1: Definition of Upamā Alaṃkāra

Vāmana has defined and illustrated twenty-nine arthālaṃkāras. He deals with the ‘mother’ figure upamā in the second chapter of the ālaṃkārika adhikaraṇa. We come across the word upamā as early as the age of the Ṛgveda^[1]. Yāska, the author of Nirukta, has pointed out that some of the nipātas like iva, na, yathā, vat etc. are used in the sense of upamā in the Ṛgveda^[2] .

He furnishes five varieties of upamā with illustrations—

1. karmopamā,
2. bhūtopamā,
3. rūpopamā,
4. siddhopamā and
5. luptopamā or arthopamā.

However, the word upamā itself has several meanings other than similarity in the Vedic literature. Apart from the Vedas, words like upamita and upamāna can be traced in the famous Aṣṭādhyāyī of Pāṇini^[3] . The prominence of upamā as an individual figure of speech based on similarity is, however, established by the Sanskrit rhetoricians. Upamā holds the prime position among the figures of sense and is recognized by all Sanskrit rhetoricians.

Upamā is one of the four ancient figures admitted by Bharata in his Nāṭyaśāstra. He defines the figure as—

yatkiñcit kāvyabandhesu sādṛśyenopamīyate/
upamānāma vijñeyāguṇākṛtisamāśrayā//
  —Nāṭyaśāstra (of Bharata) 17.82.

—When in a poetical composition, a comparison is made on the basis of similarity relating to quality and form, it is called upamā.

Bharata states that the comparison in upamā can be made by comparing one with one or many, or of many with one or of many with many^[4] . He also furnishes five varieties of the figure based on praśaṃsā (praise), nindā (censure), kalpitā (imagination), sadṛśī (uniqueness or comparison to itself) and kiñcit sadṛśī (partial similarity)^[5] .

Bhāmaha defines the figure as—

viruddhenopamānena deśakālakriyādibhiḥ/
upameyasya yat sāmyaṃ guṇaleśena sopamā//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.30.

—When the upameya which is different from upamāna in terms of place, time or action is shown as similar to it on account of a small resemblance, the figure is called upamā.

Bhāmaha suggests two varieties of the figure—one where the word yathā or iva is used to express the resemblance between the upameya and the upamāna and another where these words are not used and the resemblance is hidden in a compound word (Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.31-32.). These two varieties can be identified with the popular divisions of the figure pūrṇopamā and luptopamā respectively.

Daṇḍin has defined upamā in close accordance to the Nāṭyaśāstra—

yathākathañcit sādṛśyaṃ yatrodbhūtaṃ pratīyate/
upamānāma sātasyāḥ prapañco'yaṃ nidarśyate//
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.14.

This is one of the most general definitions of the figure. The words ‘yathā kathañcit’ and ‘sādṛśyaṃ’ are to be found in the definition of Nāṭyaśāstra also. Though the specific mention of the technical terms upameya and upamāna do not appear in the definition, the word ‘sādṛśyaṃ’ includes in itself any kind of comparison in poetical composition. With this wide and ambiguous view about the figure upamā and sādṛśya, Daṇḍin mentions more than thirty varieties of the figure. Lot of these varieties of upamā have been later on excluded from the sphere of the figure and given separate status as individual figures.

Agnipurāṇa’ s definition^[6] and treatment of upamā has resemblance to that of Daṇḍin. It also recognises a lot of varieties of the figure admitted by Daṇḍin.

Keśavamiśra (Alaṃkāraśekhara 11.3.) has also put forth ten varieties of the figure which can be related to the varieties furnished by Daṇḍin. Daṇḍin’s classification of the figure is based on the sense of the concerned example verse and has no other technical specification. Later Sanskrit rhetoricians have, thus, rejected this type of classification of the figure and have indulged into much more technical details while classifying the figure.

Vāmana defines the figure upamā as—

upamānenopameyasya guṇaleśataḥ sāmyamupamā/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.1.

—The slightest resemblance of qualities between the upamāna and the upameya constitutes the upamā.

Vāmana then furnishes in detail the meanings of the terms upamāna and upameya and also throws light on their relation in respect of the figure upamā in his vṛtti.

He elongates the two terms upamāna and upameya in respect of their etymological set-up—

upamīyate sādṛśyamānīyate yenotkṛṣṭaguṇenānyat tadupamānam /
yadupamīyate nyūnaguṇaṃ tadupameyam/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.1. (vṛtti).

—The upamāna is an object having superior qualities with which the similarity of another object (upameya) is shown.

The upameya is the object with which the upamāna is compared. It has inferior qualities to that of the upamāna. The similarity between upamāna and upameya is pointed out in the figure upamā. The similarity is based on the qualities, even sight, between the two objects.

The Kāmadhenu commentator explains the term ‘guṇaleśataḥ’ in the definition as—

guṇāupamānopameyayorutkṛṣṭadharmāḥ/ teṣāṃ leśata ekadeśataḥ / kvacidapi sarvākārasādṛśyāsambhavāditi bhāvaḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.1.

—According to him guṇas are the best qualities that upamāna and upameya possess. Even a small part of these guṇas can lead to a concept of similarity between the two. It is impossible to have absolute similarity between the two objects of comparison.

Vāmana himself has raised an objection regarding the use of the words upamāna and upameya in his definition of upamā. These two words are relative terms and thus the mention of any one of them would indicate the other. For example, in the sūtra ‘upamitaṃ vyāghrādibhiḥ sāmānyāprayoge’ (Aṣṭādhyāyī 2.1.56 of Pāṇini), only ‘upamita’ or upameya has been mentioned and the upamāna is indicated by it. Vāmana has composed his work in the ‘sūtra-vṛtti’ style which is preferred by the Grammarians. An essential feature of the grammatical sūtras is the precise and terse use of words in them^[7] . So, Vāmana is keen to just ify the use of both the words upamāna and upameya in his definition presented in the form of sūtra. According to him, both these words are mentioned in his definition to point out that only those upamānas (and also the upameyas) that are popular and well-known among people are to be regarded as a part of the figure upamā. Thus the use “mukhaṃ kamalamiva” (the face is like the lotus) is to be regarded as an instance of the upamā because of its popularity among people. But “mukhaṃ kumudamiva” (the face is like the lily) is not to be considered as an instance of the figure because the upamāna ‘kumudam’ is not a well-known upamāna for the upameya ‘mukham’^[8] .

Vamana calls this popular upama as laukikīupamā—

pūrvātu laukikī/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.2. vṛtti.

The second type of upamā is called kalpitā (imaginary). Vāmana defines this upamā as—

guṇabāhulyataśca kalpitā/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.2.

—When the similarity is imagined on the basis of a large number of common qualities it is called kalpitāupamā.

It is very much dependent on the imagination of the poet and thus is named kalpitā^[9] .

Vāmana again raises an objection regarding kalpitāu pamā. The kalpitā upamā is generated from the imagination of the poet and the similarity prescribed there is not well-known and popular among people. So, it is impossible to recognise the upamāna and the upameya there separately as these are names based upon similarity recognised by the people. The answer to this problem is that in kalpitāupamā the upamāna and the upameya are recognised by the superiority and the inferiority of the multitude of qualities ascribed to them respectively^[10] . The upamāna, as stated earlier, should have the excellence of quality and the upameya should be inferior or deficient to it in terms of qualities.

Vāmana illustrates kalpitāupamā in the following four verses—

i) udgarbhahūṇataruṇīramaṇopamardabhugnonnatistananiveśanibhaṃ himāṃśoḥ/
bimbaṃ kaṭhorabisakāṇḍakaḍāragaurairviṣṇoḥ padaṃ prathamamagrakarairvyanakti//

—The disc of the moon, which is like the breast of the pregnant Hūṇāwoman pressed by her lover during dalliance, brightens up the sky with its rays which are as white as the hard stems of the lotus-plants.

Here the similarity between the breasts of the Hūṇāwoman (upamāna) and the lunar disc (upameya) and that between the moon’s rays (upameya) and the hard lotus stems (upamāna) are not well-known to the ordinary people.

These similarities are imagined by the poet on the basis of a large number of common qualities present in the two objects compared.

ii) sadhyo muṇḍitamattahūṇacibukapraspardhi nāraṅgakam/

—The orange resembles the newly shaven chin of the drunk Hūṇā.

Here the similarity between the orange (upameya) and the the chin of the Hūṇa (upamāna) is imagined.

iii) abhinavakuśasūcispardhi karṇe śirīṣam/

—The śirīṣa flower in her ear is like the fresh shoot of the kuśa-grass.

Here the similarity between the śirīṣa flower (upameya) and the kuśa-shoot (upamāna) is imagined.

iv) idāniṃ plakṣānāṃ jaraṭhadalaviśleṣacaturastibhīnāmābaddhasphuritaśukacañcupuṭanibham/
tataḥ strīṇāṃ hanta kṣamamadharakāntiṃ tulayituṃ samantānniryāti sphuṭasubhagarāgaṃ kisalayam//

—At present the branches of the banyan tree have shed their old leaves and are possessed with new red leaves which resemble the beak of the parrot. One who is capable of comparing them with the beautiful lips of women can be considered as efficient.

Here the similarity between the red leaves of the banyan tree (upameya) and the beak of the parrot (upamāna) is imagined.

Vāmana again shows two more varieties of the figure as padārthavṛtti and vākyārthavṛtti—

taddvaividhyaṃ padavākyārthavṛttibhedāt/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.3.

He illustrates these two types of the figure in the following verses—

i) haritatanuṣu babhrutvagvimuktāsu yāsāṃ
kanakakaṇasadharmāmānmatho romabhedaḥ/

—The women whose bodies freed from the tawny skin are thrilled due to affection causing the hairs of their bodies to stand up which resemble dusts of gold.

Here the similarity is denoted by the word “kanakakaṇasadharmā” and thus it is an example of padārthavṛtti upamā.

ii) pāṇḍyo' yamaṃsārpitalambahāraḥ kḷptāṅgarāgo haricandanena/
ābhāti bālātaparaktasānuḥ sanirjharodgāra ivādrirājaḥ//

—This Pāṇḍya king with the long necklace hanging over his shoulder and with his body covered with fresh sandal -paint resembles the Chief of the Mountains Himālayas with the springs flowing along its sides and its peaks reddened with the rays of the newly risen sun.

Here the similarity is between the first and the second sentence of the verse which are upameya-vākya and upamāna-vākya respectively.

Vāmana furnishes yet another two -fold division of upamā—

1. pūrṇopamā and
2. luptopamā.^[11]

He defines the first type as—

guṇadyotakopamānopameyaśabdānāṃ sāmagrye pūrṇā/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.5.

—If a comparison contains all the qualities or factors necessary to constitute upamā, it is called pūrṇāupamā.

The Kāmadhenu commentator clarifies this definition further—

upamānopameyasamānadharmasādṛśyapratipādakānāmanyūnatvena prayoge pūrṇā/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.5.

—If a comparison contains upamāna (the standard of comparison), upameya (the object of comparison), samānadharma (the common property) and sādṛśyapratipādaka (word denoting similitude) the comparison is called pūrṇā upamā.

Vāmana gives an example of this type of upamā—

kamalamiva mukhaṃ manojñametat/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.5. vṛtti.

—The face is beautiful like a lotus.

Here the lotus is upamāna, the face is upameya, beauty is samānadharma and ‘iva’ is sādṛśyapratipadakaśabda.

The second type of upamā is luptā and is defined by Vāmana as—

lope luptā/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.6.

The Kāmadhenu commentator again clarifies—

upamānopameyaguṇasādṛśyapratipādakānāṃ madhye ekasya dvayostrayāṇāṃ vālope luptā/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.6.

Vāmana illustrates this type of upamā with the following examples—

i) The absence of common property—

“śaśīva rājā”

—The king is like the moon.

ii) The absence of word (like iva, yathā etc.) denoting similitude—

“dūrvaśyāmeyam”

—She is green like dūrva-grass.

iii) The absence of sāmānyadharma and sādṛśyapratipādakaśabda—

“śaśīmukhī”

—She is moon-faced.

Vāmana states that the example of the absence of words denoting upamāna and upameya have been mentioned in the following adhyāya which discusses the figures based on upamā^[12] . The Kāmadhenu commentator asserts that the absence of upameya can be observed in the figure samāsokti etc. whereas the absence of upamāna can be seen in the figure ākṣepa^[13] .

Vāmana states that upamā is generally employed in praising, condemning and describing the real state of things—

stutinindātattvākhyāneṣu/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.7.

He illustrates these applications of the figure as—

i) Praise (stuti)—

“snigdhaṃ bhavatyamṛtakalpamaho kalatram”

—A gentle or affectionate wife is like nectar.

ii) Condemnation (nindā)—

“halāhalaṃ viṣamivāpaguṇaṃ tadeva”

—A wife who is devoid of good qualities is like the poison ‘Halāhala’.

iii) Describing the real state of things (tattvākhyāna)—

tāṃ rohiṇīṃ vijānīhi jyotiṣāmatra maṇḍale/
yastanvi tārakānyāsaḥ śakaṭ ākāramāśritaḥ//

—Among the galaxy of stars know that to be the Rohiṇī which appears in the shape of a cart.

Vāmana now points out the six defects of upamā. They are hīnatva (deficiency), adhikatva (excessiveness), liṅgabheda (disparity of gender), vacanabheda (disparity of number), asādṛśya (non-similitude) and asambhava (impossibility)—

hīnatvādhikatvaliṅgavacanabhedāsādṛśyāsambhavāstaddoṣāḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.8.

Further explanations and illustrations of these defects of upamā are as follows—

i) Hīnatva—The defect generated by the inferiority of upamāna to the upameya in caste, in magnitude and in quality is called hīnatva—

jātipramāṇadharmanyūnatopamānasya hīnatvaṃ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.9.

The examples of the different types of hīntva are—

a) Hīnatva in caste—

“caṇḍālairiva yuṣmābhiḥ sāhasaṃ paramaṃ kṛtam”

—This act of great daring has been done by you like the caṇḍālas.

b) Hīnatva in magnitude—

“vahnisphuliṅga iva bhānurayaṃ cakāsti”

—The sun is shining like a spark of fire.

c) Hīnatva in quality—

sa munirlāñchito mauñjyākṛṣṇājinapaṭaṃ vahan/
vyarājannīlajīmūtabhāgāśliṣṭa ivāṃśumān//

—The sage who was wearing a black antelope’s skin enclosed by a griddle-string, was shinning like the sun surrounded by dark blue clouds.

Vāmana mentions that in the last example the upamāna is the sun and the upameya is the sage. But there is no effort of stating an upamāna (like taḍit or lightening) for the concerned upameya ‘mauñjī’ (griddle-string). It is not right to say that the upamāna here is ‘kṛṣṇājinapaṭa’ because in that case the mention of ‘mauñjī’ will be rendered fruitless. Again it will be unjust to say that the mention of ‘nīlajīmūt’ implies the ‘taḍit’ because there is no such necessary connection between these two.

This idea of upamānopameyabhāva has been further clarified in the next sūtra—

dharmayorekanirdeśo' nyasya saṃvit sāhacaryāt/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.10.

—When two objects are concomitant of each other, the mention of one of them implies the other.

An example of this concomitance is as follows—

nirvṛṣṭe'pi bahirdhanena viramantyantarjaradveśmano
lūtātantutaticchido madhupṛṣatpiṅgāḥ payobindavaḥ/
cūḍābarbarake nipatya kaṇikābhāvena jātāḥ śiśoraṅgāsphālanabhagnanidragṛhiṇīcittavyathādāyinaḥ//

—Though rain outside has stopped, there is no cessation of the drops of rainwater falling from within the dilapidated house which are, as because they are passing through the spider’s nets, are yellowish like the drops of honey. These drops are falling upon the curly hair of the child sleeping in the house and are making him throw about his limbs and thus causing great mental agony to the house wife whose sleep is disturbed by this incident.

The yellowness and roundness of the honey-drops are two concomitant qualities. So, the word ‘piṅga’ used in the verse to denote yellowness implies the idea of roundness (vṛttatva) also^[14] .

The same explanation implies for the instance—

kanakaphalakacaturasraṃ śroṇibimbam/

—Her hips are as symmetrical as a sheet of gold.

The concomitance of symmetry and brightness can be seen in the sheet of gold. So, brightness is implied here by the mention of symmetry^[15] .

An objection is raised in this context that if the deficiency of quality is to be regarded as a defect of upamāna then how the following verse can be flawless—

sūryāṃśusammīlitalocaneṣu dīneṣu padmānilanirmadeṣu/
sādhvyaḥ svageheṣviva bhartṛhīnāḥ kekāvineśuḥ śikhināṃ mukheṣu//

—The kekā sound died in the mouths of those peacocks whose eyes were closed due to sun’s rays and who were in a sorry plight having been rendered joyless due to the wind flowing from among the lotuses. They are like the widow women living in their houses.

Here the upameya looks like having more qualities than the upamāna^[16] . But Vāmana refutes this objection by asserting that in this verse only some special features of the upameya have been mentioned without any intension of comparing them with the qualities of the upamāna. The samānadharma or common property here is dainya or misery^[17] .

So the objection raised before is not tenable.

ii) Adhikatva—Adhikatva is the opposite of hīnatva and is thus explained by the definition of hīnatva itself—

tenādhikatvaṃ vyākhyātam/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.11.

The excess of upamāna in caste, magnitude and quality is called adhikatva.

The examples of these different types of adhikatva is as follows—

a) Adhikatva in caste—

“viśantu viṣṭayaḥ śīghraṃ rudrāiva mahaujasaḥ”

—Let the workers enter like the mighty Rudras.

b) Adhikatva in magnitude—

pātālamiva nābhiste stanau kṣitidharopamau/
veṇīdaṇḍaḥ punarayaṃ kālindīpātasaṃnibhaḥ//

—Your naval is (deep) like the nether-world; your breasts are (voluminous) like the mountain and your braided tresses are (curvy or dark) like the fall of the Kālindī (Yamunā).

c) Adhikatva in quality—

saraśmi cañcalaṃ cakraṃ dadhaddevo vyarājata/
savāḍavāgniḥ sāvartaḥ srotasāmiva nāyakaḥ//

—The king who is holding the moving discuss of which rays are coming out resembles the ocean with the submarine-fire and whirlpool.

Vāmana says that in the last example t here is a mention of the ‘vāḍavāgni’ (submarine-fire) in context of the upamāna but nothing has been mentioned to resemble it in context of the upameya^[18] .

Hīntva and adhikatva include in themselves another defect of the upamā called viparyaya (contrariety). This defect has been mentioned by Bhāmaha (Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.39-40) as one of the seven doṣas advocated by his predecessor Medhāvin.

The Kāmadhenu commentator defines this defect as—

upameyadharmasya hīnatvamadhikatvañca viparyayaḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.11.

—The deficiency or excessiveness of the qualities of the upameya in respect of the upamāna is called viparyaya.

It is clear from this definition that this defect of upamā is really not a separate defect but rather a variation of the two defects mentioned earlier. This also makes it clear that the defects of upamā are only six in number and not more^[19] .

iii) Liṅgabheda—The defect called liṅgabheda appears when there is contradiction in the gender of the upamāna and the upameya—

upamānopameyayorliṅgavyatyāso liṅgabhedaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.12.

An example of such defect is—

“sainyāni nadya iva jagmuranargālani /”

—The armies went along like a river.

Here the upamāna ‘nadyaḥ’ is feminine and while the upameya ‘sainyāni’ is neuter. The Kāmadhenu commentator gives another example—

“gaṅgāpravāha iva tasya nirargalāvāk /”

—His words are unimpeded like the flow of the Ganges.

Here the upamāna ‘gaṅgāpravāhaḥ’ is masculine while the upameya ‘vāk’ is feminine.

According to Vāmana the exception of this rule can be allowed in some cases. So in the following sūtra he says—

iṣṭaḥ puṃnapuṃsakayoḥ prāyeṇa/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.13.

—In some cases the comparison between the masculine and the neuter upamāna and vice versa can be allowed.

For example, in “candramiva mukhaṃ paśyati” (He sees the face which is like the moon.) the upameya is neuter while the upamāna is masculine. This exception of rules is only permissible where the forms of the two words in two genders representing the upamana and the upameya are similar but in other cases like “induriva mukhaṃ bhāti” (The face shines like the moon.) the diversity of gender is not acceptable due to the difference of forms.

The second case of exception of this rule regarding gender is—

laukikyāṃ samāsābhihitāyāmupamāprapañce ca/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.14.

—The contradiction of gender is acceptable when the upamā is laukikī or used during ordinary common speech, where the upamā is expressed by means of compounds and where the various modifications of upamā are used.

The examples of these areas of exception are—

a) Laukikīupamā—

“chāyeva sa tasyāḥ”

—He is like her shadow.

b) Compounds—

“bhujalatānīlotpalasadṛśī”

—The creeper-like arm is like the blue-lotus.

c) Modifications of upamā (other figures based on similarity)—

śuddhāntadurlabhamidaṃ vapurāśramavāsino yadi janasya/
dūrīkṛtāḥ khalu guṇairudyānalatāvanalatābhiḥ//
  —Quoted from Abhijñānaśakuntala (of Kālidāsa) 1.16.

—If such a body, rare even in the seraglio of a king, be possessed by one living in a hermitage, then it is to be said that the creepers of the garden have been surpassed in excellence by the wild creepers.

iv) Vacanabheda—The concept of liṅgabheda discussed earlier can be applied to vacanabheda also—

tena vacanabhedo vyākhyātaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.15.

The defect which arises from the contradiction of the number of the upamāna and the upameya is called vacanabheda.

An example of vacanabheda is—

“pāsyāmi locanaṃ tasyāḥ puṣpaṃ madhuliho yathā/”

—I drink (sink into) her eyes as the bees drink in the flower.

The Kāmadhenu commentator justifies vacanabheda in this example as—

pāsyāma iti vaktavye pāsyāmīti prayuktatvāt vacanabhedaḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.15.

v) Asādṛśya—The defect called asādṛśya is generated when the similarity of quality intended to be asserted is not totally comprehended—

apratītaguṇasādṛśyamasādṛśyam/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.16.

An example of this defect is—

“grathnāmi kāvyaśaśinaṃ vitatārtharaśmim”

—I am composing the poetry-moon with ray-like expanding meaning.

Here the similarity between the upameya ‘kāvya’ and the upamāna ‘śaśī’ is not totally comprehensible due to the non-comprehensibility of the quality. An objection has been raised in this context that the similarity of the arthas (meanings) with raśmis (rays) is comprehensible enough to constitute the similarity between the kāvya and the śaśī. This objection, according to Vāmana, is not tenable because only after the similarity between the kāvya and the śaśī has been established that the similarity between the arthas and the raśmis can be constituted. Again, there is no common property mentioned between the arthas and the raśmis which would establish their similarity. Because of these factors ‘itaretarāśrayadoṣa’ (the flaw caused by mutual interdependence) would be unavoidable in this case^[20] .

Vāmana goes on fur ther to state that the asādṛśya defect of upamā is the worst defect of the figure. It entirely destroys the poet and his creation—

asādṛśyahatāhyupamā, tanniṣṭhāśca kavayaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.17.

Some people hold that asādṛśya can be avoided by the use of large number of upamānas—

upamānadhikhyāt tadapoha ityeke/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.18.

For example, in “karpūrahāraharahāsasitaṃ yaśaste” (Your fame is white like a camphor -necklace and like the smile of Śhiva.) the similarity is established by the use of a number of upamānas (like karpūra etc.) which indicate excessive whiteness. Vāmana, however, rejects this opinion.

According to him, the use of many upamānas does not nourish or enhance the meaning already stated by an upamāna—

nāpuṣṭārthatvāt/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.19.

He clarifies in his vṛtti also—

ekasminnupamāne prayukte upamānāntaraprayogo na kaścidarthaviśeṣaṃ puṣṇāti/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.19. vṛtti.

So the example “balasindhuḥ sindhuriva kṣubhitaḥ” (The Ocean of strength or army is ruffled like the Ocean.) is faulty due to the use of the word ‘sindhu’ twice. It can be said that there is no tautology due to the use of the word ‘sindhu’ twice as the first word means “balaṃ sindhuriva vaipulyāt” (the strength or army is like the Ocean due to its extensiveness) while the second word is used to describe the similarity between the sindhu and the bala on account of ‘kṣobhasārūpya’ (similarity of being ruffled). The difference of implication of these two words avoids the defect of tautology. But it does not enhance or add anything to the meaning of the example because as stated earlier (Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.10.) the mention of the word ‘kṣubhita’ implies the extensiveness of the sindhu also^[21] .

vi) Asambhava—The asambhava defect of upamā is caused due to the impossibility of the object mentioned as upamāna—

anupapattirasambhavaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.20.

An example of this defect is—

cakāsti vadanasyāntaḥ smitacchāyāvikāsinaḥ/
unnidrasyāravindasya madhye mugdheva candrikā//

—The shadow of the light smile in her shinning face is like the beautiful moonlight within the blooming lotus.

The blooming of the lotus in moon-light is naturally impossible. It may be objected that this is an instance of ‘arthavirodha’ (contradiction of meaning) and not of a defect of upamā.

But this objection is unjust as the figure upamā involves in itself ‘atiśaya’ or exaggeration which sometimes leads to incongruity—

upamāyāmatiśayasyeṣṭatvāt/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.20. vṛtti.

But this exaggeration should always be rational and failing which arises the defect asambhava—

na viruddho'tiśayaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.21.

Vāmana emphasises that an aspiring poet should properly know these six defects of upamā and should always avoid them^[22] .

The rhetoricians after Vāmana like Ruyyaka (Alaṃkārasarvasva p-25.), Mammaṭa (Kāvya-prakāśa 10.125.), Vāgbhaṭa I (Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra 4.50.), Vāgbhaṭa II (Kāvyānuśāsana p-33.), Hemcandra (Kāvyānuśāsana 6.1.), Vidyādhara (Ekāvalī 8.2.), Vidyānātha (Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa Chapter-VIII, p-351.), Viśvanātha (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.14.), Appayya Dīkṣita (Kuvalayānanda 6), Jagannātha (Rasa-gaṅgādhara Chapter-II, p-157.) etc. have all treated the figure upamā in a general manner. The rhetoricians by and large agree that the figure upamā is basically a comparison of two things or objects based on the similarity of common property or quality present in them. This similarity is largely generated from the imagination of the poet and thus involves, in itself, some sort of poetic exaggeration. The words ‘sādṛśya’, ‘sādharmya’, ‘sāmya’ and ‘sārūpya’ have been used to denote the similarity present in the figure. The difference of upameya and upamāna required to separate the figure from ananvaya has been first mentioned by Bhāmaha. Later on words like ‘bheda’, ‘binna’ etc. have been added in the definition of the figure upamā in order to separate it from ananvaya. The feature ‘ekavākyatā’ has been also added in the definition of the figure to separate it from upameyopamā. Ruyyaka adds “bhedābhedatulyatve sādharmye” to separate the figure from vyatireka, rūpaka etc. Viśvanātha includes “sāmyaṃ vācyam” to separate the figure from the sphere of the figures like rūpaka etc. where similarity is implied. He also adds the word “avaidharmye” to distinguish the figure from vyatireka. The rhetoricians have also emphasised that the similitude in the figure upamā must be beautiful and appealing to the connoisseur. So the words ‘cetohāri’, ‘camatkāri’, ‘hṛdyam’, ‘sundaram’ etc. have been added in the definition of the figure.

As far as the varieties of the figure are concerned, Ruyyaka furnishes three basic varieties based on upamānopameyabhāva, vastuprativastubhāva and bimbapratibimbabhāva. Other rhetoricians have put forth several variations of the figure. Udbhaṭa furnis hes seventeen (17) varieties, Mammaṭa twenty-five (25), Agnipurāṇa eighteen (18) and Viśvanātha shows twenty -seven (27) varieties of the figure. Jagannātha has rightly suggested that the variations of upamā, if multiplied by the different criteria advocated by the rhetoricians, can be numerous^[23] .

Vāmana has given a detailed discourse on the figure upamā and he has successfully put forth the basic features of the figure. He is the first rhetorician to classify the figure into laukikī and kalpitā varieties. Thus he has put forth the popularity of the figure in common usage as well as the importance of the imagination of the poet in constructing the figure. Again, he is the pioneer to classify the figure into the conventional padārthavṛtti-vākyārthavṛtti and pūrṇā-luptā (of which Bhāmaha talks ambiguously) varieties. However, no traces of Daṇḍin’s elaborate variations of the figure can be seen in the treatment of Vāmana. It seems that Vāmana has recognized some varieties of the figure mentioned by Daṇḍin but he considers them as mere applications of the figure (Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.7.). Vāmana also speaks of elaborately about the defects of upamā contradicting the views of Daṇḍin (Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.51) who considers them as doṣas only when they cause disgust to the connoisseur. Vāmana’s treatment of the figure, is thus, much more precise and conclusive than that of his predecessors.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

Ṛgveda. 1.113.15. & 7.30.3.

[2]:

Nirukta. 3.13.

[3]:

Aṣṭādhyāyī. 2.1.55-56.

[4]:

ekasyaikena sākāryānekenāpyatha vāpunaḥ/
anekasya tathaikena bahūnāṃ bahubhistathā//
  —Nāṭyaśāstra (of Bharata) 7.83.

[5]:

praśaṃsācaiva nindāca kalpitāsadṛśītathā/
kiñcicca sadṛśījñeyāhyupamāpañcadhābudhaiḥ//
  —Nāṭyaśāstra (of Bharata) 7.87.

[6]:

upamānāma sāyasyāmupamānopameyayoḥ/
sattācāntarasāmanyayogitve'pi vivakṣitam//
kiñcidādāya sārūpyaṃ lokayātra pravarttate/
  —Agnipurāṇa 344.6-7.

[7]:

alpākṣaramasandigdhaṃ sāravat viśvatomukham/
astobhamanavadyañca sūtraṃ sūtravido viduḥ//
  —Yuktidīpikā. 1st āhnika, p-3.

[8]:

tatkṛtaṃ lokaprasiddhiparigrahārtham / yadevopameyamupamānañca lokaprasiddhaṃ tadeva parigṛhyate, netarat/ na hi yathā“mukhaṃ kamalamiva” iti, tathā“kumudamiva” ityapi bhavati/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.1. vṛtti.

[9]:

kavibhiḥ kalpitatvāt kalpitā/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.2. vṛtti.

[10]:

guṇabāhlyasyotkarṣāpakarṣakalpanābhyām/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.2. vṛtti.

[11]:

sāpūrṇāluptāca/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.4.

[12]:

upamānopameyalopastūpamāprapañce draṣṭavyaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.6. vṛtti.

[13]:

samasoktyadavupameyasyaksepadupamanasya lopa iti drastavyam/
  —Kamadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.6.

[14]:

tatra piṅgaśabdena piṅgatve pratipanne vṛttatvapratītirbhavati /
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.10. vṛtti.

[15]:

kanakaphalakasya gauratvacaturasratvayoḥ sāhacaryāccaturasratva -
śrutaiva gauratvapratipattiriti/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.10. vṛtti.

[16]:

mukheṣvityupameyasya locanasaṃmīlanadainyanirmadatvānāṃ dharmāṇāṃ bāhulyaṃ pratīyata iti virodhaḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.10.

[17]:

kintu bhartṛhīnatvasya nirmadatvādeścopapādakasya bhede'pyubha-yatra dainyameva sādharmyamiti vivakṣ itamiti na kaścidvirodhaḥ /
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.10.

[18]:

vāḍavāgnirityasyopameye' bhāvāddharmādhikyamiti/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.11. vṛtti.

[19]:

anayordoṣayorviparyayākhyasya doṣasyāntarbhāvānna pṛthagupādā-nam/
ata evāsmākaṃ mate ṣaḍdoṣāiti/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.11. vṛtti.

[20]:

kāvyasya śaśitulyatve siddhe'rthānāṃ raśmitulyatvaṃ siddhyati / na
hyarthānāṃ raśmīnāṃ ca kaścit sādṛśyahetuḥ pratīto guṇo'sti /
tadevamitaretarāśrayadoṣo duruttara iti/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.16. vṛtti.

[21]:

sindhuriva kṣubhita ityanenaiva vaipulyaṃ pratipatsyate /
ukta hi “dharmayorekanirdeśe'nyasya saṃvitsāhacaryāt'/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.19. vṛtti.

[22]:

tānetān ṣaḍupamādoṣān jñātvākaviḥ parityajet/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.2.21. vṛtti.

[23]:

evaṃ ca prācāṃ mate pañcaviṃśatibhedāyāḥ punaḥ pañcavidhatāyāṃ sapādaśataṃ bhedāḥ /
dvātriṃśadbhedavādināṃ tu ṣaṣṭyuttaraṃ śatam /
itaścānye'pi prabhedāḥ kuśāgriyadhiṣaṇaiḥ svayamudbhāvanīyāḥ/
  —Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II, p-174.