12: Definition of Virodha Alaṃkāra

Virodha is a prevalent figure of sense based on contradiction. Bhāmaha is the first rhetorician who treats the figure.

His definition of the figure is—

guṇasya vākriyāyāvāviruddhānyakriyābhidā/
yāviśeṣābhidhānāya virodhaṃ taṃ vidurbudhāḥ//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 3.25.

—The expression of a thing different and contradictory to the quality and action of the thing mentioned is called virodha. The purpose of such expression is to establish excellence of the thing mentioned.

Udbhaṭa defines the figure with close proximity to Bhāmaha—

guṇasya vākriyāyāvāviruddhānyakriyāvacaḥ/
yadviśeṣābhidhānāya virodhaṃ taṃ pracakṣate//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 5.6.

Daṇḍin calls the figure ‘savirodha’ and defines it as—

viruddhānāṃ padārthānāṃ yatra saṃsargadarśanam/
viśeṣadarśanāyaiva savirodhaḥ smṛto yathā//
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.333.

—When contradictory objects are mentioned together in order to emphasise their specialties, the figure is called virodha.

The commentator Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara has advocated for a ten -fold classification of virodha in his commentary which are based on the four suggestions (saṃketa) of words (jāti, guṇa, kriyā and dravya) recognised by the grammarians^[1] . This ten -fold classification of the figure has been accepted by the majority of Sanskrit rhetoricians like Ruyyaka (Alaṃkārasarvasva p-122.), Mammaṭa (Kāvya-prakāśa 10.167), Hemacandra (6.12. vṛtti.), Vidyādhara (Ekāvalī 8.33-35.), Vidyānātha (Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa) Chapter-VIII, pp-416-420), Viśvanātha (Sāhitya-darpaṇa) 10.67-68.) etc.

Bhoja primarily gives two varieties of the figure—

1. śuddha and
2. grathita.

He also includes asaṅgati, pratyanīka, adhika and viṣama as sub-varieties of the figure^[2] .

Hemacandra includes seven figures in the sphere of virodha—

1. vibhāvanā,
2. viśeṣokti,
3. asaṃgati,
4. viṣama,
5. adhika,
6. vyāghāta and
7. atadguṇa.

He observes that these minor figures, if treated as independent figures of speech, would lead to an unnecessary infinity of figures^[3] .

Rudraṭa (Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 9.31-33.) furnishes thirteen varieties of the figure virodha which come out of two basic varieties—

1. sajātīya virodha and
2. vijātīya virodha.

He places the figure in ‘atiśaya varga’ and defines it quite similarly to that of Daṇḍin, Udbhaṭa etc^[4] .

Vāmana puts forth a terse and compact definition of the figure—

viruddhābhasatvaṃ virodhaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.12.

—A hint of contradiction forms the figure virodha. In the following vṛtti he further clarifies—

arthasya viruddhasyevābhāsatvaṃ viruddhābhāsatvaṃ virodhaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.12. vṛtti.

In virodha, the things are apparently contradictory but there is no contradiction between them in reality. According to the Kāmadhenu commentator, the contradiction in virodha is apparent because it does not persist till the complete comprehension of the figure. Careful analysis of meaning discards the contradiction which comes to mind after the first reading^[5] .

Ruyyaka (Alaṃkārasarvasva p-121.) follows Vāmana in verbatim while defining the figure virodha. He observes that the contradiction in virodha cannot be total or absolute. If the contradiction lasts till the end it gives rise to a poetic fault called ‘prarūḍa’ (or ‘viruddha’)^[6] .

Jagannātha asserts that virodha is of two kinds—

1. prarūḍa and
2. aprarūḍa.

If the contradiction which appears on the surface is final or absolute and cannot be reconciled it is called prarūḍa. This is a poetic fault or doṣa. If the contradiction is resolved in the end, it is called aprarūḍa and it constitutes the figure virodha^[7] . The word ‘ābhāsa’ (hint) has been used in the definition of the figure by the majority of the later rhetoricians. Some rhetoricians like Mammaṭa (Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.166.), Vāgbhaṭa I (Vāgbhaṭālaṃkāra 4.121.) and Vāgbhaṭā II (Kāvyānuśāsana Chapter-III, p-38.) have omitted the word ‘ābhāsa’ in their definitions but they were able to emphasise on the apparent contradiction present in the figure virodha in their own words.

Vāmana illustrates the figure with the following verses—

i) pītaṃ pānamidaṃ tvayādya dayite mattaṃ mamedaṃ manaḥ
patrālītava kuṅkumena racitāraktāvayaṃ mānini/
tvaṃ tuṅgastanabhāramantharagatirgātreṣu me vepathustvanmadhye
tanutāmamādṛtiraho mārasya citrāgatiḥ//

—O beloved one! You have drunk the wine today but my mind is intoxicated; you have painted yourself red with saffron but it is I who am reddened with love; your motion is sluggish due to the weight of your breasts but it is my body which is trembling; your waist is slim but it is me who is instable; the way of the Cupid is really strange!

Here there are only hints of contradictions. They are—

1. A person is intoxicated other than the one who drinks wine.
2. The redness appears in a person other than who is painted with saffron.
3. The trembling happens to a person other than the one whose movement is slackened.
4. A person is instable other than the one who is supposed to be so.

—These contradictions are only apparent and they can be set aside by careful analysis of the meaning. That is—

1. The intoxication of the speaker is not caused by drinking of wine by the lady but it is due to his excessive feeling of passion towards the lady.
2. The word ‘rakta’ is paronomastic (śliṣṭa). It implies redness in case of the lady and attachment in case of the speaker.
3. The trembling of the speaker is not caused by the sluggish movement of the lady but it is caused due to speaker’s excessive passion.
4. The inability of the speaker is also not due to the slenderness of the lady’s waist but it is caused by over-whelming emotion.

The Kāmadhenu commentator also shows the apparent contradiction present in the verse as—

pānādīnāṃ madādīnāñca vaiyadhikaraṇyād virodhaḥ /
madādīnāmarthāntaratvasvīkāreṇa virodhaparihāraḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.12.

ii) sābālāvayamapragalbhamanasaḥ sāsrtīvayaṃ kātarāḥ
sāpīnonnatimatyapayodharayugaṃ dhatte sakhedāvayam/
sākrāntājaghanasthalena guruṇāgantuṃ na śaktāvayaṃ
doṣairanyajanāśrayairapaṭavo jātāḥ sma ityadbhutam//

—She is young but it is I who am shy in mind; she is a woman but it is I who am afficted; she holds heavy and high breasts but it is I who is fatigued; she is oppressed by her heavy thighs but it is I who am unable to move; it is strange that I am suffering from disabilities that are caused due to the faults of someone else.

This verse is quoted from Amaruśataka (Verse-34.). Here, like the previous verse, apparent contradictions are hinted but careful analysis of the meaning reveals that the disabilities of the speaker are not caused due to the defects of another person but are caused by his excessive feeling of passion. Thus the contradictions that appeared previously on the surface are reconciled.

Ruyyaka has taken up this verse as an example of the figure asaṃgati.

He defines the figure asaṃgati as—

tayostu bhinnadeśatve'saṃgatiḥ/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-129.

—If the cause and its effects are described as existing in two different places the figure is called asaṃgati.

Ruyyaka justifies this verse as an instance of asaṃgati as—

atra bālyanimittamapragalbhavacanatvamanyadanyacca smaranimittakamitya -
nayorabhedādhyavasāyaḥ/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-130.

Viśvanātha also furnishes this verse as an example of the figure asaṃgati.

He clarifies that if the cause and effect are described in different places, the figure asaṃgati is formed whereas if they are placed in the same place the figure is called virodha—

asyāścāpavādatvādekadeśasthayorvirodhe virodhālaṃkāraḥ/
  —Sāhitya-darpaṇa (of Viśvanātha) 10.69. vṛtti.

Ancient rhetoricians like Bhāmaha, Udbhaṭa, Vāmana etc. have all treated virodha as the ultimate figure of contradiction. They did not discriminate between the different types of contradiction of meaning present in poetry and treated all of them under the broad sphere of the figure virodha. Later rhetoricians starting from Mammaṭāhave mentioned other figures based on different types of contradiction such as asaṃgati, viṣama, adhika etc. Mammaṭa suggests that figures like asaṃgati etc., though having contradiction as their basic feature, have a distinct charm of their own and thus should be considered as independent figures of speech.

Jagannātha has criticised the traditional ten -fold classification of the figure virodha. He regards this classification as devoid of literary charm. He also rejects the classification of virodha into śābda (when words like api are used) and ārtha (when words like api are not used) because even in the ārtha variety of virodha the meaning of api is suggested.

Jagannātha rather advocates a classification of the figure into:

1. śuddha (not based on śleṣa or paronomasia) and
2. śleṣamūla (based on śleṣa or paronomasia) varieties^[8] .

Ruyyaka refers to the school of critics led by Udbhaṭāwhi ch considers that if the figure virodha is śleṣamūla or śleṣagarbha it should be called śleṣa only and not virodha. Another school considers it to be a case of the figure saṃkara^[9] .

The various opinions of the Sanskrit rhetoricians about the nature of the figure virodha reveal the basic traits of the figure.

They are as follows—

i) Virodha is a figure based on contradiction.

ii) This contradiction is not real but an apparent one.

iii) The apparent contradiction present in virodha is reconciled in the end.

iv) Majority of the rhetoricians has accepted a ten-fold classification of the figure based on jāti, guṇa, kriyā and dravya. But this classification has been set aside by Jagannātha.

Vāmana is the first rhetorician who furnishes a definition of the figure which goes with its modern concept. He uses the word ‘ābhāsa’ in his definition of virodha which has been used by the majority of the later rhetoricians in their definitions. However, he has not minutely discriminated different types of contradictions and has included all of them under the figure virodha. That is why his illustrations of virodha fall under the illustrations of the figure asaṃgati of Mammaṭāand later rhetoricians.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

sa ca jātyādibhirjāteriti caturvidhaḥ, guṇādibhirguṇasyeti trividhaḥ,
kriyādravyābhyāṃ kriyāyāiti dvividhaḥ, dravyasya dravyeṇeti ekavidha iti
militvādaśavidho bodhyavyamiti /
  —Jīvānanda Vidyāsāgara’s commentary, Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.333.

[2]:

virodhastu padarthanam parasparamasangatih/
asangatih pratyanikamadhikam visamasca sah//
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 3.24.

[3]:

evaṃ ca vibhāvanāviśeṣoktyasaṃgativiṣamādhikavyāghātātadguṇaḥ
pṛthagalaṅkāratvena na vācyāḥ/ virodha evāntarbhāvāt /
uktavaicitryamātrādbhede ca lakṣaṇakaraṇe'laṅkārānantyaprasaṅgaḥ/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 6.12. vṛtti.

[4]:

yasmin dravyādīnāṃ parasparaṃ sarvathāviruddhānām/
ekatrāvasthānaṃ samakālaṃ bhavati sa virodhaḥ//
  —Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 9.30.

[5]:

prakārāntareṇa parihāre satyeva viruddhasyārthasyāvabhāsanaṃ virodhālaṃkāraḥ/
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.12.

[6]:

sa ca samādhānaṃ vināprarūḍodoṣaḥ/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-122.

[7]:

sa ca prarūḍo'prarūḍaśca / prarohaśca bādhabuddhyanabhibhutatvam/ tadvaiparītyamaprarohaḥ/ tatrādyo doṣasya viṣayaḥ, dvitīyaścālaṃkārasya/
  —Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II, p-427.

[8]:

vastuto jātyādibhedānāmahṛdyatvācchuddhatvaśleṣamūlatvābhyāṃ dvividho jñeyaḥ/
  —Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II, p-428.

[9]:

śleṣagarbhatve virodhapratibhotpattihetoḥ śleṣa udbhaṭānām / darśanāntare tu saṃkarālaṃkāraḥ/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-123.