11: Definition of Sandeha Alaṃkāra

Sandeha is a prominent figure in Sanskrit Poetics and it has been treated by almost all famous rhetoricians. Bhāmaha is the first rhetorician to define and illustrate this figure which he calls ‘sasandeha’.

He defines the figure as—

upamānena tattvañca bhedañca vadataḥ punaḥ/
sasandehaṃ vacaḥ stutyai sasandehaṃ viduryathā//
  — Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 3.43.

—A statement which contains a doubt expressed by the poet who first asserts the similarity of the upameya with the upamāna and then shows the difference between them in order to convey the excellence of the upameya is called sasandeha.

According to Bhāmaha, in sasandeha the poet tries to point out the sameness between upameya and upamāna in a doubtful manner. Afterwards the poet again sates some difference between the two to convey his doubtfulness. This process eulogizes the upameya and creates poetic charm.

Udbhaṭa gives almost the same definition of the figure^[1] . But he also mentions a second variety of the figure as—

alaṃkārāntaracchāyāṃ yatkṛtvādhīṣu bandhanam/
asaṃdehepi saṃdeharūpaṃ saṃdehanāma tat//
  — Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 6.3.

—Any poetic composition which conveys an apparent doubt when there is no doubt in reality and this whole process is set forth with the purpose to produce poetic charm the figure is termed as sandeha.

In both these varieties of sandeha the doubts which are mentioned are all produced from the sheer imagination of the poet. There is no doubt in the poet’s mind regarding the reality of the things mentioned. Mammaṭa, in his Kāvyaprakāśa, remarks that niścayānta sandeha is rejected by Udbhaṭāas a va riety of the figure^[2] . The charm in sandeha originates from either pure doubt or an implied surety which does not overshadow the doubt. But in niścayānta sandeha a final and sure decision is made after the doubts are raised. According to Mammaṭā, because of the fact that the surety in niścayānta sandeha is expressed and not suggested Udbhaṭā has rejected it. The predecessors and contemporaries of Udbhaṭālike Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana have also rejected this variety of the figure as they have not defined or illustrated it.

Daṇḍin has not admitted sandeha or sasandeha as an independent figure. He includes it as a sub-variety of upamā and terms it as ‘saṃśayopamā’.

He illustrates the figure as—

kiṃ padmamaṇḍarbhrāntāli kiṃ te lolekṣaṇaṃ mukham/
mama dolāyate cittamitīyaṃ saṃśayopamā//
  — Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.26.

—(Which is the lotus with bees swaying inside and which your face with roaming eyes is? My mind is very much indecisive about the two.)

—Here the doubt created by the speaker conveys the similarity between the face of his beloved and the lotus. The purpose of the statement is to show the excellence of the face of his beloved or the upameya.

The reason of including this figure under the broad division of upamā has been clarified by the commentator Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara—

iyaṃ saṃśayopamāsaṃśayasya aupamyaparyavasāyitvāt/
  —Kāvyādarśavivṛti, Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.26.

Vāmana follows the path of his predecessors in treating the figure but his definition is relatively concise—

upamānopameyasaṃśayaḥ sandehaḥ/
  — Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.11.

—Where there is doubt on the upameya and the upamāna the figure is called sandeha.

In the vṛtti Vāmana further explains that in sandeha the doubt is set forth for the specific purpose of implying excellence in the objects compared—

upamānopameyayoratiśayārthaṃ yaḥ kriyate saṃśayaḥ sa sandehaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.11.

—The Kāmadhenu commentator also supports Vāmana and adds—

upameyeatiśayamādhātuṃ sandehaḥ sampādyate na tu viśeṣādarśanādityarthaḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.11.

Vāmana illustrates the figure as—

idaṃ karṇotpalaṃ cakṣuridaṃ veti vilāsini/
na niścinoti hṛdayaṃ kintu dolāyate manaḥ//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.11.

—(Oh beautiful lady! My heart cannot determine whether this is a lotus at your ear or is it your eye? My mind is wavering in doubts.)

—Here the speaker is expressing his doubts to indicate the excellence of the upameya (the eye of the beautiful lady). A sense of comparison between the lotus and the eye is also implied. The doubt raised here clearly originates from the imagination of the speaker and it creates excellent poetic charm. This illustration of the figure is quite similar to that of Daṇḍin which he furnishes while illustrating saṃśayopamā.

Rudraṭa includes the figure in the ‘aupamya-varga’ and deals with it elaborately. He delineates the figure as—

vastuni yatraikasminnanekaviṣayastu bhavati saṃdehaḥ/
  —Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 8.59.

—He has shown three primary varieties of the figure as:

1. aniścaya,
2. niścayagarbha and
3. niścayānta^[3] .

A special variety of the figure has also been mentioned which is based on doubt relating to case-endings of the upameya and the upamāna^[4] .

Kuntaka’s definition of the figure is—

yasminnutprekṣitaṃ rūpamutprekṣāntarasambhavāt/
sandehameti vicchityeti sasandehaṃ vadanti tat//
  —Vakrokti-jīvita (of Kuntaka) 3.58.

—When a feature fancied as something helps in the rise of other fancies or doubts too in such a way as to result in poetic charm, the figure is designated as sasandeha.

It is clear that Kuntaka gives emphasis on the imagination and innovativeness of the poet in order to create aesthetic beauty in this poetic doubt.

Bhoja follows Rudraṭāto some extent in the treatment of the figure. He defines it as—

tatraikaviṣayo' neko yasminnekatra śaṅkyate/
yasminnekamanekatra so'nekaviṣayaḥ smṛtaḥ//
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.42.

—He divides the figure into two basic varieties—

1. ekaviṣaya and
2. anekaviṣaya.

The first type is sub-divided into two varieties—

1. abhidhīyamāna sādṛśya and
2. pratīyamāna sādṛśya;

While the second type is also categorised into two varieties—

1. śuddha and
2. miśra.

Mammaṭa asserts that the figure sandeha is created when the upameya is doubted as upamāna based on their characteristic similarity—

sasaṃdehastu bhedoktau tadanuktau ca saṃśayaḥ/
  —Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.92.

—He classifies the figure into two initial varieties—

1. bhedoktau and
2. bhedanuktau.

The first type can be of two kinds—

1. niścayagarbha and
2. niścayānta^[5] .

The second type is to be regarded as the śuddha variety of the figure.

Ruyyaka follows Mammaṭāclosely in his treatment of the figure. He defines it as—

viṣayasya sandihyamānatve saṃdehaḥ/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-42.

—In sandeha the viṣaya or upameya is doubtfully presumed as viṣayī or upamāna.

According to him the figure has to bear the taint of poetic genius^[6] .

He clearly divides the figure in three-folds—

1. śuddha or where a doubt is only conveyed,
2. niścayagarbha or where a sense of certainty appears in the middle and
3. niścayānta or where a sense of certitude prevails at the end^[7] .

Hemcandra’s definition of the figure is also concise—

stutyai saṃśayoktiḥ sasandehaḥ/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 6.20.

—According to him in the figure sasandeha some doubt is expressed on the basis of similarity about a thing in hand.

He states that the figure very often stands on the basis of another figure—

stutyāalaṃkārāntaragarbhīkāreṇa prastutavastuvarṇanārthaṃ saṃśayoktiḥ/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 6.20. (vṛtti).

—The figure according to him is of two kinds—

1. nirṇayānta (when the doubt is dispelled in the end) and
2. anirṇayānta (when the doubt prevails even to the end).

The poet can give reason for the removal of his doubt or he can stay silent in this matter.

Vāgbhaṭa I terms the figure as saṃśaya and defines it as—

idametadidaṃ veti sāmyādbuddhirhi saṃśayaḥ/
hetubhirniścayaḥ so'pi niścayāntaḥ smṛto yathā//
  —VKL. 4.79.

—The saṃśaya occurs when a thing is presumed as another on the basis of similarity between the two. This figure becomes niścayānta when the doubt is removed at the end.

So, Vāgbhaṭa I puts forth two varieties of the figure—

1. saṃśaya or śuddha saṃśaya and
2. niścayānta saṃśaya or saṃśaya-niścaya.

Vāgbhaṭa II terms the figure as sasandeha like Mammaṭā, Hemcandra etc. He delineates the figure in accordance with Rudraṭāas—

sādṛsyātpratipattuḥ saṃśayaḥ sasaṃdehaḥ/
  —V KNA. Ch-III, p-39.

—He gives two primary divisions of the figure—

1. kevala and
2. nirṇayānta;

Though he accepts nirṇayagarbha as a variety of the figure in his vṛtti.

The nirṇayānta variety is again sub-divided into two types—

1. hetouktau (when reason is given for the removal of doubt) and
2. hetoranuktau (where no reason is given for the removal of doubt).

Vidyādhara gives an elaborate definition of the figure as—

kisalayati kaviḥ pratibhāvaśataḥ prakṛtārthabhittikaṃ yatra/
saṃśayamaprakṛtearthe saṃdeho'yaṃ samākhyātaḥ//
  —Ekāvalī (of Vidyādhara) 8.8.

—When originated from the genius of the poet, the ‘prakṛtārtha’ or the object of description is doubted as ‘aprakṛtārtha’ or another object based upon the similarity between the two, the figure is called sandeha.

He clarifies that an ordinary expression of doubt like ‘sthāṇurvāpuruṣo vā’ is not to be considered as an instance of the figure sandeha because it is not originated from poetic genius.

Vidyānātha also treats the figure in a similar way—

viṣayo viṣayīyatra sādṛśyāt kavisaṃmatāt/
saṃdehagocarau syātāṃ saṃdehālaṃkṛtiśca sā//
  —Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa (of Vidyānātha) Chapter-VIII, p-378.

—He too puts forth a three-fold division of the figure as:

1. śuddha,
2. niścayagarbha and
3. niścayānta.

Viśvanātha’s definition is similar to that of his predecessors—

sandehaḥ prakṛteanyasya saṃśayaḥ pratibhotthitaḥ/
  —Sāhitya-darpaṇa (of Viśvanātha) 10.57.

—He also advocates the same three -fold division of the figure as that of Vidyānātha and gives separate definitions of these divisions in his vṛtti^[8] .

Appayya Dīkṣīta has differentiated from smṛti and bhrānti—

syāt smṛtibhrātisaṃdehaistadaṃkālaṃkṛtitrayam/
  —Kuvalayānanda (of Appayyadīkṣīta) 24.

—According to him, in smṛti a recollection of an object that arises from the sight of some other object similar to it is mentioned. In bhrānti a deliberate mistake is made about a certain object to be something else similar to it. But in sandeha the certainty of an object is doubted through poetical skill.

Kavikarṇapūra delineates the figure in close proximity to Mammaṭa—

sa saṃśayaḥ/bhedānuktau taduktau tu sandehaḥ/
  —Alaṃkāra-kaustubha (of Kavikarṇāpūra) 8.238.

Jagannātha defines the figure in his own unique way—

sādṛśyamūlābhāsamānavirodhakāsamabalānānākoṭyavagāhinīdhīramaṇiyā sasaṃdehālaṃkṛtiḥ/
  —Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II, p-256.

—He also admits the same three-fold division of the figure like Vidyānātha, Viśvanātha etc. In his detailed treatment of the figure Jagannātha firmly establishes ‘sādṛśya’ or similarity as the base of sandeha.

The common property on which this similarity is based on may be expressed or implied, the same or different, ‘anugāmin’ (one and the same property found in both objects of comparison) or ‘bimba-pratibimbabhāvāpanna’ (two properties are similar in both objects of comparison)—

asmiṃśca saṃśaye nānākoṭiṣu kvacideka eva samāno dharmaḥ / kvacit pṛthak / soapi kvacidanugamī, kvacidbimbapratibimbabhāvāpannaḥ, kvacidanirdiṣṭaḥ, kvacinnirdiṣṭaḥ /
  —Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II, p-263.

—The doubt expressed in the figure can be ‘anāhārya’ or ‘āhārya’—

ayaṃ ca kvacidanāhāryaḥ, kvacidāhāryaḥ/ yatra hi kavināparaniṣṭhaḥ saṃśayo nibadhyate prāyaśastatrānāhāryaḥ /... yatra ca svagata eva tatrāhāryaḥ/
  —Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II, p-264.

From the varied doctrines of the Sanskrit rhetoricians regarding the characteristics of the figure we can form some basic ideas about the figure like—

i) Sandeha is a doubt raised by the imagination of the poet for the specific purpose of creating poetic charm.

ii) Ordinary day to day doubts are not considered as a part of this figure of speech.

iii) Sandeha is based on the similarity of the objects mentioned in it.

iv) The reason of the doubt raised in the figure can be expressed or be kept secret.

v) Sandeha or poetic doubt can be of three popular types—śuddha, niścayagarbha and niścayānta.

The definition and illustration put forth by Vāmana of this figure is concise yet compact as it covers the basic traits of the figure with admirable clarity.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

upamānena tattvañca bhedañca vadataḥ punaḥ/
sasandehaṃ vacaḥ stutyai sasandehaṃ vidurvudhāḥ//
  — Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 6.2.

[2]:

kintu niścayagarbha iva nātra niścayaḥ pratīyamāna iti upekṣito
bhaṭṭodbhaṭena/
  — Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.92. (vṛtti).

[3]:

pratipattuḥ sādṛśyādaniścayaḥ saṃśaya sa iti//
upameye sadasaṃbhavati viparītaṃ vātathopamāneapi/
yatra sa niścayagarbhastatoparo niścayāntoanyaḥ//
  — Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 8.59. & 8.61.

[4]:

yatrānekārthe saṃdehastvekakārakatvagataḥ/
syādekatvagato vāsādṛśyātsaṃ śayaḥ soanyaḥ//
  — Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 8.65.

[5]:

bhedoktāvityanena na kevalamayaṃ niścayagarbho yāvanniścayāntoapi
saṃdehaḥ svikṛtaḥ/
  — Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.92. (vṛtti).

[6]:

tena prakṛtāprakṛtagatatvena kavipratibhotthāpite saṃdehe
saṃdehālaṃkāraḥ/
  — Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) pp-42-43.

[7]:

sa ca trividhaḥ / śuddho niścayagarbho niścayāntaśca / śuddho yasya
saṃśaya eva paryavasānam /... niścayagarbho yaḥ saṃśayopakramo
niścayamadyaḥ saṃśayāntaśca /... niścayānto yatra saṃśaya upakramo
niścaye paryavasānam/
  — Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-43.

[8]:

yatra saṃśaya eva paryavasānaṃ sa śuddhaḥ /... yatrādāvante ca
saṃśaya eva madhye ca niścayaḥ sa niścayamadyaḥ /... yatrādau
saṃśayoante ca niścayaḥ sa niścayāntaḥ/
  — Sāhitya-darpaṇa (of Viśvanātha) 10.57. (vṛtti).