9: Definition of Utprekṣā Alaṃkāra

Utprekṣā is a well-known figure based on similitude. Bhāmaha is the first rhetorician who treats it. He defines the figure as—

avivakṣitasāmānyākiñciccopamaya saha/
atadguṇakriyāyogādutprekṣātiśayānvitā//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.91.

—In utprekṣā, though the objects in view are not connected by any common quality or action, there is a slight sense of similitude.

This similitude or resemblance is not marked with any common property but it attributes excellence to the object mentioned.

Udbhaṭa has followed Bhāmaha in defining the figure and he cites the last part of Bhāmaha’s definition in verbatim^[1] .

Interestingly he furnishes another definition of the figure—

lokātikrāntaviṣayābhāvābhāvābhimānataḥ/
saṃbhāvaneyamutprekṣāvācyevādibhirucyate//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 3.4.

This definition puts forth utprekṣā as a poetic fancy beyond the limit of worldly possibilities which can either be positive or negative. Udbhaṭa has thus used the word ‘saṃbhāvanā’ in the very definition of utprekṣā which can also be traced later in the definitions of Rudraṭā (Kāvyalaṃkāra 8.36.), Mammaṭa (Kāvya-prakāśa 10.137.), Hemacandra (Kāvyānuśāsana 6.4.), Viśvanātha (Sāhitya-darpaṇa 10.40.), Appaya Dīkṣīta (Kuvalayānanda 32.), Jagannātha (Rasa-gaṅgādhara Chapter-II, p-285.) etc. The two primary divisions of the figure advocated by Udbhaṭāare bhāvaviṣayā and abhāvaviṣayā which are quite unique. However, the vācyā variety mentioned by him is a very common and popular variant of the figure.

Daṇḍin has furnished a general definition of the figure which is based on the etymological meaning of the word utprekṣā—

anyathaiva sthitāvṛttiścetanasyetarasya vā/
anyathotprekṣyate yatra tāmutprekṣāṃ viduryathā//
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.221.

—If a particular condition or action of a conscious or unconscious object is fancied in a different manner, the figure is called utprekṣā.

Bhoja follows both Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin in defining the figure^[2] . He furnishes three primary varieties of the figure—

1. dravyotprekṣā,
2. guṇotprekṣā and
3. kriyotprekṣā.

He also observes that the figures utprekṣāvayava, utprekṣopamā and mata are also variants of utprekṣā^[3] . Bhoja regards the example verse of utprekṣā (“kiṃśukavyapadeśena” etc.) furnished by Bhāmaha as an instance of utprekṣopamā.

Vāmana has also followed his predecessors in defining the figure utprekṣā—

atadrūpasyānyathādhyavasānamatiśayārthamutprekṣā/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.9.

—When a thing (prākaraṇika or upameya) is actually dissimilar to another thing (aprākaraṇika or upamāna) but is fancied to be similar with the other thing for the purpose of showing its excellence, the figure is called utprekṣā.

Vāmana has used the word ‘adhyavasāna’ to mean ‘adhyavasāya’ or ‘saṃbhāvanā’.

The Kāmadhenu commentator clarifies this definition as—

atadrūpaprākaraṇikaṃ vastu / tadātmanāprākaraṇikavasturūpatve nātiśayamādhātumadhyavasīyate pratibhāmātreṇa kavināsambhāvyate, na punarindriyadoṣeṇa/ tathāvidhaṃ sambhāvanāparaparyāyamadhyavasānamutprekṣeti lakṣaṇārthaḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.9.

Utprekṣā is not generated from a common misconception or mistaken identity formed due to the defect or fault of sense-organs. It is a deliberate representation on the part of the poet to highlight the excellence of the upameya.

In this context Vāmana has also differentiated utprekṣā from rūpaka, vakrokti and bhrāntijñāna^[4] . The Kāmadhenu commentator explains this view of Vāmana in details. He states that in rūpaka, due to the similarity in quality, the upamāna is super-imposed on the upameya. In vakrokti, on the basis of similarity, an indication is made to resemble the upameya with the upamāna. In utprekṣā, however, the upameya is actually dissimilar to the upamāna but is represented to be similar to it in order to show its importance. Again this definite purpose to attribute importance to the upameya in utprekṣā differentiates it from bhrāntijñāna or viparyayajñāna. In bhrānti, there is an actual misconception of similarity whereas in utprekṣā the similarity of dissimilar objects is deliberately represented by the poet to create poetic charm. Vāmana has also differentiated utprekṣā from atiśayokti. According to him, in atiśayokti, both the quality of the thing assumed (saṃbhāvya) and its excellence is created by the poet. So, atiśayokti is a superior state of fancy to utprekṣā.

Utprekṣā is based upon similarity and this is supported by the use of the words like ‘iva’ in the figure^[5]. The Kāmadhenu commentator remarks that the use of the words like ‘iva’ in utprekṣā can give rise to an assumption that utprekṣā is identical with the figure upamā. But this is not true as words like ‘iva’ can also be used to constitute utprekṣā. He quotes a verse from Kāvyādarśa (2.234.) in support of his view.

Vāmana illustrates the figure utprekṣā as—

sa vaḥ pāyādindurnavabisalatākoṭikuṭilaḥ
smarāreryo mūrdhni jvalanakapiśe bhāti nihitaḥ/
sravanmandākinyāḥ pratidivasasiktena payasā
kapālenonmuktaḥ sphaṭikadhavalenāṅkura iva//

—May the Moon protect you! The Moon who is curved like the top of a fresh lotus stem, who is placed on the head of the enemy of Cupid Lord Śiva which is yellowish like fire, who being daily sprinkled with the water of the flowing Mandākinīis shooting out like a sprout from the (Śiva’s) crystal-white forehead.

Here the moon, though quite dissimilar to the sprout, is represented by the poet as similar to it. The purpose of such representation is to show the peculiar beauty of the moon. Ruyyaka has also cited this example as an instance of utprekṣā. He considers it to be a case of jātyutprekṣā because the word ‘aṅkura’ represents a jāti or genus^[6] .

Ruyyaka has admitted sādhya adhyavasāya as the core of the figure utprekṣā. In this kind of adhyavasāya, the upameya is not completely swallowed up by the upamāna and the process of swallowing up of the upameya seems to be continuing. He considers siddha adhyavasāya (where the process of swallowing up of the upameya by the upamāna is complete) as the basis of the figure atiśayokti. Jagannātha (Rasa-gaṅgādhara Chapter-II, pp-301-302.) critisises this view of Ruyyaka as he considers it as self-contradictory. He puts forth saṃbhāvana as the apt replacement for the word adhyavasāya in the definition of the figure utprekṣā. This saṃbhāvana has been popularly defined as—‘utkaṭa ekakoṭika saṃśaya’. When out of the two flanks of a doubt a particular flank or side is given preference or is shown as more powerful than the other, it is called ‘utkaṭa ekakoṭika saṃśaya’. This is identical with saṃbhāvana or possibility as possibility itself is associated with preference.

Ancient rhetoricians like Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana have not furnished any sub-varieties of the figure utprekṣā. Later rhetoricians have invented numerous sub -varieties of the figure. Rudraṭa (Kāvyalaṃkāra 8.34. & 8.36.) has shown two anonymous varieties of the figure. Ruyyaka shows ninety-six (96) sub-varieties of the figure of which vācyā and pratīyamānā are the two primary variants. Viśvanātha, Vidyānātha, Jagannātha etc. have all furnished many variants of the figure and the final tally of the sub-varieties of utprekṣā has risen over hundred.

From the various opinions of the Sanskrit rhetoricians regarding the nature of the figure utprekṣā some essential features of the figure can be pointed out. They are as follows—

i) Utprekṣā is a poetic fancy which is a deliberate effort from the part of the poet to represent similarity between two dissimilar objects.

ii) It is a figure which is primarily based on imaginary similarity.

iii) Anyathādhyavasāna or sādhya adhyavasāya or saṃbhāvana is the key feature of the figure.

iv) Dravya, guṇa, kriyā and jāti of the thing under discussion are the common areas of fancy in utprekṣā.

v) The similarity in utprekṣā can be conveyed by the use of the words like ‘iva’ (vācyotprekṣā) or it could be understood by the analysis of meaning (pratīyamānotprekṣā).

vi) The upameya and the upamāna are both mentioned in utprekṣā. Because of the sādhya adhyavasāya or saṃbhāvana involved in it, the mental focus leans more to the upamāna and the upameya is conceived almost as upamāna.

Vāmana has dealt with the figure utprekṣā in accordance to his predecessors. He is the first critic to include the word ‘adhyavasāna’ in the very definition of the figure. He, like Bhāmaha, observes that the purpose of poetic fancy involved in utprekṣā is to point out some excellence present in the upameya. He has also tried his best to draw fine lines of difference between the figures utprekṣā, rūpaka, vakrokti and atiśayokti. However, his views regarding the nature of these four figures differ quote a bit from those of the later rhetoricians like Mammaṭā, Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha, Jagannātha etc.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

sāmyarūpāvivakṣāyāṃ vācyevādyātmabhiḥ padaiḥ/
atadguṇakriyāyogādutprekṣātiśayānvitā//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 3.3.

[2]:

anyathāvasthitaṃ vastu yasyāmutprekṣyate'nyathā/
dravyaṃ guṇaṃ kriyācāpi tāmutprekṣāṃ pracakṣate//
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.50.

[3]:

utprekṣāvayavo yaśca yācotprekṣopamāmatā/
mataṃ ceti na bhidyante tānyutprekṣāsvarūpataḥ//
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.51.

[4]:

na punaradhyāropo lakṣaṇāvā/ atiśayārthamiti
bhrāntijñānanivṛttyartham/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.9. vṛtti.

[5]:

sādṛśyādiyamutprekṣeti/ enāṃ cevādiśabdo dyotayanti /
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.9. vṛtti.

[6]:

atrāṅkuraśabdasya jātiśabdatvājjātirutprekṣyate/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-58.