madhyāntaⲹṛtپbhedāt/
&Բ;&Բ;—屹ṃksūtraṛtپ (of 峾Բ) 4.3.19.

The illustrations of these three varieties are as follows�

i) Ādiī貹첹

ūṣyԳٱ pamadavanāni bālapuṣpai� kāminyo madhumadamāṃsalairvilāsai�/
brahmāṇa� śrutigaditai� kalāpai� rājāno viralitavairibhi� pratāpai�//

—Adorned are the palatial gardens with young flowers, ladies with beautiful graces rendered by the pleasures of spring, the Brahmins with the performance of duties endorsed by the Vedas and the kings with their valour capable of destroying the enemies.

Here the common verb is �ūṣyԳٱ� and it is placed in the beginning () of the verse.

ii) Madhyaī貹첹

ṣp� 貹ٳ󾱰첹Գ� Ჹ� jalamucā� muhu�/
vigalatyadhunādaṇḍayātrodhyogo mahībhujām//

—The tears of the wives of travellers, the rain from the clouds and the war expedition of the King are now continuously falling off.

Here the common verb is �vigalati� and it is situated in the middle (madhya) of the verse. This verb implies for ‘dropping� in the cases of tears and rain whereas it means ‘falling apart� in case of the expedition of the King[10] .

iii) Antaī貹첹

ܰśśṣa屹峾ܲṣṭ峾ԴDz󲹱�/
udayena śaśāṅkasya payodhirabhivardhate//

—Knowledge by serving the preceptor, passion by drinking and the Ocean by the rising of the moon is increased.

Here the common verb is �abhivardhate� and it is located in the end (anta) of the verse. The 峾Գ commentator observes that this principle of division of the figure ī貹첹 can be applied to the 첹ī貹첹 variety also[11] . Thus he admits 첹ī貹첹 along with the ī貹첹 already mentioned by 峾Բ.

Բٳ has rejected this ancient tradition of classifying ī貹첹 into , madhya and anta variants. According to him, there is no special charm created when the word which denotes the common property is placed either in the beginning or the middle or the end of a sentence. Again, the word which expresses the common property may be near the beginning or near the middle or near the end of a sentence and so it will give rise to endless varieties of the figure[12] . ܻṭa, Ruyyaka, Ѳṭa, 岵ṭa II, վśٳ etc. have recognised a variety of ī貹첹 called 첹ī貹첹. In this variety, a number of words expressive of s (actions) are grammatically connected with one . Բٳ rejects this variety of the figure also. He cites �ܰṣa� in admitting such a variety of the figure and includes it in the general sphere of ī貹첹. Բٳ also remarks that ī貹첹 should not be considered as a separate figure from ٳܱⲹDz as both the figures have the same charm, the word expressing the common property occurs only once in both of them and in both the figures the similarity is implied[13] .

Some rhetoricians like 峾Բ, ṭa, Ruyyaka, Ѳṭa, վٳ, Բٳ etc. have emphasised that a sense of similarity is necessary to constitute the figure ī貹첹. This similarity is suggested or implied. Bharata, ٲṇḍ, 峾, Bhoja, 岵ṭa I, վśٳ etc. have not expressed their stand in this matter. ܻṭa (屹ⲹlaṃkāra 7.11.) mentions the figure under �ٲ� group which indicates that similarity is not an essential feature of the figure. Ruyyaka however, holds that the similarity in ī貹첹 is both �gamya� and �ٲ[14] .

From the various doctrines put forth by Sanskrit rhetoricians regarding the nature of the figure ī貹첹 some basic traits of the figure can be sketched out.

They are as follows�

i) ī貹첹 is formed when one common attribute or action establishes the relation between the ܱ貹Բ- and the upameya-ⲹ.

ii) The word denoting the common property or action can be placed anywhere in the sentence and it illuminates the relation between the ܱ貹Բ and the upameya.

iii) The sense of similitude is suggested in ī貹첹. A variety of ī貹첹 (첹ī貹첹) has been admitted by the rhetoricians which apparently does not involve similitude. However, even in 첹ī貹첹 a sense of comparison between the ܱ貹Բ and the upameya is suggested innately.

iv) Majority of the later rhetoricians hold that in ī貹첹 the possessors of the common property must be partly ṛt and partly aṛt. If they are either ṛt or ṛt alone they would give rise to the figure پū貹.

峾Բ has followed his predecessors in his treatment of the figure ī貹첹. His classification of the figure follows an ancient tradition and it is not accepted by later rhetoricians like Բٳ. However, by admitting the sense of similarity as the basis of the figure 峾Բ has in fact echoed the modern concept of the figure.

Footnotes and references:

[back to top]

[1]:

徱madhyāntavartyekapadārthenārthasaṃgati�/
ⲹsya yatra jayeta tadukta� ī貹첹� ⲹٳ//

&Բ;&Բ;—VKL. 4.99.

[2]:

atra ca dharmāṇāmekavāramupanibandho ṣṭⲹ�/asakṛdupādane hi teṣāṃ پū貹� ṣyپ/
&Բ;&Բ;�Laghuṛtپ, 屹ṃksārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭ�) 1.14.

[3]:

ata eva ca ekadeśavartināmapi teṣāṃ dharmāṇāṃ yau dvau upamānopameyabhāvena avasthitau vākyārthau bahavo vā tathāvidhāstaduddīpanahetutvādī貹첹tā/
&Բ;&Բ;�ibid.

[4]:

anenaiva prakāreṇa śeṣānāmapi dīpake/
첹峾پٲ屹ṣaṇa�//

&Բ;&Բ;—Kāvyādarśa (of ٲṇḍ) 2.115.

[5]:

پṇadravyavācinaikatravartinā/
sarvavākyopakāraścedī貹첹� tannigadyate//

&Բ;&Բ;�ī-첹ṇṭ󲹰ṇa (of Bhoja) 4.77.

[6]:

arthāṛtپ� padāṛtپrubhayāṛtپrāvalī/
ṃpṭa� rasanāmālācakravāla� ca tadbhidā�//

&Բ;&Բ;�ibid. 4.78.

[7]:

徱madhyavartinaikena پ岵ṇadravyarūpiṇāpadārthena yatrārthasaṃgatistadī貹첹m/
&Բ;&Բ;—Kāvyānuśāsana (of Vāgbhaṭ� II) Chapter-III, p-35.

asya ca kāraṇamālaikārthārthāṛtپpadāv� ttyubhayāvṛttyādayo bhehābhavanti/
&Բ;&Բ;�ṃkپ첹, Kāvyānuśāsana (of Vāgbhaṭ� II) Chapter-III, p-35.

[8]:

ekasyaiva pradhānasambandhitayāsakṛdupāttasya padasya
vākyāntareṣu prasaṅgāt sambandho'nuṣaṅga�/

  �峾Գ, 屹ṃksūtraṛtپ (of 峾Բ) 4.3.18.

[9]:

sakṛdṛtپstu dharmasya prakṛtāprakṛtātmanām/
saiva ṣu bahvīṣu 첹syeti ī貹첹m//

&Բ;&Բ;�屹ⲹ-ś (of Ѳṭa) 10.156.

[10]:

Բ� vāṣpajalayo� syanda�, daṇḍayātrodyoge ś� /
&Բ;&Բ;�峾Գ, 屹ṃksūtraṛtپ (of 峾Բ) 4.3.19.

[11]:

evameva 첹ī貹첹mapyūhanīyam/
&Բ;&Բ;�ibid.

[12]:

vastutastu dharmasy徱madhyāntagatatve'pi camatkāravailakṣaṇyā-bhāvāt traividhyoktirāpātamātrāt / anyathādharmasyopādyupamadhyo-pāntyagatatve tato'pi kiṃcinnyūnādhikadeśaṛtپtve cānantabheda-prasaṅgāt/
&Բ;&Բ;—Rasa-ṅg󲹰 (of Բٳ) Chapter-II, p-327.

[13]:

ٳܱⲹDzto d īpaka� na pṛthagbhāvamarhati / dharmasakṛdṛtپmūlāyā vicchitteraviśeṣāt/
&Բ;&Բ;—Rasa-ṅg󲹰 (of Բٳ) Chapter-II, p-326.

[14]:

tatrevādyaprayogādupamānopameyabhāvo gamyamāna� / sa ca ٲ eva/
&Բ;&Բ;—Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-72.

Let's grow together!

I humbly request your help to keep doing what I do best: provide the world with unbiased sources, definitions and images. Your donation direclty influences the quality and quantity of knowledge, wisdom and spiritual insight the world is exposed to.

Let's make the world a better place together!

Like what you read? Help to become even better: