6: Definition of Rūpaka Alaṃkāra

Rūpaka is one of the most popular and famous figure based on similarity.

It is as old as to the time of Bharata who defines it in his Nāṭyaśāstra as—

savikalpena racitaṃ tulyāvayavalakṣaṇam/
kiñcit sādṛśyasaṃpannaṃ yadrūpaṃ rūpakaṃ tu tat//
  —Nāṭyaśāstra (of Bharata) 17.94.

—Rūpaka is constituted when an identical image is conceived due to slight similarity or due to indecision characterised by similar forms.

The commentator Abhinavagupta cites an alternative definition which emphasises on the etymological significance^[1] of the word rūpaka—

nānādravyānurāgādyairyadaupamyaguṇāśrayam/
rūpanivarṇanāyuktaṃ tadrūpakamiti smṛtam//
  —Abhinavabhāratī, Nāṭyaśāstra (of Bharata) 17.94.

Bhāmaha furnishes a popular definition of the figure which puts forth the key features of the figure—

upamānena yattattvamupameyasya rūpyate/
guṇānāṃ samatāṃ dṛṣṭvārūpakaṃ nāma tadviduḥ//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.21.

—If the character or identity of upamāna is imposed upon the upameya looking at the similarities of quality between them, the figure is called rūpaka by the learned.

Bhāmaha (Kāvyālaṃkāra 2.22.) also mentions two common varieties of the figure—samastavastuviṣaya and ekadeśavivartti.

Daṇḍin’s definition of the figure throws light on its difference with the mother figure upamā—

upamaiva tirobhūtobhedārūpakamucyate/
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.66.

—When the difference between the upamāna and the upameya present in an upamā disappears or is discarded or is implicit, the figure thus generated is called rūpaka.

The purpose of this poetic figure is to bring out the extreme similarity between the upamāna and the upameya. The upamāna takes over the rūpa (shape or quality) of the upameya and the upameya is totally submerged. This super-imposition of the upamāna upon the upameya is popularly known as ‘āropa’.

Ruyyaka gives a simple definition of this āropa—

anyatrānyāvāpa āropaḥ/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-35.

The āropa is a super-imposition by one thing on the other which is actually different from it. This āropa has to be based on similarity and not on the relation of cause and effect as in “āyurghṛtam” [āyurghṛta]^[2] . Abheda (identity or non-difference) between the upamāna and the upameya is predominant in rūpaka though this difference cannot be denied totally in reality. The common property or similarity based on which the āropa or super-imposition is made in rūpaka cannot be, however, expressed. Because a common property has to be always shared by more than one thing while in rūpaka the upamāna and the upameya are projected as one thing only. So, Rudraṭa (Kāvyalaṃkāra 8.38.) adds the feature ‘avivakṣitasāmānyā’ (the non-mention of common property) in his definition of the figure.

Daṇḍin has primarily furnished three varieties of the figure—

1. samasta,
2. asamasta and
3. samastavyasta.

He then gives several other varieties of the figure such as:

1. avayavarūpaka,
2. avayavirūpaka,
3. ekāṅgarūpaka,
4. yuktarūpaka,
5. ayuktarūpaka,
6. viṣamarūpaka etc.

He has also shown some variations of the figure like upamārūpaka, ākṣeparūpaka, śliṣṭarūpaka etc. which indicates that rūpaka can be associated with other poetical figures to create additional poetic charm. He also observes that there is no end to the varieties of rūpaka and this matter has to be left out for the able poets to invent more and more varieties of it^[3] . Vidyādhara rejects the variations of the figure mentioned by Daṇḍin due to their lack of poetic charm^[4] .

Vāmana follows Bhāmaha closely while defining the figure rūpaka—

upamānopameyasya guṇasāmyāt tattvāropo rūpakam/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.6.

He explains this definition further in his vṛtti—

upamānopameyasya guṇasāmyāt tattvasyāropaṇamāropo rūpakam/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.6. vṛtti.

—When the upamāna is described as identical on the basis of the similarity of qualities between the two, the figure is called rūpaka.

Vāmana also asserts that in the definition of rūpaka the words upamāna and upameya are both mentioned in order to point out that rūpaka is not only based on the kalpitā variety of upamā but also has its roots in the laukikī variety of upamā^[5] .

So, he opines that like upamā, rūpaka too has two basic varieties—

1. laukikī (popular or ordinary) and
2. kalpitā (imaginary).

Vāmana illustrates the figure rūpaka with a verse quoted from the first act of Bhavabhūti’s famous drama ‘Uttararāmacarita’ (1.38.)—

iyaṃ gehe lakṣmīriyamamṛtavartirnayanayorasāvasyāḥ sparśo vapuṣi bahulaścandanarasaḥ/
ayaṃ kaṇthe bāhuḥ śiśiramasṛṇo mauktikasaraḥ kimasyāna preyo paramasahyastu virahaḥ//

—She is the Goddess of Wealth of my house, the collyrium of nectar to my eyes; this touch of hers is like thick paste of sandal juice to my body; this arm of hers round my neck is a cool and soft necklace of pearls; what about her is not pleasing but separation from her would be extremely intolerable.

Here the pronoun ‘iyam’ refers to Sītāand the qualities ‘lakṣmītva’, ‘amṛtavartitva’ etc. have been imposed on her.

The Kāmadhenu commentator thus justifies the existence of rūpaka in this verse as—

atreyamiti sarvanāmnāsītāṃ nirdiśya tatra lakṣmītvamaṃrtavartitvamasyāḥ
sparśe candanarasatvaṃ bāhau mauktikasaratvaṃ cādhyāropyata iti rūpakam/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.6.

Vāmana further observes that in instances like ‘mukhacandra’ (moonface) etc. the figure is upamā and not rūpaka. The words like ‘mukhacandra’ etc. are compounded and thus they express similarity like the compound word ‘puruṣavyāghra’ (man-tiger) and not identity or imposition.

The Kāmadhenu commentator clarifies—

mukhacandrādīnāṃ puruṣavyāghrādisādṛśyādupamātvameva, na rūpakatvaṃ sambhavati/ tattvādhyāropāsambhavāditi/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.6.

He then remarks that sometimes words like ‘mukhacandra’ etc. can be regarded as instances of the figure rūpaka also.

Udbhaṭa puts forth the involvement of ‘guṇavṛtti’ (subsidiary relation) as an essential feature of rūpaka^[6] . This guṇavṛtti is a process of relating a sense that is similar in qualities to the original sense mentioned. It is closely related to lakṣaṇā.

He furnishes the following varieties of the figure—

samastavastuviṣaya, ekadeśavivarti and ekadeśavṛtti.

He also calls mālārūpaka as samastavastuviṣaya^[7] which is a quite unique theory.

Bhoja has also included ‘gauṇavṛtti’ as a feature of the figure^[8] . He, however, furnishes a completely different classification of the figure from that of Udbhaṭā.

He (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa 4.25-26.) gives three primary varieties of the figure—

1. śabdabhūyiṣṭha,
2. arthabhūyiṣṭha and
3. ubhayabhūyiṣṭha.

With each of these varieties having two sub-varieties. He includes the majority of varieties mentioned by Daṇḍin under these sub-varieties. Appaya Dīkṣīta (Citramīmāṃsā (of Appayyadīkṣīta) p-54.), on the other hand, has rejected the feature ‘guṇavṛtti’ in respect of the figure rūpaka.

Jagannātha (Rasa-gaṅgādhara Chapter-II, p-226) has supported this view.

Abheda or identity of the upamāna and the upameya which was mentioned earlier as ‘tirobhūtabhedā’ by Daṇḍin has been regarded as a basic feature of the figure by the majority of the Sanskrit rhetoricians like Mammaṭa (Kāvya-prakāśa 10.139.), Ruyyaka (Alaṃkārasarvasva p-34.), Vāgbhaṭa I (VKL. 4.66.), Vāgbhaṭa II (Kāvyānuśāsana Chapter-III, p-35.), Hemacandra (Kāvyānuśāsana 6.5.) etc. Vidyānātha and Appaya Dīkṣīta have furnished an identical definition of the figure^[9] , which according to them successfully distinguishes the figure rūpaka from other popular figures like upamā, saṃdeha, bhrāntimān, apahnuti, pariṇāma, utprekṣā, samāsokti etc. The definitions furnished by Ruyyaka^[10] , Vidyādhara^[11] and Viśvanātha^[12] lay stress upon distinguishing rūpaka from the figure apahnuti.

Later rhetoricians like Ruyyaka, Vidyādhara, Vidyānātha etc. have advocated for a eight-fold classification of the figure rūpaka. They primarily divide the figure into three types—niravayava (without constituent), sāvayava (with constituent) and paramparita (indirect). Niravayava is sub-divided into two varieties—kevala (unchained) and mālārūpa (chained); sāvayava can be samastavastuviṣaya (with all constituents) and ekadeśavivarti (with partial constituents); the paramparita can be śliṣṭa (paronomastic) and aśliṣṭa (nonparonomastic). Both the sub-varieties of paramparita can be either kevala or mālārūpa.

Some basic traits of the figure rūpaka can be formulated from the doctrines of the Sanskrit rhetoricians. They are as follows—

i) Rūpaka is formed when there is āropa or super-imposition of the upamāna on the upameya.

ii) This āropa leads to the abheda or identity of the upamāna and the upameya.

iii) In rūpaka, the upamāna and the upameya are both expressed but the upamāna imposes itself on the upameya with its own properties.

iv) The common property or the basis of similarity is never expressed in rūpaka.

Vāmana has put forth a comprehensive treatment of the figure rūpaka. He, for the first time in his definition, introduces clearly essential features of the figure like abheda and āropa which appear frequently in the treatment of the figure carried out by later rhetoricians.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

rūpakaśabdasyānvarthākhyāyakametat, aupamyasya guṇatvenāpradhāna-taya saṃśrayo yatra tathākṛtvārūpasya yānyarūpeṇa niścitya varṇanā tadrūpakam/
  —Abhinavabhāratī, Nāṭyaśāstra (of Bharata) 17.94.

[2]:

sādṛśyagrahaṇaṃ kāryakāraṇabhāvādinimittāntaravyudāsārtham/ tenāyurghṛtamityādau
na rūpakam/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 6.5. vṛtti.

Also—

sādṛśyāditi vacanādāyurghṛtamityādau kāryakāraṇabhāvādārope na rūpakam/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Vāgbhaṭā II) Chapter-III, p-35.

[3]:

na paryanto vikalpānāṃ rūpakopamayorataḥ/
diṅmātraṃ darśitaṃ dhīrairanuktamanumīyatām//
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.96.

[4]:

vyastasamastatvādikathane vaicitryābhāvāt/
  —Ekāvalī (of Vidyādhara) 8.6. vṛtti.

[5]:

upamānopameyayorubhayorapi grahaṇaṃ laukikyāḥ kalpitāyāścopamāyāḥ prakṛtitvamatra yathāvijñāyeteti/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.6. vṛtti.

[6]:

śrutyāsaṃbandhavirahādyatpadena padāntaram/
guṇavṛttipradānena yujyate rūpakaṃ tu tat//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 1.11.

[7]:

samastavastuviṣayaṃ mālārūpakamucyate/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 1.13.

[8]:

yadopamānaśabdānāṃ gauṇavṛttivyapāśrayāt/
upameye bhavedvṛttistadātadrūpakaṃ viduḥ//
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.24.

[9]:

āropaviṣayasya syādatirohitarūpiṇaḥ/
uparañjakamāropyamānaṃ tadrūpakaṃ matam//
  —Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa (of Vidyānātha) Chapter-VIII, p-371. & Citramīmāṃsā (of Appayyadīkṣīta) p-52.

[10]:

abhedaprādhānye ārope āropaviṣayanapahnave rūpakam/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-34.

[11]:

tadrūpakamārope yatrāpahnūyate na tadviṣayaḥ/
  —Ekāvalī (of Vidyādhara) 8.6.

[12]:

rūpakaṃ rūpitāropādviṣaye nirapahnave/s D. 10.28.