19: Definition of Nidarśanā Alaṃkāra

Nidarśana or Nidarśanā is a popular arthālaṃkāra as it appears in almost all the prominent Alaṃkāraśāstras in Sanskrit. Bharata, Agnipurāṇa, Rudraṭa, Keśavamiśra and both the Vāgbhaṭas have, however, not recognized the figure. Mammaṭa furnishes the meaning of the word ‘nidarśanam’ [nidarśana] as ‘dṛṣṭāntakaraṇam’ [dṛṣṭāntakaraṇa]^[1].

Thus the word nidarśana can be derived as—‘ni-√dṛś+lyuṭ (bhāvavācye)’.

Another derivative meaning of the figure has been furnished by the Bālabodhinī commentator—

nidarśanāniścitya darśanaṃ sādṛśyaprakaṭanaṃ nidarśanā/ dṛśerṇyantāt striyāṃ bhāve yuc/
  —Bālabodhinī, Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.97.

The figure first appears in Bhāmaha’s Kāvyālaṃkāra. He defines the figure as—

kriyayaiva viśiṣṭasya tadarthasyopadarśanāt/
jñeyānidarśanānāma yathevavatibhirvinā//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 3.32.

—When a certain action is mentioned with its own cause and their relationship is not expressed by words like ‘iva’ and ‘vat’, it is called nidarśanā.

Daṇḍin also gives a peculiar definition of the figure which is perhaps figured out from the etymological sense of the figure—

arthāntarapravṛttena kiñcittatsadṛśaṃ phalam/
sadasad vānidarśyeta yadi tat syānnidarśanam//
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.348.

—When a similar good or bad consequence is expressed by connecting a thing with another, it is called nidarśanā.

This definition leads to an obvious classification of the figure into:

1. ‘satphalanidarśanam’ [satphalanidarśana] and
2. ‘asatphalanidarśanam’ [asatphalanidarśana].

Daṇḍin furnishes two separate examples of these varieties in two consecutive verses.

Vāmana puts forth the definition of the figure as—

kriyayaiva svatadarthānvayakhāpanaṃ nidarśanam/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.20.

—When a certain action indicates to a relationship between itself and its cause it is called nidarśana.

In the following vṛtti he tries to clarify this definition—

kriyayaiva śuddhaya svasyātmanastadarthaḥ cānvayasya sambandhasya
khyāpanaṃ saṃlulitahetudṛṣṭāntavibhāgadarśanānnidarśanam /
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.20 (vṛtti).

—When an independent action is mentioned along with its cause and it exhibits the differentiation between the cause, effect and the example, it is called nidarśana.

The Kāmadhenu commentator also explains the etymological sense of the word nidarśana—

saṃlulitaḥ avivecito, hetudṛṣṭāntayorvibhāgāstasya darṣanādvivecanānnigūḍhahetudṛṣṭāntadarśanarūpatvānnidarśanamityarthaḥ/
  — Kāmadhenu. Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.20.

Vāmana illustrates the figure as follows—

atyaccapadādhyāsaḥ patanāyetyarthaśālināṃ śaṃset/
āpāṇḍu patati patraṃ tayoridaṃ bandhanagrantheḥ//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.20.

—Attaining to a very high position always leads to a fall-this fact is asserted to the rich men. The faded leaf is falling from the leaf-joint of the tree.

In this verse the action is ‘falling’ and the cause is ‘achievement of high position’. By the mention of the action along with its cause the fact that the attainment of high position can lead to fall is pointed out to the rich men.

Vāmana justifies the existence of nidarśana in this example verse in his vṛtti—

patatīti kriyā/ tasyāḥ svaṃ patanam / tadarthe'tyuccapadādhyāsaḥ patanāyeti śaṃsanam/ tasya khyāpanamarthaśālināṃ śaṃsaditi/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.20.

—The action of leaf falling from the high branch of a tree has established the cause-effect relation between attaining high position and falling. This relationship is then exhibited to the rich men warning them that they could also end up in this miserable position.

Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin and Vāmana have admitted one specific variety of nidarśanā which is quite different from the definitions of the figure furnished by later rhetoricians. The nidarśanā admitted by these ancient rhetoricians is known as ‘bodhana nidarśanā’.

Appaya Dīkṣīta has emphasized this matter in his Kuvalayānanda—

aparāṃ bodhanaṃ prāhuḥ kriyayāsatsadarthayoḥ/
  —Kuvalayānanda (of Appayyadīkṣīta) 55.

—Mammaṭa also furnishes a separate definition of this variety—

svasvahetvanvayasyoktiḥ kriyayaiva ca sāparā/
  —Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.97.

—The name ‘bodhana’ is probably given to this variety of nidarśanā because most of the illustrative verses of it content the verb ‘bodhi’^[2] . This bodhana nidarśanā is considered to be same as the sambhavadvastusamvandhā nidarśanā of Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha and most of the later rhetoricians.

The later rhetoricians have advocated a second variety of nidarśanā called as ‘asambhavadvastusamvandhānidarśanā’.

Udbhaṭa is the first rhetorician to mention this type of the figure. He, however, calls the figure ‘vidarśanā’—

abhavan vastusaṃbandho bhavan vāyatra kalpayet/
upamānopameyatvam kathyate sāvidarśanā//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 5.10.

—When a possible or an impossible relation of sentences leads to a sense of similarity, the figure is called vidarśanā.

Bhoja^[3] , Ruyyaka^[4] , Mammaṭa^[5] , Vidyādhara^[6] , Vidyānātha^[7] , Viśvanātha^[8] and Jagannātha^[9] have more or less followed this definition. Rhetoricians like Ruyyaka, Mammaṭa and Viśvanātha have elaborated both the types of nidarśanā (sambhavadvastusamvandhā and asambhavadvastusamvandhā) with suitable illustrations.

The asambhavadvastusamvandhānidarśanā is subdivided into vākyārtha nidarśanā and padārtha nidarśanā by many rhetoricians. A ‘mālā’ (chain or garland) variety of the figure nidarśanā has also been admitted. Bhoja has furnished two more sub-varieties of the figure–ṛju and vakra.

These two varieties can be again sub-divided into pūrva, uttara and sama depending on the occurrence of dṛṣṭānta and dārṣṭāntika in the concerned verse—

pūrvottarasamatve tadṛjuvakrañca kathyate/
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 3.31.

Rhetoricians like Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha, Vidyānātha, Vidyādhara etc. have pointed out that the figure nidarśanā requires ‘bimba-pratibimbabhāva’ between the two sentences of the verse. This bimba-pratibimbabhāva is a subtle bit of sameness which ultimately grips the upameya, upamāna and the sāmānya dharma. This sameness is not pronounced or is not predominant and it can only be felt by taking a deep insight into the meaning of the concerned verse. The bimba-pratibimbabhāva only comes to notice after the grasp of the total meaning of the verse. Jayaratha, in his commentary ‘Vimarśinī’, has given a beautiful interpretation of the term bimba-pratibimbabhāva. The physical frame of a lady and its reflection into the mirror are in fact separate. But the lady has to take these two as identical in order to apply ornaments etc. Similarly when two properties belonging to two different objects are quite distinct but a bit of similarity can be recognised between these two properties at the ultimate state, it is called bimba-pratibimbabhāva. This special feature of the figure differentiates it from other common figures based on similarity like prativastūpamā and dṛṣṭānta. Prativastūpamā consists of vastuprativastubhāva (the same common property mentioned through varied words or expressions). Dṛṣṭānta also relies on bimba-pratibimbabhāva like nidarśanā but in dṛṣṭānta the meaning of the verse has to be grasped first to comprehend the bimba-pratibimbabhāva while in nidarśanā the comprehension of bimbapratibimbabhāva leads to the explicit meaning of the verse.

From the various definitions of the figure nidarśana or nidarśanā by prominent Sanskrit rhetoricians we can form a basic idea about the characteristic features of the figure—

i) Nidarśanā has two primary varieties—sambhavadvastusamvandhā and asambhavadvastusamvandhā. The first type is also called bodhana nidarśanā.

ii) Nidarśanā consists of two sentences which are most of the time independent from one another.

iii) A relationship between the objects mentioned in these two sentences is exhibited in this figure which leads to a sense of similarity. This relation can be both possible and impossible.

iv) Bimba-pratibimbabhāva is an essential feature of the figure.

Vāmana’s treatment of the figure nidarśanā is in accordance to his predecessors Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin. He is clearly unaware of the asambhavadvastusamvandhā variety of the figure but he has successfully portrayed the essential feature of bodhana nidarśanā. This feature of the figure has been recognised by later rhetoricians and it shows the contribution of Vāmana in the gradual development of the figure.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

nidarśanaṃ dṛṣṭāntakaraṇam/
  —Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.97. (vṛtti).

[2]:

Ruyyaka has mentioned one such illustrative verse—

cūḍāmaṇipade dhatte yo devaṃ ravimāgatam/
satāṃ kāryātitheyīti bodhayan gṛhamedhinaḥ//
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-76.

[3]:

dṛṣṭāntaḥ proktasiddhyai yaḥ siddhe'rthe tannidarśanam/
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 3.31.

[4]:

saṃbhavatāsaṃbhavatāvāvastusaṃbandhena gamyamānaṃ pratibimbakaraṇaṃ nidarśanā/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-76.

[5]:

abhavan vastusaṃbandha upamāparikalpakaḥ/
  —Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.97.

[6]:

pratibimbanasya karaṇaṃ saṃbhavatāyatra vastuyogena/
gamyamasaṃbhavatāv̄ a nidarśanāsādvidhābhimatā//
  —Ekāvalī (of Vidyādhara) 8.19.

[7]:

asaṃbhavaddharmayogādupamānopameyayoḥ/
pratibimbakriyāgamyāyatra sāsyānnidarśanā//
  —Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa (of Vidyānātha) Chapter-VIII, p-433.

[8]:

saṃbhavan vastusaṃbandho'saṃbhavan vāpi kutracit/
yatra bimbanubimbatvaṃ bodhayet sānidarśanā//
  —Sāhitya-darpaṇa (of Viśvanātha) 10.51.

[9]:

upāttayorarthayorārthābheda aupamyaparyavasāyīnidarśanā/
  —Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II, p-339.