Text 10.20

अथालुप्त-धर्मास्व् आसु कश्चिद् विशेषः, यथा,

athālupta-dharmāsv āsu kaścid viśeṣaḥ, yathā,

Now he mentions some particularity among those similes which do not involve an ellipsis of the common attribute. For instance:

kṛṣṇaḥ sa-bhāryo garuḍopari-sthitaḥ sūryopari śliṣṭa-taḍid-ghano yathā |
ādhāvato bhauma-mukhān ripūn mṛdhe jaghāna bāṇair ariṇā ca sa kṣaṇāt ||

kṛṣṇaḥ—Kṛṣṇa; sa-bhāryaḥ—with the wife (Satyabhāmā); garuḍa-upari—above Garuḍa; sthitaḥ—situated; sūrya-upari—above the sun; śliṣṭa-taḍit—by whom lightning is joined; ghanaḥ—a dark cloud; yathā—like; ādhāvataḥ—who were running; bhauma-mukhān—whose foremost is Bhauma; ripūn—enemies; mṛdhe—in battle; jaghāna—he killed; bāṇaiḥ—with arrows; ariṇā—with cakra (“it has spokes”); ca—and; saḥ—He; kṣaṇāt—in a moment.

Kṛṣṇa accompanied by His wife and situated atop Garuḍa was like a dark cloud embraced by lightning and situated above the sun. In battle, with arrows and the cakra He instantly killed Bhauma and other enemies who were approaching in haste.

iyaṃ bimbānubimbopamā, kṛṣṇādi-dṛṣṭānta-vad ghanādeḥ pratipādanāt. asambhāvyopamāna-samudbhāvanād abhūtopamā cocyate.

The verse features a bimbānubimbā upamā because there is a resemblance with the dṛṣṭānta ornament (exemplification) (10.92). Another simile is abhūtā upamā, so called because there is an origination of an impossible standard of comparison.

Commentary:

Kṛṣṇa is the upameya, a dark cloud is the upamāna, the word yathā is the word expressive of the comparison, and the similarity of attribute takes place in this way: “being embraced by lightning and situated above the sun” is a mirrored reflection of “being accompanied by His wife and situated atop Garuḍa,” and thereafter a nondifference between the two attributes is superimposed.

The term bimbānubimbā upamā is Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s invention, whereas the name abhūtā upamā was invented by Daṇḍī: sarva-padma-prabhā-sāraḥ samāhṛta iva kvacit, tvad-ānanaṃ vibhātīti tām abhūtopamāṃ viduḥ, ““The essence of the splendor of all lotuses was as if collected and accumulated in one place. Your face is radiant.” They call this an abhutā upamā (nonexisting simile)” (Kāvyādarśa 2.38). A simile does not take place here since there is no upamāna. Mammaṭa would categorize Daṇḍī’s example as the utprekṣā ornament (fanciful imagination) because of the usage of iva in the sense of “as if”. Daṇḍī created thirty-two subcategories of upamā. Some of them have become ornaments proper, such as ananvaya and prativastūpamā. This is Daṇḍī’s example of asambhāvitā upamā (an impossible simile), which corresponds to Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa’s interpretation of abhūtopamā (the standard of comparison is impossible): candra-bimbād iva viṣaṃ candanād iva pāvakaḥ, paruṣā vāg ito vaktrād ity asambhāvitopamā, “Harsh speech from this face is like poison from the moon and like fire from sandalwood paste” (Kāvyādarśa 2.39). Mammaṭa does not discuss this topic, nor does he use the above terms (bimbānubimbopamā and abhūtopamā).

Regarding the theory about the attribute in common, Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa took inspiration from Sāhitya-darpaṇa. In a nutshell, when the attribute common to both the upamāna and the upameya is mentioned, it does not always occur in the exact same way for each one. In that regard, Viśvanātha Kavirāja, following Ruyyaka, states three ways the similarity takes place: (1) The common attribute is mentioned only once yet it applies twice, (2) The common attribute is mentioned twice and both words follow the model of “original and mirrored counterpart” (this one involves imagery) (Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa calls this bimbānubimbā upamā and illustrated it in the verse above), and (3) The common attribute is mentioned twice, and one attribute is merely a synonym of the other.^[1]

Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha expounds upon that. He speaks of five ways a similarity takes place with regard to the common attribute (in the following list, the first two are exactly the same as the first two above, and the third one above is a distinct subcategory of his third category): (1) The common attribute is mentioned once in reference to either the upamāna or the upameya and is implicitly applied to the other in a straightforward way, (2) The common attribute is mentioned twice, yet differently, so that the wording of the attribute is a mirror of the other, (3) The common attribute is mentioned twice, and one attribute is a mirror of the other, but the second time it is merely stated with a synonym, (4) The common attribute is stated once and does not literally apply, therefore the attribute of one is superimposed unto the other (this involves figurative usage), and (5) The similarity is only a double meaning.^[2] Jagannātha also says mutual combinations of the above are possible.^[3] In all cases, Jagannātha says the effectuation of a simile takes place because of imagining a commonality by superimposing a nondifference between the upameya’s attribute and the upamāna’s attribute.^[4] For instance, in “The king is profound like an ocean,”^[5] there is a superimposition of nondifference between the profundity of the king and the profundity of an ocean, and this results in the perception of similarity between the king and an ocean.^[6] That example corresponds to number 1 above (the common attribute is mentioned once yet it applies twice). This is Jagannātha’s example: śarad-indur ivāhlādajanako raghu-nandanaḥ, “Rāma generates delight like the autumnal moon does.”

The following is Jagannātha’s example of number 2 above (the common attribute is mentioned twice, by the model of “the original and its mirrored counterpart”):

komalātapa-śoṇābhra-sandhyā-kāla-sahodaraḥ |
kaṣāya-vasano yāti kuṅkumālepano yatiḥ ||

“With his reddish dress as well as the saffron paste on his face, the traveling Sannyāsī looks like evening twilight with a reddish cloud on which there is gentle sunshine” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara).

The Sannyāsī is the upameya and evening twilight is the upamāna. The attribute of having a reddish cloud is a mirror of having a saffron dress, and the portion of the setting sun seen above that cloud is a mirror of having saffron paste on the face. This kind of upamā is very close to the utprekṣā ornament (fanciful imagination); the difference is that in a simile the standard of comparison is well-known.

Jagannātha says the third category has three varieties.^[7]

(A) Adjectives are merely synonymous (vastu-prativastu-bhāva) and substantives follow the model of “original and mirrored counterpart” (bimba-pratibimba-bhāva). For example:

calad-bhṛṅgam ivāmbhojam adhīra-nayanaṃ mukham |
tadīyaṃ yadi dṛśyeta kāmaḥ kruddho’stu kiṃ tataḥ ||

“If your face with fickle eyes which imitates a lotus with busy bees is seen, then let Cupid furiously assail me in person if he wants to; he himself would not make any difference on that occasion” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara).

Here the adjectives “fickle” and “busy” are synonymous, and their substantives “eyes” and “bees” follow the model of “original and mirrored counterpart.”^[8] This means the notion of nondifference between having eyes and having bees is superimposed (unto the notion of difference), and that makes a common attribute.

(B) Substantives are synonymous and modifiers follow the model of “original and mirrored counterpart.”

For instance:

āliṅgito jaladhi-kanyakayā sa-līlaṃ lagnaḥ priyaṅgu-latayeva tarus tamālaḥ |
dehāvasāna-samaye hṛdaye madīye devaś cakāstu bhagavān aravinda-nābhaḥ ||

“Lord Viṣṇu is playfully embraced by Lakṣmī like a tamāla tree is clasped by a priyaṅgu creeper. May He shine in my heart at the time of my departure from my body” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara).

Here, “embraced” and “clasped” are merely synonymous, and their modifiers “by Lakṣmī” and “by a priyaṅgu creeper” follow the model of “original and mirrored counterpart.” In one sense, “embraced” and “clasped” are modifiers of Viṣṇu and of a tamāla tree respectively, yet they are also considered substantives since they have their own modifiers.^[9]

(C) Substantives are synonymous and adjectives are synonymous, and two other elements follow the model of “original and mirrored counterpart.” For example:

daśānanena dṛptena nīyamānā babhau satī |
dviradena madāndhena kṛṣyamāṇeva padminī ||

“Chaste Sītā led by arrogantly proud Rāvaṇa was resplendent like a lotus dragged by an elephant blinded by rut” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara).

Here also, although the participles “led” and “dragged” are modifiers of Sītā and a lotus respectively, they are also substantives insofar as they have modifiers. According to Jagannātha, those two participles are synonymous, and so are the modifiers “arrogantly proud” and “blinded by rut” in this context, yet Rāvaṇa and an elephant, which follow the model of “original and mirrored counterpart,” are juxtaposed in that way.^[10]

In the sequence, Jagannātha inserts Viśvanātha’s aforementioned third category. Jagannātha gives this example: vimalaṃ vadanaṃ tasyā niṣkalaṅka-mṛgāṅkati, “Her spotless face acts like a moon without a mark.” Here the attributes of being spotless and being devoid of a mark are synonymous.^[11]

(4) This is Jagannātha’s example of a common attribute figuratively superimposed (upacarita):

śatakoṭi-kaṭhina-cittaḥ so’haṃ tasyāḥ sudhaika-maya-mūrteḥ |
yenākāriṣi mitraṃ vikala-hṛdayo vidhir vācyaḥ ||

“[Separated from Sītā, Rāma thinks:] My mind is as hard as a thunderbolt, yet now the creator deserves to be reprimanded. I am her friend—her body only consists of nectar—and he made Me have a broken heart” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara).

Jagannātha explains: atra kāṭhinyaṃ pārthivo dharmaś citte upacaritaḥ, “In this verse, the quality of hardness that belongs to a thunderbolt, in terms of the effect of its strike on objects, is figuratively superimposed on the mind” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 176). Afterward, as usual there is a superimposition of nondifference between the hardness of a thunderbolt and the hardness of the mind.

An example of a simile based on a double meaning was shown in verse 9.51. Further, Paṇḍita-rāja Jagannātha adds that one set of attribute in common is mixed with another in various ways. In this verse, one set is mixed with another by the relation of cause and effect:

rūpavaty api ca krūrā kāminī duḥkha-dāyinī |
antaḥ-kāṭava-sampūrṇā supakvevendra-vāruṇī ||

“Though externally beautiful, an angrily passionate woman gives sorrow like an overripe colocynth gourd replete with bitterness inside” (Rasa-gaṅgādhara).

Here the attributes of being externally beautiful and being a giver of sorrow also implicitly apply to the gourd. These two are in the first category of common attributes (anugāmin). Anger and bitterness, common attributes that take place by the mode of “original and mirrored counterpart,” are connected with the quality of being a giver of sorrow by a causal relationship. This means anger is the cause of the ladylove’s giving sorrow and bitterness is the cause of the gourd’s giving sorrow.^[12]

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

eka-rūpaḥ kvacit kvāpi bhinnaḥ sādhāraṇo guṇaḥ || bhinne bimbānubimbatvaṃ śabda-mātreṇa vā bhidā || (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.23-24)

[2]:

tatra kvacid anugāmy eva dharmaḥ, kvacic ca kevalaṃ bimba-pratibimba-bhāvam āpannaḥ, kvacid ubhayam, kvacid vastu-prativastu-bhāvena karambitaṃ bimba-pratibimba-bhāvam, kvacid asann apy upacaritaḥ, kvacic ca kevala-śabdātmakaḥ (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 174).

[3]:

evam eteṣāṃ dharmāṇāṃ vyāmiśraṇaṃ ca sambhavati (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p.176). 707 atrāhuḥ, upameya-gatānām upamāna-gatānāṃ cāsādhāraṇānām api dharmāṇāṃ sādṛśyamūlenābhedādhyavasāyena sādhāraṇatva-kalpanād upamā-siddhiḥ (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 159).

[4]:

atrāhuḥ, upameya-gatānām upamāna-gatānāṃ cāsādhāraṇānām api dharmāṇāṃ sādṛśyamūlenābhedādhyavasāyena sādhāraṇatva-kalpanād upamā-siddhiḥ (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 159).

[5]:

gāmbhīrya-garimā tasya satyaṃ gaṅgā-bhujaṅga-vat, “The greatness of his profundity is like the great profundity of the ocean (lit. “the Ganges’ lover”)” (Kāvya-prakāśa verse 396). 709 Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa explains: gaṅgā-bhujaṅga-vad ity atra gaṅgā-bhujaṅga-padasya tat-sambandhi-gāmbhīrya-garima-lakṣakatvena gaṅgā-bhujaṅga-sambandhi-gāmbhīryasadṛśam etat-sambandhi-gāmbhīryam iti bodhaḥ. tad-anantaraṃ gāmbhīryayoḥ sādṛśyamūlābhedādhyavasāyenābhinna-dharma-mūlā paścād gaṅgā-bhujaṅga-rājñor upamā-pratītiḥ (Uddyota on Kāvya-prakāśa verse 396).

[6]:

Nāgeśa Bhaṭṭa explains: gaṅgā-bhujaṅga-vad ity atra gaṅgā-bhujaṅga-padasya tat-sambandhi-gāmbhīrya-garima-lakṣakatvena gaṅgā-bhujaṅga-sambandhi-gāmbhīryasadṛśam etat-sambandhi-gāmbhīryam iti bodhaḥ. tad-anantaraṃ gāmbhīryayoḥ sādṛśyamūlābhedādhyavasāyenābhinna-dharma-mūlā paścād gaṅgā-bhujaṅga-rājñor upamā-pratītiḥ (Uddyota on Kāvya-prakāśa verse 396).

[7]:

tṛtīyo’pi tri-vidhaḥ, viśeṣaṇa-mātrayor viśeṣya-mātrayos tad-yugalayor vā vastu-prativastubhāvena karambitaḥ (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 174).

[8]:

atra calanādhīratvayor viśeṣaṇayor vastuta eka-rūpayor api śabda-dvayenopādānād vastu-prativastu-bhāvaḥ. tad-viśeṣaṇakayoś ca bhṛṅga-nayanayor bimba-pratibimba-bhāvaḥ, iti tat-karambito’yam ucyate (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 174).

[9]:

atrāliṅgitatva-lagnatvayor vastu-prativastu-bhāvaḥ, tad-viśeṣyakayoś ca jaladhi-kanyāpriyaṅgu-latayor bimba-pratibimba-bhāvaḥ. ity ayam api tat-karambita eva (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 174).

[10]:

atra viśeṣaṇayor dṛptatva-madāndhatvayor viśeṣyayoś ca nīyamānatva-kṛṣyamāṇatvayor vastu-prativastu-bhāvenobhayataḥ sampuṭito daśānana-dviradayor bimba-pratibimba-bhāvaḥ, ity ayam api tat-karambitaḥ (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 175).

[11]:

“vimalaṃ vadanaṃ tasyā niṣkalaṅka-mṛgāṅkati” ity atra vaimalya-niṣkalaṅkatvayor vastuta eka-rūpayor bimba-pratibimba-bhava-nirmuktaṃ vastu-prativastu-bhāvam āpannayor upamā-niṣpādakatvaṃ yady asti tadā śuddhaṃ vastu-prativastu-bhāvam āpanno’py eṣa ṣaṣṭho dharmaḥ. (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 175)

[12]:

atra rūpavattva-duḥkha-dāyitvayor dvayor anugāminor madhye kraurya-kāṭave bimba-pratibimba-bhāvāpanne duḥkha-dāyitvena saha hetu-hetumad-bhāvena miśrite, apareṇa tu śuddha-sāmānādhikaraṇyena (Rasa-gaṅgādhara, KM p. 177).