2: Definition of Prativastu or Prativastūpamā Alaṃkāra

Vāmana has put forth the definition of prativastūpamā in the very beginning of the third chapter of the ālaṃkārika adhikaraṇa. It is clearly suggested that the upamā or comparison lies at the root of all poetic figures relating to it such as prativastūpamā etc.

These poetic figures are collectively termed as ‘upamāprapañca’ or ‘the family of comparison’—

prativastuprabhṛtirūpamāprapañcaḥ/
  — Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.1.

The commentator Gopendra Tripurahara in his ‘Kāmadhenu’ commentary explains this sūtra accordingly—

prativastupramukhānāmalaṃkārāṇāmupamāgarbhatvāt upamāprapañca iti vyapadeśaḥ kṛtaḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.1.

Bhāmaha is the first rhetorician to separately recognize prativastūpamā as a figure of speech.

He defines prativastūpamā as a figure of speech where the common property is mentioned in varied wordings maintaining the similarity of excellence or quality—

samānavastunyāsena prativastūpamocyate/
yathevānabhidhāne'pi guṇasāmyapratītitaḥ//
  — Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.34.

Daṇḍin regards prativastūpamā only as a type of upamā and defines it as a statement which having made in regard to one thing, expresses the resemblance in another thing similar in excellence or quality in such a manner that there is a recognition of the similarity between the two—

vastu kiñcidupanyasya nyasanāttatsadharmaṇaḥ/
sāmyapratītirastīti prativastūpamāyathā//
  — Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.46.

Vāmana has included prativastūpamā as an ‘aupamya’ figure and he calls it ‘prativastu’. He defines the figure as—

upameyasyoktau samanavastunyāsaḥ prativastu/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.2.

In the figure of speech prativastu, after having put forth the ‘upameya’ sentence a similar common property is mentioned in a separate ‘upamāna’ sentence.

Vāmana differentiates prativastūpamā from upamā in a clear way in his vṛtti—

atra dau vākyārthau/ eko vākyārthaupamāyāmiti bhedaḥ/
  — Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.2. (vṛtti).

—The prativastu consists of two independent sentences while the ‘vākyārthaupamā’ only comprises of a single sentence.

Vāmana quotes the following verse to illustrate prativastu—

devībhāvaṃ gamitāparivārapadaṃ kathaṃ bhajatyeṣā/
na khalu paribhogayogyaṃ daivatarūpāṅkitaṃ ratnam//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.4.

—Once being an empress, how can she live a life of an ordinary queen? A gem carrying a symbol of God (or a gem studded in a relic of God) is not capable of being worn.

The Kāmadhenu commentator establishes prativastu in this verse by pointing out the ‘vastu-prativastubhāva’ present in the two sentences of it. The common property noted here is unsuitability or ‘anaucitya’ and it is mentioned through varied expressions in the two separate sentences of the verse as ‘kathaṃ bhajatu’ (in the upameya sentence) and ‘na khalu paribhogayogyam’ (in the upamāna sentence).

The same verse is quoted in Mammaṭā’s Kāvyaprakāśa as an example of ‘amālāprativastūpamā’ or ‘kevalāprativastūpamā’.

The ‘Bālabodhinī’ commentator has included that although some ancient alaṃkāras texts attribute this verse to Śrīharṣā’s Ratnāvalī Nātikā, the verse is not found in the present printed books of Ratnāvalī—

ratnyāvalyāṃ padyamidamiti kecit paraṃ tu aṅkitaratnāvalīpustake tu nopalabhyate/
  —Bālabodhinī, Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.101.

The verse is supposed to be a remark by a confidante of the queen to the king Udayana—

rājānaṃ prati devīsakhyāuktiriyam/
  —ibid.

The commentator also establishes the figure by pointing out the common property ‘anaucitya’ present in the verse—

atra “kathaṃ bhajatu' ityanena parivārapadabhajanasyānaucityaṃ pratyāyyate “na khalu' ityanena ca paribhogasyeti ekasyaivānaucityarūpasāmānyasya śabdabhedena dvivāramupādānam / atra pūrvavākyamupameyabhūtamuttaravākyamupamānabhūtam / evaṃ ca daiva tarūpāṅkitaratnasya bhogayogyatvaṃ yathānucitaṃ tathādevyāḥ parivārapadayogyatvamanucitamitaupamye paryavasānamiti prativastūpameyam/
  —ibid.

Udbhaṭa’s definition of prativastūpamā carries the same meaning of that of Bhāmaha—

upamānasaṃnidhāne ca sāmyavācyucyate budhairyatra/
upameyasya ca kavibhiḥ sāprativastūpamāgaditā//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 1.22.

—That is called prativastūpamā where the word expressing similarity is used severally with reference to the upamāna and the upameya both.

Udbhaṭa asserts that though the words like ‘iva’ are not used in prativastūpamā as it consists of different sentences, the relation of upamāna and upameya is determined by the force of the meaning alone.

Mammaṭa states that the prativastūpamā comprises of two independent sentences and a same common property exists in both the sentences though expressed in different manners—

pativastūpamāsāsāmānyasya dvirekasya yatra vākyadvaye sthitiḥ/
  —Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.101.

According to him the use of synonymous words in prativastūpamā is solely intended to avoid ‘kathitapadatvadoṣa’ or tautology in a poem—

sādhāraṇo dharmaḥ upameyavākye upamānavākye ca kathitapadasya duṣṭatayābhihitatvāt śabdabhedena yat upād īyate vākyārthasyopamānatvāt prativastūpamā/
  — Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.101 (vṛtti).

Ruyyaka has defined prativastūpamā in accordance to his elders—

vākyārthagatatvena sāmānyasya vākyadvaye pṛthaṅnirdeśe prativastūpamā/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-74.

In the figure prativastūpamā the common properties are mentioned in two sentences separately in varied words. The echo of this definition can be found in Vidyādhara’s Ekāvalī^[1] , Vidyānātha’s Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa^[2] , Viśvanātha’s Sāhityadarpaṇa^[3] , Kavikarṇapūra’s Alaṃkārakaustubha^[4] etc. A simpler definition of the figure appears in Jayadeva’s Candrāloka^[5] and Appaya Dīkṣita’s Kuvalayānanda^[6] .

Jagannātha, in his definition, has tried to accumulate the views of his predecessors in an analytical manner—

vastuprativastubhāvāpanna sādhāraṇadharmakavākyārthayorārthamaupam -
yaṃ prativastūpamā/
  — Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Ch-II, p-330.

Mālāprativastūpamā (a garland or chain of prativastūpamā) has been also recognized by the majority of rhetoricians as a variety of the figure.

Although being a popular arthālaṃkāra and being successfully used by renowned poets like Kālidāsa^[7] , Māgha^[8] , Śrīharṣa^[9] etc, prativastūpamā has not been admitted as a separate figure of speech by rhetoricians like Kuntaka, Rudraṭa and Hemcandra.

From the various definitions furnished by the Sanskrit rhetoricians we can figure out some of the special characteristic features of the figure of speech prativastūpamā. They are as follows—

i) Prativastūpamā comprises of more than one sentence.

ii) The said sentence must be independent.

iii) Prativastūpamā must contain ‘vastu-prativastubhāva’^[10] and it can be created by mentioning the same common property through varied words and expressions.

iv) The varied words and expressions used must be similar in excellence and quality.

v) ‘Aupamyavācaka śabda’ or the words of similitude like ‘iva’ etc are not used in prativastūpamā. The similarity of the sentences can be understood by the force of meaning alone.

It is worth mentioning that Vāmana’s definition of prativastu alaṃkāra and the vṛtti following it clearly points out the basic traits of the figure of speech and its slender difference from the popular ‘mother-figure’ upamā.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

vākyārthagatatvena syāt sāmānyaṃ pṛthagvinirdiṣṭam/
yasyāṃ dvedhātajjñaiḥ sāpativastūpamāsamāmnātā//
  —E.V. 8.17.

[2]:

yatra sāmānyanirdeśaḥ pṛthagvākyadvaye yadi/
gamyaupamyāśritāsāsyāt prativastūpamāmatā//
  —Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa (of Vidyānātha) Chapter-VIII, p-431.

[3]:

prativastūpamāsāsyād vākyayorgamyasāmyayoḥ/
ekoapi dharmaḥ sāmānyo yatra nirdiśyate pṛthak//
  —Sāhitya-darpaṇa (of Viśvanātha) 10.46.

[4]:

prativastūpamātadā/
sāmānyasya sthitirvākya upamānopameyayoḥ//
  —A.K. 8.262.

[5]:

vākyayorarthasāmānye prativastūpamāmatā/
  —C.L. 5.53.

[6]:

vākyayorekasāmānye prativastūpamāmatā/
  —Kuvalayānanda (of Appayyadīkṣīta) 51.

[7]:

The use of prativastūpamā by Kālidāsa–

sarasijamanubiddhaṃ śaivalenāpi ramyaṃ
malinamapi himāṃśorlakṣma lakṣmīṃ tanoti/
iyamadhikamanojña valkalenāpi tanvī
kimiva hi madhurāṇāṃ maṇḍanaṃ nākṛtīnām//
  —Abhijñānaśakuntala (of Kālidāsa) 1.18.

—This verse has been admitted as an example of ‘mālāprativastūpamā’ by the commentator Rāghavabhaṭṭa in his commentary ‘Arthadyotanikā’—

ramyalakṣmīvistāramanojñapadairabhidhānānmālāprativastūpamā/

An exquisite use of prativastūpamā can also be seen in Raghuvaṃśa Canto-I–

taṃ santaḥ śrotumarhanti sadasadvyaktihetavaḥ/
hemnaḥ saṃlakṣyate hyagnau viśuddhiḥ śyāmikāpi vā//
  —1.10.

[8]:

Use of prativastūpamā by Śrīharṣa–

dhanyāsi vaidarbhi guṇairudārairyayāsamākṛṣyata naiṣadhoapi/
itaḥ stutiḥ kākhalu candrikāyāyadvavdhimapyuttaralīkaroti//
  — Naiṣadhacarita (of Śrīharṣā) 3.116.

—This verse has also been cited by Viśvanātha as an example of prativastūpamā.

[9]:

Use of prativastūpamā by Māgha–

upaplutaṃ pātumado madoddhataistvameva viśvambhara viśvamīśiṣe/
ṛte raveḥ kṣālayituṃ kṣameta kaḥ kṣapātamaskāṇḍamalīmasaṃ nabhaḥ//
  —Śiśupālavadha (of Māgha) 1.38.

[10]:

ekasyaiva dharmasya pṛthakśabdābhyāmupādānaṃ vastuprativastu-bhāvaḥ/
  — The ‘Bālabodhinī’ commentary of Kāvyaprakāśa. 10.101.