Text 10.9

यथा,
त्वत्-पादाभ्यां समं क्वापि नास्ति चित्त-हरं विभो |
देव त्वत्-सदृशं हारि कथम् आस्तां जगत्-त्रये ॥

yathā,
tvat-pādābhyāṃ samaṃ kvāpi nāsti citta-haraṃ vibho |
deva tvat-sadṛśaṃ hāri katham āstāṃ jagat-traye ||

tvat-pādābhyām—to Your feet; samam—similar; kva api—anywhere; na asti—there is no; citta—the mind; haram—[a thing] which takes away; vibho—O You who pervade; deva—O Lord; tvat-sadṛśam—similar to You (as the upameya); hāri—fascinating; katham—how?; āstām—it could exist; jagat-traye—in the three worlds.

O Lord, Your feet blow me away like nothing else. In the three worlds, You are beyond compare.

Commentary:

Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa declines the nominal base tvad-pāda (Your feet) in the third case when the genitive case is expected here, by Mammaṭa’s rule that the genitive case signifies the upameya (10.3).^[1] As usual, Kavikarṇapūra follows Mammaṭa.^[2] However, Mammaṭa himself digresses from the rule (Commentary 10.14). This makes sense when it is obvious what the upameya is or what the upamāna is. By that rule, seen in the works of Daṇḍī, Rudraṭa (Commentary 10.226), and so on, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s example means: “Nothing blows me away like Your feet.” This expresses the nonmention of an upameya. Mammaṭa omitted to created this category.

In grammar, a word connected with tulya and the like takes either the third case or the sixth case,^[3] and no distinction of “upamāna” and “upameya” is made: rāmeṇa tulyaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ, rāmasya tulyo vā (Hari-nāmāmṛta-vyākaraṇa 677 vṛtti). Mammaṭa complicated the matter. The charm of the complication is apparent when a commentator explains a simile in a compound. For instance, the words nārāyaṇa-samo guṇaiḥ, “He is similar to Nārāyaṇa in terms of qualities” (Bhāgavatam 10.8.19) are analyzed either as nārāyaṇena samo guṇaiḥ or as nārāyaṇasya samo guṇaiḥ.^[4] By Mammaṭa’s rule, the first interpretation means that Nārāyaṇa is the upamāna and Kṛṣṇa is the upameya, whereas the second interpretation signifies the opposite. A different sense is implied from each analysis, by the well-known fact that an upamāna is superior to an upameya. However, not all commentators respect Mammaṭa’s rule; Sanātana Gosvāmī uses the bahuvrīhi formula: guṇādibhir nārāyaṇena samaḥ. […] yadvā guṇādibhir nārāyaṇa eva samo yasyeti nārāyaṇād api māhātmyam adhikaṃ bodhitam, upamānād upameyasya kiñcit sādṛśya-mātreṇa nyūnatāpatteḥ, “In terms of qualities and so on, He compares to Nārāyaṇa (nārāyaṇa-samaḥ = nārāyaṇena samaḥ). Alternatively: “His like is Nārāyaṇa” (nārāyaṇa-samaḥ = nārāyaṇaḥ eva samaḥ yasya): In this way it is perceived that His glory is even superior to Nārāyaṇa’s glory, because an upameya has only some similarity to an upamāna” (Bṛhad-vaiṣṇava-toṣaṇī 10.8.19).

Further, according to Mammaṭa the gist of the elision of the upamāna is not that there is no upamāna. The idea is simply that the upamāna is not mentioned (anupādāna) (10.8).^[5] The purpose of this distinction is to avoid a similarity with an implied ananvaya ornament (self-comparison) (10.27). Thus Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s verse illustrates an ananvaya-dhvani.

This is Mammaṭa’s example of an elliptical indirect simile in a sentence characterized by the ellipsis of the standard of comparison (upamāna-luptā ārthī samāsa-gā):

sakala-karaṇa-para-viśrāma-śrī-vitaraṇaṃ na sarasa-kāvyasya |
dṛśyate athavā niśamyate sadṛśam aṃśāṃśa-mātreṇa || (Sanskrit rendering)

“In the matter of effusing a splendor that obliterates the perception of the external world, relishable poetry compares to nothing that has been seen or heard of, even by a fraction of a fraction” (Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 400).

A good movie obliterates the perception of the external world. A movie is an offshoot of dramaturgy, one of the two broad categories of kāvya (literature). Still, Govinda Ṭhakkura doubts the validity of Mammaṭa’s example. In that line of thought, Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa says here Mammaṭa disregarded his rule; and poetry is meant to be expressed as the upamāna, (standard of comparison), by the model that even if the word “moon” in “moon-like face” were declined in the sixth case, it would still have the force of an upamāna, since it is well known as such. Thus according to Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa here Mammaṭa should have said that the verse features the ellipsis of an upameya. He says Mammaṭa intends to portray poetry as the upameya in order to raise its eminence because by nature the subject of description is an upameya.^[6] Śrīvatsa-lāñchana Bhaṭṭācārya says the standard of comparison which was omitted is: Brahman.^[7]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

“tena tulyaṃ mukham” ity-ādāv upameye eva “tat tulyam asya” ity-ādau copamāne eva “idaṃ ca tac ca tulyam” ity ubhayatrāpi tulyādi-śabdānāṃ viśrāntir iti (Kāvya-prakāśa 10.87).

[2]:

tena tulyaṃ kriyā ced vatir ity anena vihitena vatinā cārthī. tatra tena tulyam iti tac-chabda upamāna-paraḥ. tulya-śabda upameya-paraḥ. tasya tulyam ity atra viparyayaḥ. ubhayaṃ tulyam ity ubhaya-niṣṭhaḥ. (Alaṅkāra-kaustubha 8.5)

[3]:

tulyārthair atulopamābhyāṃ tṛtīyānyatarasyām (Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.3.72).

[4]:

nārāyaṇena eva para-vyoma-patinā samaḥ (Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s Vaiṣṇavānandinī 10.8.19); nārāyaṇa-samo nārāyaṇasya samaḥ (Vallabhācārya’s Subodhinī 10.8.19).

[5]:

ata evopamānānupādāna ity uktam na tv asattva iti, vastv-antarasya viśiṣyānupādānamātreṇopamāna-lopa-vyavahāraḥ. etenānanvayo’trety apāstam. ananvaya upamānāsattvasyaiva vivakṣitatvāt (Uddyota on Kāvya-prakāśa, verse 400).

[6]:

atra viśeṣata upamānaṃ nopāttam. cintyam etat (Kāvya-pradīpa); cintyam etad iti, tad-bījaṃ tu kāvyam evātropamānam. candrasya sadṛśaṃ mukham ity-ādau candrasyaivopamānatāvagamāt. evaṃ copameya-lopa iti vaktum ucitam iti. uddhāras tu kāvyasya samam ity asya kāvya-niṣṭhasādṛśya-pratiyogīty arthaḥ. kāvyasya varṇanīyatayotkarṣāyopameyasya vivakṣitatvād ity āhuḥ (Uddyota).

[7]:

asambhava-vivakṣayā tad-upamānānupādānam. yadvā para-brahmādikam upamānaṃ nopāttam iti (Sāra-bodhinī).