Alamkaras mentioned by Vamana
by Pratim Bhattacharya | 2016 | 65,462 words
This page relates 鈥楧efinition of Visheshokti 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.
22: Definition of 痴颈艣别峁办迟颈 Ala峁僰膩ra
痴颈艣别峁办迟颈 is a common figure of meaning and it has been dealt by almost all the Sanskrit rhetoricians. 叠丑腻尘补丑补 defines it as鈥�
ekade艣asya vigame y膩gu峁嚹乶tarasa峁僪ati岣�/
vi艣e峁prathan膩y膩sau 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈rmat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) 3.23.鈥擶hen a quality of an object is not mentioned and a variation of quality is shown unfolding a particular and superior trait of the object, the figure is called 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈.
顿补峁囜笉颈苍 defines the figure as鈥�
gu峁嘺j膩tikriy膩d墨n膩峁� yattu vaikalyadar艣anam/
vi艣e峁dar艣an膩yaiva s膩惫颈艣别峁办迟颈ri峁ate//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擪膩vy膩dar艣a (of 顿补峁囜笉颈苍) 2.323.鈥擶hen a variation in quality, genus, action etc. of an object is shown in order to point out its specialty, the figure is called 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈.
The 础驳苍颈辫耻谤腻峁嘺 and Bhoja have furnished the same definition of the figure.
痴腻尘补苍补 has furnished a peculiar definition of the figure鈥�
ekagu峁嘺h膩nikalpan膩y膩峁� s膩mya诲腻谤岣峢测补峁� 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈/
&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) 4.3.23.
鈥擶hen the similarity is emphasized by the assumption of the absence of one particular quality, the figure is called 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈.
In the following 惫峁泃迟颈 he clarifies this definition as鈥�
ekasya gu峁嘺sya h膩ne岣� kalpan膩y膩峁� 艣e峁irgu峁嘺iss膩mya峁� yattasya 诲腻谤岣峢测补峁� 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈h/
&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) 4.3.23. 惫峁泃迟颈In 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈, the absence of one particular quality of an object is mentioned in order to highlight the other points of similarity of the qualities. In absence of one part of similarity between the objects mentioned actually accentuates the other similarities between the objects.
痴腻尘补苍补 also mentions that in almost all the cases the figure 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈 involves 谤奴辫补办补 or metaphor鈥�
谤奴辫补办补峁� ceda峁� pr膩ye峁噀ti/
&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) 4.3.23. 惫峁泃迟颈
痴腻尘补苍补 has put forth several examples of the figure 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈. The first example of the figure is taken up from 碍腻濒颈诲腻蝉补鈥檚 碍耻尘腻谤补蝉补尘产丑补惫补鈥�
bhavanti yatrau峁dhayo rajany膩m补迟补颈濒补辫奴谤腻岣� surataprad墨p膩岣�/
鈥敯艹灸灏共醪钩静蟛贡共� (of K膩lidasa) 1.10. & 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) 4.3.23. 惫峁泃迟颈.鈥擶here the shining herbs become the oil-less lamps of dalliance.
Here the word 鈥�补迟补颈濒补辫奴谤腻岣�鈥� denotes the only dissimilarity between the herbs and the lamp and thereby prominently asserts the similarity between the two objects.
The second example is鈥�
诲测奴迟补峁� hi 苍腻尘补 puru峁sy膩si峁僪膩sana峁� r膩jyam/
&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) 4.3.23. 惫峁泃迟颈鈥擥ambling is man鈥檚 throne-less kingdom.
Here the word 鈥�补蝉颈峁僪腻蝉补苍补峁�鈥� is the only point of dissimilarity between the objects mentioned and it helps to ascertain the proximity between the objects compared. Similarly in the third example 鈥�苍颈诲谤别测补尘补办补尘补濒腻濒补办峁墨岣�鈥� (Sleep is the Goddess of wealth without the lotus) the word 鈥�补办补尘补濒腻鈥� serves the above mentioned purpose.
The fourth example is鈥�
丑补蝉迟墨丑颈 箩补峁単补尘补峁� durgam/
&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) 4.3.23. 惫峁泃迟颈鈥擳丑别 elephant is a moving fort.
Here the word 鈥�箩补峁単补尘补峁�鈥� points out the absence of stability or immobility and therefore can be regarded as the one point of dissimilarity between the objects compared.
痴腻尘补苍补 states this clearly in his 惫峁泃迟颈鈥�
atr膩pi ja峁単ama艣abdasya sth膩varatvani惫峁泃迟颈pratip膩danatv膩dekagu峁嘺h膩nikalpanaiva/
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) 4.3.23. 惫峁泃迟颈
The same principle can be applied in explaining the following as examples of the figure 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈鈥�
a) vesy膩hi 苍腻尘补 m奴rtimatyeva 苍颈办峁泃颈岣�/
&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) 4.3.23. 惫峁泃迟颈鈥擳丑别 prostitute is embodied deceit.
b) 惫测补蝉补苍补峁� hi 苍腻尘补 蝉辞肠肠丑惫腻蝉补峁� 尘补谤补峁嘺尘/
&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) 4.3.23. 惫峁泃迟颈鈥擵ice is death with exhalation.
c) dvijo bh奴mi产峁沨补蝉辫补迟颈岣�/
&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) 4.3.23. 惫峁泃迟颈
In these three examples the words 鈥�尘奴谤迟颈尘补迟墨鈥�, 鈥�蝉辞肠肠丑惫腻蝉补峁�鈥� and 鈥�bh奴mi产峁沨补蝉辫补迟颈岣�鈥� reveal the absence of a particular quality between the compared objects.
The 碍腻尘补诲丑别苍耻 commentator explains鈥�
m奴rtimatyevetyatr膩m奴rtatvani惫峁泃迟颈岣� / socchv膩samityatr膩nucchv膩sat膩ni惫峁泃迟颈岣� / bh奴mi产峁沨补蝉辫补迟颈rityatr膩bhaumatvani惫峁泃迟颈岣� pratip膩dyata ityekagu峁嘺h膩nikalpan膩vagantavy膩 /
鈥敯宄静够宄蟊鸩猿�. 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) 4.3.23.
Ruyyaka has stated that the characteristics of 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈 advocated by 痴腻尘补苍补 are not at all to be consid ered as features of the figure since they are features of 谤奴辫补办补 辞苍濒测鈥�
测腻迟耻 鈥�ekagu峁嘺h膩nikalpan膩y膩峁� s膩mya诲腻谤岣峢测补峁� 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈岣�鈥� iti 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈rlak峁t膩 s膩smin dar艣ane 谤奴辫补办补bheda eveti p峁泃ha峁卬a v膩cy膩/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擜la峁僰膩rasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-128.
闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 too has discarded the example 鈥�诲测奴迟补峁� hi 苍腻尘补 puru峁sy膩si峁僪膩sana峁� r膩jyam鈥� given by 痴腻尘补苍补 as an example of the figure 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈 and considers it as an example of 谤奴辫补办补鈥�
atra hi dy奴te 谤腻箩测补峁� t膩d膩tmyen膩ropyate / tatra si峁僪膩sanarahita峁� hi 诲测奴迟补峁� si峁僪膩sanasahitar膩jyat膩d膩tmya峁� 办补迟丑补峁� vahedity膩roponm奴lakayuktinir膩s膩y膩ropyam膩ne r膩jye'pi si峁僪膩sanar膩hitya峁� kalpyate tena d峁涐笉h膩ropa峁� 谤奴辫补办补mevedam/ na 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈岣�/
&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-439.
Again, the example 鈥�bhavanti yatrau峁d hayo rajany膩ma tailap奴r膩岣� surataprad墨p膩岣�鈥� given by 痴腻尘补苍补 has been cited by Bhoja as an instance of 惫颈肠颈迟谤腻惫颈产丑腻惫补苍补.
It is evident that most of the Sanskrit rhetoricians have accepted 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈 as a figure based on the exception of the rule of cause and effect. 鲍诲产丑补峁璦 is probably the first rhetorician who furnishes this type of characteristics of the figure.
His definition of the figure is鈥�
yat s膩magrye'pi 艣akt墨n膩峁� phal膩nutpattibandhanam/
vi艣e峁sy膩bhidhits膩tastad惫颈艣别峁办迟颈rucyate//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯灞共饽灞舨贯箖k腻谤补s膩rasa峁僩raha (of Udbha峁�) 5.4.鈥擶hen, with a purpose of establishing some peculiarity, the non-production of effect is described even in the presence of all powers the figure is called 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈.
Two varieties of the figure have been mentioned by Udbha峁佲�攐ne with the expression of reason for non-production of effect and the other where this reason is not expressed[1] . These two varieties have been later popularly designated as 耻办迟补苍颈尘颈迟迟腻惫颈艣别峁办迟颈 and an耻办迟补苍颈尘颈迟迟腻惫颈艣别峁办迟颈.
Ruyyaka has given a clear and popular definition of the figure鈥�
k膩ra峁嘺s膩magrye k膩ry膩nutpattir惫颈艣别峁办迟颈h/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擜la峁僰膩rasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-126.
鈥擳his definition has been widely accepted by later rhetoricians like 惭补尘尘补峁璦[2] , Jayadeva[3] , 痴颈诲测腻诲丑补谤补[4] , 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补[5] , 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补[6] , Appayya D墨k峁Ｄ玹a[7] , 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补[8] etc.
Ruyyaka has also put forth the popular two-fold division of the figure as:
- 耻办迟补苍颈尘颈迟迟腻惫颈艣别峁办迟颈 and
- an耻办迟补苍颈尘颈迟迟腻 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈.
惭补尘尘补峁璦 has mentioned a third type of the figure called acintyanimitt膩惫颈艣别峁办迟颈. This variety has been included in the broad division of an耻办迟补苍颈尘颈迟迟腻惫颈艣别峁办迟颈 by Ruyyaka, 痴颈艣惫补苍腻迟丑补 etc.
From the different opinions of Sanskrit rhetoricians regarding the figure 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈, it can be stated that this figure is generally considered to be a figure based on adverse causation. It is the non-production of effect even when the entire set of causes is present. This leads to the speculation that some special circumstances have occurred during the course of action. The whole process eventually reveals some special trait belonging to the object under description. This figure can be of two broad types鈥攚hen the cause for the non-production of effect is expressed (耻办迟补苍颈尘颈迟迟腻) and when this cause is not expressed (an耻办迟补苍颈尘颈迟迟腻).
痴腻尘补苍补鈥檚 treatment of the figure 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈 is close to 叠丑腻尘补丑补 and can be also allied to the definition furnished by 顿补峁囜笉颈苍. But his notion of the figure is entirely different from later Sanskrit rhetoricians. By admitting himself that his 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈 frequently involves 谤奴辫补办补, 痴腻尘补苍补 has probably hinted about the irresolute status of the figure as an independent individual figure. Later rhetoricians like Ruyyaka and 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补 have, therefore, treated 痴腻尘补苍补鈥檚 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈 as a variety of 谤奴辫补办补 and have devised a new concept of the figure.
Footnotes and references:
[1]:
dar艣itena nimittena nimitt膩dar艣anena ca/
tasy膩bandho dvidh膩lak峁e d峁浥泍ate lalit膩tmaka岣�//
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥敯灞共饽灞舨贯箖k腻谤补s膩rasa峁僩raha (of Udbha峁�) 5.5.
[3]:
惫颈艣别峁办迟颈ranutpatti岣� k膩ryasya sati 办腻谤补峁噀/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥�颁补苍诲谤腻濒辞办补 (of Jayadeva) 5.78.
[5]:
tats膩magryamanutpattir惫颈艣别峁办迟颈rnigadyate/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擯rat膩parudraya艣obh奴峁峁嘺 (of 痴颈诲测腻苍腻迟丑补) Chapter-VIII, p-423.
[6]:
sati hetau phal膩bh膩ve 惫颈艣别峁办迟颈stath膩dvidh膩/
&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) 10.67.
[7]:
k膩ry膩janir惫颈艣别峁办迟颈岣� sati pu峁ala办腻谤补峁噀/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擪uvalay膩nanda (of Appayyad墨k峁Ｄ玹a) 35.
[8]:
prasiddhak膩ra峁嘺kal膩pas膩m膩n膩dhikara峁噛ena var峁噛am膩n膩k膩ry膩nutpattir惫颈艣别峁办迟颈岣�/
&苍产蝉辫;&苍产蝉辫;鈥擱asa-驳补峁単腻诲丑补谤补 (of 闯补驳补苍苍腻迟丑补) Chapter-II. p-437.