17 : Definition of Krama Alaṃkāra

Krama, which is popularly known as ‘yathāsaṃkhya’, has been treated by the majority of Sanskrit rhetoricians as a prominent arthalāṃkāra.

Bhāmaha is the oldest rhetorician to recognize it. He defines the figure as—

bhūyasāmupadiṣṭānāmrthānāmasadharmāṇām/
kramaśo yo'nunirdeśo yathāsaṃkhyaṃ taducyate//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.89.

Udbhaṭa burrows this definition in verbatim (Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 3.2.). When many dissimilar things mentioned earlier are subsequently referred to in the same order, the figure is called yathāsaṃkhya. The commentator Pratīhārendurāja suggests that the title yathāsaṃkhya indicates the nature of the figure comprehensively. In yathāsaṃkhya the syntactical order or connection of objects is not described in words but it is understood by means of suggestion. The connection of the objects (anvaya) stated subsequently follows the order indicated by the number of the objects mentioned earlier in an exact manner. The maintenance of the definite order gives the figure the name yathāsaṃkhya^[1] . Pratīhārendurāja has pointed out that Udbhaṭa has used the word ‘asadharmaṇām’ in his definition to indicate that the different groups of objects which are mentioned in the figure yathāsaṃkhya must not be similar to each other. This is because if the objects mentioned in the figure are similar to each other they will give rise to figures based on similarity like vyatireka, upamā, rūpaka etc. Thus the figures based on similarity will get the upper-hand and yathāsaṃkhya will not have the prominence it deserves. But this doctrine of Pratīhārendurāja does not go with the popular notion regarding the figure yathāsaṃkhya. Even the examples^[2] taken up by Bhāmaha and Udbhaṭādoes not support this view-point. As in these examples there is similarity between the two groups of things stated. It can be said that the word ‘asadharmaṇām’ could mean that the objects mentioned in yathāsaṃkhya must be disconnected from one another and have no common standpoint between them. They though, as a group, may be similar with the other group of objects subsequently referred to.

Daṇḍin defines the figure without going into the controversy of asserting similarity or dissimilarity between the two groups of objects which constitute the figure.

He states that the figure is termed ‘krama’ and ‘saṃkhyānam’ also—

uddiṣṭānāṃ padārthānāmanūddeśo yathākramam/
yathāsaṃkhyamiti proktaṃ saṃkhyānaṃ karma ityapi//
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.273.

Vāmana is the only rhetorician to clearly mention that there must be an underlying sense of similarity among the objects mentioned in order in this figure.

He defines this figure which he terms as ‘krama’ in the following manner—

upameyopamānānāṃ kramasambandhaḥ kramaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.17.

—In the following vṛtti he clarifies his view and terms ‘upameya’ and ‘upamāna’ as ‘uddeśī’ and ‘anuddeśī’ respectively—

upameyānāmupamānānāṃ coddeśināmanuddeśināṃ ca kramasambandhaḥ kramaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.17.

—This is quite similar to Daṇḍin. According to Vāmana, in this figure the objects are mentioned in the same order respectively as the standards to which they are compared.

He illustrates the figure to support his view in the following verse—

tasyāḥ prabandhalīlābhirālāpasmitadṛṣṭibhiḥ/
jīyante vallakīkundakusumendīvarasrajaḥ//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.17.

—By her consistent sweet voice, smiles and looks the lute, the kunda flower and the blue lotus garland have been won over.

Here at first the upameya objects have been mentioned and then the upamāna objects are stated respectively in the order of the upameya objects to which they are compared.

Rudraṭa has dealt with this figure in a detailed manner. He describes the figure as—

nirdiśyante yasminnarthāvividhāyayaiva paripāṭyā/
punarapi tat pratibaddhāstayaiva tat syāt yathāsaṃkyam//
  —Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 7.34.

—The commentator Namisādhu states that the figure has to be implemented with variety of objects arranged in a specific order^[3] . He also asserts that this figure becomes charming when the objects mentioned are many even though they are referred to only a few times. In case where only two objects are mentioned first, they will have to be referred to at least three or four times to create poetic charm.

For best results the poet should mention a great number of objects and then he should refer them at least twice or thrice—

tad dviguṇaṃ triguṇaṃ vābahusūddiṣṭeṣu jāyate ramyam/
yatteṣu tathaiva tato dvayostu bahuśo'pi vadhnīyat//
  —Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 7.35.

Rudraṭa illustrates yathāsaṃkhya with two example verses^[4] of which the first one is an instance of three times reference of three objects while the second one is an example of four times reference of two objects. Pratīhārendurāja has followed Rudraṭāa great deal in his commentary ‘Laghuvṛtti’ in this matter. The first illustrative verse of Rudraṭāhas been quoted by him.

He mentions that in this verse there is no similarity between the two groups of objects mentioned and yet only the orderly arrangement of these dissimilar objects have created exquisite poetic charm—

atra hi hariprabhṛtīnāṃ trayāṇāmuddiṣṭānāṃ kajjalaruktvasuparṇavāhanatvajalanidhisthatvādayo dharmāḥ krameṇānunirdiṣṭāḥ / na ca tatra parasparasādharmyaṃ vidyate/ atha ca kramaparyālocanayāarthānāmānurūp yeṇa samanvayapratīteḥ śobhātiśayo vidyate/
  —‘Laghuvṛtti’, Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 3.2.

—It is clear that Rudraṭāis the first rhetorician to clearly put emphasis on the dissimilarity present in the figure yathāsaṃkhya. This view-point is quite opposite of that of Vāmana for the former clearly requires that the objects mentioned in succession in this figure should have between them a relation of similarity. The examples shown by Rudraṭāalso give the figure an independent outlook. The examples of the figure furnished by Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin contain some other figures like vyatireka and upamā in them along with yathāsaṃkhya whereas Rudraṭā’s examples of the figure contain no other figures other than yathāsaṃkhya.

Kuntaka has rejected yathāsaṃkhya as a separate figure^[5] . Jayaratha, the commentator of Ruyyaka, has also informed that Kuntaka has not accepted this figure^[6] . Hemacandra has also discarded the figure. According to him, yathāsaṃkhya requires a sentence to observe the rule of orderliness in it and therefore it cannot be regarded as a figure of speech.

He also claims that if this rule of orderliness is not observed the figure will be open to the fault ‘bhagnaprakrama’—

bhagnaprakramatādoṣābhāvamātraṃ yathāsaṃkhyaṃ doṣābhidhānenaiva gatārtham/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Hemacandra) 6.31. vṛtti.

—Jagannātha endorses this view and argues that this figure should not be recognized as a distinct figure since it does not contain any creative poetic genius which is the soul of a figure^[7] . He, though, has dealt with this figure in detail in his work. NāgojīBhaṭṭa, the author of the famous commentary ‘Udyota’ on Kāvyaprakāśa, has tried to figure out the reason for considering yathāsaṃkhya as a separate figure. He asserts that yathāsaṃkhya does not really deserve to be considered as a figure as it does not possess the least creation of poetic genius in it. Yet it is classed among the figures. This is because in yathāsaṃkhya many objects are respectively connected together and this orderly arrangement creates strikingness.

It is because of this strikingness the figure gets the status of a separate figure—

yadyapi kavipratibhānirmitatvasyālaṃkāratājīvātorleśatoapyabhāvādasya nālaṃkāratvaṃ tathāpyekatra padye bahūnāṃ kramānvaye vaicitryādalaṃkāratvenoktaḥ/
  —Udyota, Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.108.

Bhoja is the second rhetorician after Vāmana to accept yathāsaṃkhya in the name of karma. He defines the figure as—

śabdasya yadi vārthasya dvayorapyanayoratha/
bhaṇanaṃ paripāṭyāyat kramaḥ sa parikīrtitaḥ//
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.79.

—According to Bhoja the figure karma can be formed by installing an orderly arrangement of either words or senses or both. The orderly arrangement of words can be done in individual words or in sentences^[8] . The orderly arrangement of senses can be done in order of time or in order of place^[9] . The sequence of both word and senses can also be done by giving prominence to words or senses^[10] .

Mammaṭa gives a simple definition of the figure yathāsaṃkhya—

yathāsaṃkhyaṃ krameṇaiva kramikāṇāṃ samanvayaḥ/
  —Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.108.

—Ruyyaka also furnishes a terse definition—

uddiṣṭānāmarthānāṃ krameṇānunirdeśo yathāsaṃkhyam/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-148.

—He clarifies this definition in the vṛtti and points out that this figure is also known as ‘krama’—

ūrdhvaṃ nirdiṣṭānāmarthānāṃ paścānnirdiṣṭairarthaiḥ krameṇa sambandho yathāsaṃkhyamiti vākyārthaḥ/ anye tvimamalaṃ kāraṃ kramasaṃ jñayābhidadhire/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) pp-148-149

—Ruyyaka mentions two varieties of this figure which are created from the sequence of words and senses respectively. The characteristics of these two varieties have been furnished in the vṛtti^[11] .

Vāgbhaṭa I follows Rudraṭa in delineating the figure—

yatroktānāṃ padārthānāmarthāḥ saṃbandhinaḥ punaḥ/
krameṇa tena badhyante tadyathāsaṃkhyamucyate//
  —VKL. 4.115.

—Vāgbhaṭa II follows Daṇḍin and Ruyyaka in his treatment of the figure. His definition of the figure is—

uddeśakrameṇārthānāṃ pratinirdeśo yathāsaṃkhyam/
  —Kāvyānuśāsana (of Vāgbhaṭā II) Chapter-III, p-41.

Jayadeva^[12] , Vidyādhara^[13] , Vidyānātha^[14] , Viśvanātha^[15] , Appayyadīkṣita^[16] , Kavikarṇapūra^[17] and Jagannātha^[18] follow the contemporary path in their treatment of the figure.

From the general doctrines of the Sanskrit rhetoricians we can form some basic ideas about the characteristics of the figure yathāsaṃkhya or karma—

i) Yathāsaṃkhya is formed when different objects or groups of objects mentioned earlier are subsequently referred to in the same order.

ii) Yathāsaṃkhya becomes more effective when varieties of objects are mentioned in it and they are referred to at least twice or thrice.

iii) Yathāsaṃkhya can be created by the sequence of words or senses or both.

iv) The strikingness generated from the orderly mention of the objects in yathāsaṃkhya is the essence of the figure.

Vāmana’s treatment of the figure is quite unique as it puts emphasis on the element of similarity present in the figure. The orderly succession of objects in the figure provides it with a natural charm. But the requirement of similarity advocated by Vāmana supplies strikingness to the figure even further.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

tatra hi saṃkhyopalakṣ itakramānatikrameṇa śabdenānupāttoapi padārthānāmanvayaḥ samāśrīyate / ato yathākramaṃ padārthānāmanvayadhvananādetasyālaṃ kārasya yath āsaṃkhyatā/
  —Laghuvṛtti, Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 3.2.

[2]:

padmendubhṛṅgamātaṅgapuṃ skokilakalāpinaḥ/
vaktrakāntīkṣaṇagativaṇībalaistvayājitāḥ//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.90.

Also—

mṛṇālahaṃsapadmāni bāhucaṅkramaṇānanaiḥ/
nirjayantyānayāvyaktaṃ nalinyaḥ sakalāḥ jitāḥ//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 3.2.

[3]:

yatra vividhānānārūpāarthāyayaiva paripāṭyāyanaiva krameṇapūrve nirdiśyante punarapi tayaiva paripāṭyātat pratibaddhāsteṣu pūrvanirdiṣṭeṣu viśeṣasya viśeṣ aṇabhāvena pratibaddhāstadanuyāyino nirdiśyante tat yathāsaṃkhyaṃ syāt/
  —Namisādhu’s commentary, Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 7.34.

[4]:

kajjalahimakanakarucaḥ suparṇavṛṣahaṃ savāhanāḥ śaṃ vaḥ/
jaladhinidhigiripadmasthāhariharacaturānanādadadu//
dugdhodadhiśailasthau suparṇavṛṣavāhanau ghanendurucī/
madhumakaradhvajamathanau pātāṃ vaḥ śārṅgaśūladharau//
  —Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 7.36-37.

[5]:

In the third chapter of his work Kuntaka mentions some figures which are devoid of poetic beauty and are not to be accepted as separate figures—

bhūṣaṇāntarabhāvena śobhāśūnyatayāyathā/
alaṃkārāstu ye kecinnālaṃkāratayāmanāk//
  —Vakrokti-jīvita (of Kuntaka) 3.43.

—He includes yathāsaṃkhya as the first figure in this list and also furnishes its definition and illustration from Bhāmaha’s Kāvyālaṃkāra.

Krishnamoorthy’s edition of Vakroktijīvita contains a kārikā which directly rejects yathāsaṃkhya as a separate figure—

yathāsaṃkhyamalaṃkāraḥ pūrvairamnata eva yaḥ/
kāraṇadvitayenāpi nālaṃkāraḥ sa sammataḥ//
  —Vakrokti-jīvita (of Kuntaka) 3.63.

[6]:

doṣābhāvamātrañca nālaṃ kāratvam/ tasya kavipratibhātmakavicchitti-viśeṣatvenoktatvāt/ tattve cāsya “yathāsaṃ khamanudeśaḥ samāna mityādisūtrodāharaṇānāṃ “tūdīśālāturavarmatīkucavārāṅkhakū-chaṇḍhavyakaḥ'ityādīnāmapyalaṃkāraprasaṅgaḥ/ etacca vakroktijīvitakṛtā saprapañcamuktamityasmābhiriha nāyastam/
  —Vimarśinī, Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-148.

[7]:

yathāsaṃkhyamalaṃkārapadavīmeva tāvat kathamāroḍhuṃ prabhavatīti tu vicāraṇīyam/ na hyasmillokasiddhe kavipratibhānirmitatva-syālaṃkāratā jīvātorleśatopyupalabdhirasti/ yenālaṃkāravyapadeśo manāgapi sthāne syāt/ atopakramatvarūpadoṣābhāva eva yathāsaṃkhyam/
  —RG Chapter II, p-478.

[8]:

tatra śabdaparipāṭīdvidhā-padato vākyataśca/
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.79 (vṛtti).

[9]:

arthaparipāṭīdvidhā-kālato deśataśca/
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.79 (vṛtti).

[10]:

ubhayaparipāṭīdvidhā-śabdapradhānā, arthapradhānāca/
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.79 (vṛtti).

[11]:

tacca yathāsaṃkhyaṃ śābdamārthaṃ ca dvidhā/ śābdaṃ yatrāsamastānāṃ pādānāmsamastaiḥ padairarthadvārakaḥ sambandhaḥ / tatra kramasambandhasyātirohitasya pratyeyatvāt/ ārthaṃ tu yatra samāsaḥ kriyate tatra samudāyasya samudāyena saha sambandhasya śābdatvādarthāvagamaḥ paryālocanayātvavagataḥ kramasam bandhaḥ pratīyate/ tathātra yathāsaṃkhyasyārthatvam/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-149.

[12]:

yathāsaṃkhyaṃ dvidhārthāścet kramādekaikamanvitāḥ/
  —Candrāloka (of Jayadeva) 5.86.

[13]:

prathamaṃ nirdiṣṭānāṃ yasminnarthāntarāśrayoarthānām/
anunirdeśo bhavati krameṇatat syādyathāsaṃkhyam//
  —Ekāvalī (of Vidyādhara) 8.50.

[14]:

uddiṣṭānāṃ padārthānāṃ pūrvaṃ paścāt yathākramam/
anūddeśo bhavedaṃ yatra tad yathāsaṃkhyamiṣyate//
  —Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa (of Vidyānātha) Chapter-VIII, p-451.

[15]:

yathāsaṃkhyamanūddeśa uddiṣṭānāṃ krameṇa yat/
  —Sāhitya-darpaṇa (of Viśvanātha) 10.79.

[16]:

yathāsaṃkhyaṃ krameṇaiva kramikāṇāṃ samanvayaḥ/
  —Kuvalayānanda (of Appayyadīkṣīta) 51.110.

[17]:

yathāsaṃkhyaṃ yathāsaṃkhyaṃ kramikāṇāṃ yadanvayaḥ/
  —Alaṃkāra-kaustubha (of Kavikarṇāpūra) 8.273.

[18]:

upadeśakrameṇārthāṃ saṃbandho yathāsaṃkhyam/
  —Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II, pg-476.