Alamkaras mentioned by Vamana
by Pratim Bhattacharya | 2016 | 65,462 words
This page relates ‘Definition of Ananvaya Alamkara’ of the study on Alamkaras (‘figure of speech’) mentioned by Vamana in his Kavyalankara-sutra Vritti, a treatise dealing with the ancient Indian science of Rhetoric and Poetic elements. Vamana flourished in the 8th century and defined thirty-one varieties of Alamkara (lit. “anything which beautifies a Kavya or poetic composition”)
14: Definition of Ananvaya Alaṃkāra
Ananvaya is a popular figure categorized under figures based on comparison.
Bhāmaha recognises it as a separate figure and defines it as—
yatra tenaiva tasya syādupamānopameyatā/
—Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 3.44.
—When comparison of one thing is made with the thing itself in order to convey the absence of any other similar thing, the figure is called ananvaya.
Udbhaṭa (Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 6.4.) has furnished the same definition of the figure.
Daṇḍin (Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.358.) has deliberately considered it under simile—
He calls it ‘asādhāraṇopamā’ and defines it as—
—Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.37.
—Kuntaka (Vakrokti-jīvita 3.42.) also calls it ‘kalpitopamā’—
“kalpitopamayātulyaṃ kavayo'nanvayaṃ viduḥ/”.
Hemcandra (Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 6.3.), however, distinguishes kalpitopamā from ananvaya and calls it ‘utpādyopamā’. According to him, in utpādyopamā or kalpitopamā the upamāna is an imaginary thing, for the poet here conceives a new thing and then uses it as upamāna.
Vāmana defines ananvaya as—
—Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.14.
—When one and the same object is both the upameya and the upamāna, the figure is called ananvaya.
The figure implies that the object described is unique and nothing else can bear similarity to it—
—Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.14. vṛtti.
—The Kāmadhenu commentator states that the description of the same object as both the upameya and the upamāna imparts absolute charm to the object and establishes its uniqueness. It also implies that there are no other compeers to the object mentioned.
The name ananvaya itself indicates a sort of unity between the diverse upameya and the upamāna—
ekasyaivārthasyaikasminneva vākye upamānāntaravyudāsenātiśayamādhātumupamānatvaṃ copameyatvaṃ copakalpyate / tatra vyadhikaraṇayordharmayorupamānatvopameyatvayorekatrānvayāsambhavādananvayālaṅkāraḥ/
—Kāmadhenu. Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.14.
—Indurāja, the commentator of the Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha of Udbhaṭā, points out that the upameya is prākaraṇika and the upamāna is aprākaraṇika and they are naturally diverse. But in the figure ananvaya these two are the same object. This is made possible because of the fact that the ‘upamānopameyabhāva’ is not so important here. Again the sameness of the upameya and the upamāna emphasizes the absence of any other similar object prominently . Jagannātha defines this special feature of the figure ananvaya as ‘dvitīyasadṛśavyavaccheda’ . The figure ananvaya is, however, different from the figure upameyopamā. In the latter figure, though the same object is treated as upameya and upamāna in turn, it is done in two different sentences. But in ananvaya the upameya becomes the upamāna in one and the same sentence. It is also to be noted that the difference between the upameya and the upamāna in ananvaya has to be ‘kalpitabheda’ (difference generated by the imagination of the poet) and not ‘deśakāladaśāviśeṣādikṛtabheda’ (difference generated from place, time, condition etc).
Vāmana illustrates the figure ananvaya with a verse which later became the stock example verse of the figure—
gaganaṃ gaganākāraṃ sāgaraḥ sāgaropamaḥ/
—Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.14. vṛtti.
—The sky is like the sky; the ocean is like the ocean; the battle between Rāma and Rāvaṇāis like that between Rāma and Rāvaṇa.
Here the objects sky, ocean and the battle between Rāma and Rāvaṇāare mentioned as both upameya and upamāna. The same objects are accepted here both as upameya and upamāna in order to show that the objects under the current description have no compeer.
Similar definitions of the figure ananvaya can be seen in the treatises of Ruyyaka , Mammaṭa , Vāgbhaṭa II , Jayadeva , Vidyādhara , Vidyānātaha , Viśvanātha , Appaya Dīkṣīta etc. The illustrations of the figure furnished by these rhetoricians are also more or less similar to each other.
The common features of the figure ananvaya can be figured out from the definitions of the Sanskrit rhetoricians. They are as follows—
i) In ananvaya one and the same object is both the upameya and the upamāna.
ii) The figure implies that there are no other compeers to the object mentioned.
iii) The ‘upamānopameyabhāva’ is not so important in this figure.
iv) The difference between the upameya and the upamāna in ananvaya has to be generated by the imagination of the poet.
Vamana’s treatment of the figure ananvaya follows the common path of his predecessors. The same concept of the figure has been generally accepted by the later rhetoricians.
Footnotes and references:
nātropamānopameyabhāve tātparyaṃ kiṃtu upameyopamāvad-upamānāntaravyāvṛttavityarthaḥ/
—Laghuvṛtti. Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 6.4.
dvitīyasadṛśavyavacchedaphalakavarṇanaviṣayībhūtaṃ yadekomānopa-meyakaṃ sādṛśyaṃ tadananvayaḥ/
—Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II, p-203.
—Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-30.
—Kāvyānuśāsana (of Vāgbhaṭā II) Chapter-III, p-45.
upamānopameyatve yatrekasaiva jāgrataḥ/
—Candrāloka (of Jayadeva) 5.12.
—Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa (of Vidyānātha) Chapter-VIII, p-369.
—Sāhitya-darpaṇa (of Viśvanātha) 10.26.
upamānopameyatvaṃ yadekasaiva vastunaḥ/
—Kuvalayānanda (of Appayyadīkṣīta) 10.