20: Definition of Arthāntaranyāsa Alaṃkāra

Arthāntaranyāsa is one of the most popular figures of sense. The famous poet Kālidāsa is renowned not only for his use of simile but also for the application of this figure. Bhāravi’s famous ‘arthagaurava’ is also indebted to the use of this figure.

Bhāmaha has defined the figure as—

upanyasanamanyasya yadarthasyoditādṛte/
jñeyaḥ so'rthāntaranyāsaḥ pūrvārthānugato yathā//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 2.71.

—The statement of a meaning which is different from the meaning of the context but which actually helps to understand the meaning of the context is called arthāntaranyāsa.

This definition is allied to the meaning of the word ‘arthāntaranyāsa’ (arthāntarasya nyasanaṃ upasthāpanamarthāntaranyāsa).

Bhāmaha also states th at the figure is marked by the use of the word ‘hi’. This word is employed to highlight the cause or reason for the accomplishment of the matter which is described or sought of to be described^[1] .

Daṇḍin’s definition of the figure is similar to that of Bhāmaha—

jñeyaḥ so'rthāntaranyāso vastu prastutya kiñcana/
tat sādhanasamarthasya nyāso yo'nyasya vastunaḥ//
  —Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 2. 169.

—In arthāntaranyāsa, while describing a certain object, a statement of another object capable of conveying the same meaning is made.

Daṇḍin gives a unique classification of the figure. His proposed varieties of the figure are:

1. viśvavyāpī,
2. viśeṣastha,
3. śleṣāviddha,
4. virodhavān,
5. ayuktakārī,
6. yuktātmā,
7. yuktāyukta and
8. viparyaya.

Bhoja furnishes the same definition (Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa 4.67.) to that of Daṇḍin but he differs in the classification of the figure. He primarily furnishes three varieties of the figure. They are formed by the similarity of the objects described (sādharmyeṇa) or by their dissimilarity (vaidharmyeṇa) or by their contrast (vaiparītyeṇa)^[2] . The variant is similar to the variant ‘viparyaya’ advocated by Daṇḍin. Bhoja is the only rhetorician to recognise ubhayanyāsa, pratyanīkanyāsa and pratīkanyāsa as sub-varieties of the figure^[3] . Rudraṭa and Vāgbhaṭa I have admitted ubhayanyāsa as an independent figure.

Udbhaṭa has tried to develop the idea of the figure by furnishing four varieties of the figure—

samarthakasya pūrvaṃ yat vaco'nyasya ca pṛṣṭhataḥ/
viparyayeṇa vāyat syāddhi śabdoktyā'nyathāpi vā//
jñeyaḥ so'rthāntaranyāsaḥ prakṛtārthasamarthanāt/
aprastutapraśaṃsāyāḥ dṛṣṭāntācca pṛthak sthitaḥ//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 2.4-5.

Indurāja provides a simple definition of the figure in his commentary which evolves from the doctrines of Udbhaṭā—

yatra samarthasamarthakabhāvaḥ so'rthāntaranyāsaḥ/
  —Laghuvṛtti. Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 2.4.

—According to him arthāntaranyāsa requires samarthasamarthakabhāva (the relation of corroborated and corroborator) and it is different from anumāna or logical inference because anumāna requires kāryakāraṇabhāva or vyāpyavyāpakabhāva which is different from samarthasamarthakabhāva.

Indurāja also explains the four varieties of the figure admitted by Udbhaṭā—

sa ca caturvidhaḥ / tatra samarthake pūrvamabhihite samarthasya yatra paścādabhidhānaṃ tatra dvau prakārau bhavataḥ / hi śabdābhivyaktatvaṃ samarthasamarthakabhāvasyaikaḥ prakāraḥ /
  —Laghuvṛtti, Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 2.4-5.

Udbhaṭa further states that the figure arthāntaranyāsa supports the prakṛtārtha or the original subject of description. It is thus different from the figures aprastutapraśaṃsā and dṛṣṭānta. In aprastutapraśaṃsā and dṛṣṭānta the corroboration is made of the prakṛtārtha just like in arthāntaranyāsa. But in aprastutapraśaṃsā the prakṛta is understood by means of the aprakṛta while in arthāntaranyāsa both the prakṛta and the aprakṛta are stated. In dṛṣṭānta the corroborated and the corroborator are both either sāmānya (general) or viśeṣa (specific) while in arthāntaranyāsa one is sāmānya and the other is viśeṣa.

Again, in dṛṣṭānta the bimbapratibimbabhāva is expressed and the samarthasamarthakabhāva is implied but in arthāntaranyāsa the samarthasamarthakabhāva is very much prominent.

Vāmana has defined the figure arthāntaranyāsa in a general way—

uktasiddhyai vastuno'rthāntarasaiva nyasanamarthāntaranyāsaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.21.

—When the statement of a certain fact is made and then it is supported by a statement of another fact the figure is called arthāntaranyāsa.

The definition is further clarified in the following vṛtti—

uktasiddhyai uktasyārthasya siddhyarthaṃ vastuno vākyārthāntarasyaiva nyasanamarthāntaranyāsaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.21. vṛtti.

Vāmana also excludes the ordinary hetu of an anumāna from the concept of the figure. So he states—

vastugrahaṇādarthasya hetornyasanaṃ nārthāntaranyāsaḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.21. vṛtti.

For example, in the sentence—

“iha nātidūragocaramasti saraḥ kamalasaugandhyāt”

(The lake is not very far away because the fragrance of lotuses can be perceived.)

The word ‘kamalasaugandhyāt’ is put forward as an ordinary hetu denoting kāryakāraṇabhāva or vyāpyavyāpakabhāva. So this example cannot be included as a case of arthāntaranyāsa.

The Kāmadhenu commentator thus asserts—

“atra kamalasaugandhyāditi hetoḥ padārtharūpatvāt tasya nyasanaṃ nārthāntaranyāsaḥ /”.

Again, the word ‘arthāntarasyaiva’ used in the definition indicates that the figure only occurs when the exact nature of the reason of inference is not explicitly stated. The vyāpyavyāpakabhāva in arthāntaranyāsa must be only implied through a theme or a complete statement.

Vāmana explains this in his vṛtti—

“arthāntarasyaiveti vacanam, yatra heturvyāptigūḍhatvāt kathañcit pratīyate, tatra yathāsyāt /”.

The statement in which the reason of inference is distinctly expressed (e.g. “yadyat kṛtakaṃ tadtadanityam”) are not to be included in the sphere of the figure arthāntaranyāsa.

The example of the figure put forth by Vāmana is as follows—

priyeṇa saṃgranthya vipakṣasaṃnidhāvupāhitāṃ vakṣasi pīvarastanī/
srajaṃ na kācidvijahau jalāvilāṃ vasanti hi premni guṇāna vastuni//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.21. vṛtti.

—She did not throw away the garland which was placed on her plump breasts by her lover in front of her rivals even when it faded with damp. The value of an object lies in the love that prompts it and not in the object itself.

Here, in the last foot of the verse, a statement is made which implies the reason for the statement previously made. The garland is the symbol of love for the lady and that is why she did not throw it away. The reason of her behavior is the love of her lover associated with that garland but this reason is not explicitly stated here and it is presented in an implicit way in the form of another statement.

The later rhetoricians have considered that the corroboration is usually made of a particular statement by a general one or of a general statement by a particular one. Rudraṭa recognises this feature of the figure^[4] and divides the figure into four varieties—when the general is corroborated by the particular, when the particular is corroborated by the general and these two types when put through similarity (sādharmya) or contrast (vaidharmya) gives rise to two more varieties. Rudraṭa, however, considers arthāntaranyāsa under the broad division called aupamyavarga and believes that the relation between the corroborated and the corroborator must be of similitude. The commentator Namisādhu has, in this context, rejected the example verse put forth by Vāmana as an instance of the figure because it is devoid of similitude^[5] .

Mammaṭa, Hemacandra, Vidyādhara, Vāgbhaṭa II, Appayya Dīkṣīta, Jagannātha etc. have also admitted the four primary varieties of the figure advocated by Rudraṭā. Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha and Vidyānātha have put forth another variety of the figure where a cause is supported by an effect and vice versa. They thus have furnished eight varieties of the figure. But later rhetoricians like Jagannātha have refused to accept this variety as they include it in the sphere of the figure kāvyaliṅga. Ruyyaka has also rejected the variety of the figure advocated by Udbhaṭāwhich involves the participle ‘hi’ as he finds it poetically non-charming and devoid of strikingness^[6] .

The doctrines of the Sanskrit rhetoricians throw light on the general features of the figure arthāntaranyāsa. They are as follows—

i) Arthāntaranyāsa is constituted by two statements. It basically denotes corroboration between the two statements.

ii) The samarthasamarthakabhāva or the relation of corroborated and corroborator constitutes the core of the figure.

iii) An ordinary reason of inference cannot be regarded as the constituent of the figure.

iv) Majority of the rhetoricians has admitted that out of the two statements required to constitute the figure one has to be general and the other particular or vice versa.

Vāmana, like his predecessors Bhāmaha and Daṇḍin, has furnished a rather general definition of the figure arthāntaranyāsa. It is based mainly on the etymological analysis of the word arthāntaranyāsa. It highlights the basic nature of the figure without specifically stating its distinct features or particular varieties. The sāmānyaviśeṣabhāva is excluded in this definition which is later included by most of the rhetoricians. But this non -specific treatment of the figure has helped Vāmana’s doctrine to keep at a distance from the controversies which surrounded the figure on later period.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

hiśabdenāpi hetvarthaprathanāduktasiddhaye/
ayamarthāntaranyāsaḥ sutarāṃ vyajyate yathā//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 2.73.

[2]:

sa upanyastavastūnāṃ sādharmyeṇaca kathyate/
vaidharmyeṇa ca vidvadbhirvaiparītyena kutracit//
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.68.

[3]:

prokto yastūbhayanyāso'rthāntaranyāsa eva saḥ/
sa pratyanīkanyāsaśca pratīkanyāsa eva ca//
  —Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.69.

[4]:

dharmiṇamarthaviśeṣaṃ sāmānyaṃ vābhidhāya tatsiddhyai/
yatra sadharmikamitaraṃ nyasyetso'rthāntaranyāsaḥ//
  —Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 8.79.

[5]:

nyahyatraupamyasadbhāvo'stītyarthāntaranyāsābhāsa iti brūmaḥ/
  —Namisādhu’s commentary on Kāvyalaṃkāra (of Rudraṭā) 8.84.

[6]:

hiśabdābhidhānānabhidhānābhyāṃ samarthakapūrvopanyāsottaropa-nyāsābhyāṃ ca bhedāntarasaṃbhāve'pi na tadgaṇanāsahṛdayada-hṛdayahāriṇī/ vaicitryasyābhāvāt/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-109.