Text 8.6

[This is an instance of an ornament of meaning that does not assist the rasa,]

मित्रे क्वापि गते कोकः स-प्रियां वीक्ष्य सारसीम् |
आस्ये निर्यात-जीवाय मृणालार्गलम् आदधे ||

mitre kvāpi gate kokaḥ sa-priyāṃ vīkṣya sārasīm |
āsye niryāta-jīvāya mṛṇālārgalam ādadhe ||

mitre—when the sun (or when a friend); kva api—somewhere (or at some point in time); gate—had gone; kokaḥ—the ruddy goose (cakravāka); sa-priyām—[the female bird,] which was with her beloved; vīkṣya—after gazing; sārasīm—at a female cakravāka bird; āsye—in the mouth; niryāta—which had begun to leave; jīvāya—for the sake of the life (the life force: jīva = jīvana); mṛṇāla—the lotus stem; argalam—[like] a bar; ādadhe—put.

During sunset, the flamingo, gazing at the female crane who was with her beloved, kept the lotus stalk, which was like a metal bar, in his mouth to prevent his life force, which had begun to leave, from departing even more. (adapted from Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 344)

atra mṛṇālaṃ jīva-rodhāya na prabhavatīti prakṛtānanukūlopamā. yatra rasābhāvas tatra tūkti-vaicitrya-mātra-paryavasitās te. evaṃ samavāyena śauryādīnāṃ saṃyogena tu hārādīnām ātmani sattvād yathā bhedas tathā guṇānām alaṅkārāṇāṃ ca sa bodhyaḥ.

In regard to this verse, a lotus stalk cannot possibly block the life force. Thus the simile is not favorable to the contextual topic (vipralambha).Whenever there is no rasa (or whenever the ornament does not assist the rasa), an ornament only amounts to being a poetic expression (ukti-vaicitrya).

In conclusion, the difference between a literary quality and a literary ornament is like the difference between a quality, such as bravery, and an ornament, such as a necklace: A quality inherently exists in the soul whereas an ornament is connected to the soul only by external contact.

Commentary:

As regards the verse, Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa comments that the flamingo’s looking at the female crane and her mate is an uddīpana of vipralambha. At dusk, flamingos (cakravāka) think that they have already become separated from their mates.^[1] A flamingo laments in anticipation of night because a flamingo couple does not stay together at night. Further, Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa specifies that the verse is an instance of a semblance of vipralambha, since animals are involved: mitra iti, cakrāhva-gata-vipralambhābhāsaḥ (Uddyota).

In his commentary, Viśvanātha Kavirāja specifies that Mammaṭa uses the word simile in the sense of similarity. According to Viśvanātha, the simile (a lotus stalk which was like a metal bar) is actually the utprekṣā ornament (fanciful imagination) because a metal bar is a far-fatched standard of comparison.^[2] Govinda Ṭhakkura agrees with him and adds that the verse also features an implicit utprekṣā ornament (fanciful assumption) (10.37-38): “The flamingo kept the lotus stalk in his mouth as if to block his life force.”^[3]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

vīkṣya dayitety anena nāyikāsakta-nāyakāntara-darśanena vipralambhoddīpanam. sārasaḥ pakṣi-bhedaḥ. viyoginā sandhyā-kāla-kalpita-cakravākī-vicchedavatā (Uddyota).

[2]:

upamā sādṛśyam ity arthaḥ. tathā hy utprekṣaiva argalā-visalatayor dvayor api jīvana-nirgamana-virodha-lakṣaṇatvasyātāttvikatvena sambhāvanotthānāt (Kāvya-prakāśa-darpaṇa).

[3]:

aśaktatvaṃ nānucitatvam iti prāñcaḥ. vastutas tu tad-anyathā vyākhyeyam. visalatā jīvaṃ rodhum aśaktety upamā prakṛtānanuguṇā prakṛte viṣaye’nuguṇa-rahitā. upamāyā anuguṇaṃ yat sādṛśyaṃ tac-chūnyā. tasmād atropamā nālaṅkāraḥ, kiṃ tūtprekṣā. na ca tasyām api tad-doṣa-tādavasthyam. sambhāvitenāpi sādṛśyena tat-pravṛtteḥ. na tūpamā-vad vastu-sattaiva, jīva-rodhakatva-rūpa-sādṛśyam api viṣaye hy utprekṣaṇīya-koṭāv evāntar-bhūtaṃ yathocyate, rodhakam iva nihitam iti. tarhi katham idaṃ prakṛtodāharaṇam iti ced utprekṣāto rasātiśayāpratīteḥ. pratyuta tādṛśotprekṣāyā upamokta-nyāyenāpakarṣa-paryavasānād iti (Kāvya-pradīpa).