22: Definition of Viśeṣokti Alaṃkāra

Viśeṣokti is a common figure of meaning and it has been dealt by almost all the Sanskrit rhetoricians. Bhāmaha defines it as—

ekadeśasya vigame yāguṇāntarasaṃhatiḥ/
viśeṣaprathanāyāsau viśeṣoktirmatāyathā//
  —Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 3.23.

—When a quality of an object is not mentioned and a variation of quality is shown unfolding a particular and superior trait of the object, the figure is called viśeṣokti.

Daṇḍin defines the figure as—

guṇajātikriyādīnāṃ yattu vaikalyadarśanam/
viśeṣadarśanāyaiva sāviśeṣoktiriṣyate//
  —Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.323.

—When a variation in quality, genus, action etc. of an object is shown in order to point out its specialty, the figure is called viśeṣokti.

The Agnipurāṇa and Bhoja have furnished the same definition of the figure.

Vāmana has furnished a peculiar definition of the figure—

ekaguṇahānikalpanāyāṃ sāmyadārḍhyaṃ viśeṣokti/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23.

—When the similarity is emphasized by the assumption of the absence of one particular quality, the figure is called viśeṣokti.

In the following vṛtti he clarifies this definition as—

ekasya guṇasya hāneḥ kalpanāyāṃ śeṣairguṇaissāmyaṃ yattasya dārḍhyaṃ viśeṣoktih/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23. vṛtti

In viśeṣokti, the absence of one particular quality of an object is mentioned in order to highlight the other points of similarity of the qualities. In absence of one part of similarity between the objects mentioned actually accentuates the other similarities between the objects.

Vāmana also mentions that in almost all the cases the figure viśeṣokti involves rūpaka or metaphor—

rūpakaṃ cedaṃ prāyeṇeti/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23. vṛtti

Vāmana has put forth several examples of the figure viśeṣokti. The first example of the figure is taken up from Kālidāsa’s Kumārasambhava—

bhavanti yatrauṣadhayo rajanyāmatailapūrāḥ suratapradīpāḥ/
  —Kumārasambhava (of Kālidasa) 1.10. & Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23. vṛtti.

—Where the shining herbs become the oil-less lamps of dalliance.

Here the word ‘atailapūrāḥ’ denotes the only dissimilarity between the herbs and the lamp and thereby prominently asserts the similarity between the two objects.

The second example is—

dyūtaṃ hi nāma puruṣasyāsiṃhāsanaṃ rājyam/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23. vṛtti

—Gambling is man’s throne-less kingdom.

Here the word ‘asiṃhāsanaṃ’ is the only point of dissimilarity between the objects mentioned and it helps to ascertain the proximity between the objects compared. Similarly in the third example “nidreyamakamalālakṣmīḥ” (Sleep is the Goddess of wealth without the lotus) the word ‘akamalā’ serves the above mentioned purpose.

The fourth example is—

hastīhi jaṅgamaṃ durgam/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23. vṛtti

—The elephant is a moving fort.

Here the word ‘jaṅgamaṃ’ points out the absence of stability or immobility and therefore can be regarded as the one point of dissimilarity between the objects compared.

Vāmana states this clearly in his vṛtti—

atrāpi jaṅgamaśabdasya sthāvaratvanivṛttipratipādanatvādekaguṇahānikalpanaiva/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23. vṛtti

The same principle can be applied in explaining the following as examples of the figure viśeṣokti—

a) vesyāhi nāma mūrtimatyeva nikṛtiḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23. vṛtti

—The prostitute is embodied deceit.

b) vyasanaṃ hi nāma socchvāsaṃ maraṇam/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23. vṛtti

—Vice is death with exhalation.

c) dvijo bhūmibṛhaspatiḥ/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23. vṛtti

—The Brahmin is Jupiter (bṛhaspati) on the Earth.

In these three examples the words ‘mūrtimatī’, ‘socchvāsaṃ’ and ‘bhūmibṛhaspatiḥ’ reveal the absence of a particular quality between the compared objects.

The Kāmadhenu commentator explains—

mūrtimatyevetyatrāmūrtatvanivṛttiḥ / socchvāsamityatrānucchvāsatānivṛttiḥ / bhūmibṛhaspatirityatrābhaumatvanivṛttiḥ pratipādyata ityekaguṇahānikalpanāvagantavyā /
  —Kāmadhenu. Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.23.

Ruyyaka has stated that the characteristics of viśeṣokti advocated by Vāmana are not at all to be consid ered as features of the figure since they are features of rūpaka only—

yātu ‘ekaguṇahānikalpanāyāṃ sāmyadārḍhyaṃ viśeṣoktiḥ’ iti viśeṣoktirlakṣitā sāsmin darśane rūpakabheda eveti pṛthaṅna vācyā/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-128.

Jagannātha too has discarded the example “dyūtaṃ hi nāma puruṣasyāsiṃhāsanaṃ rājyam” given by Vāmana as an example of the figure viśeṣokti and considers it as an example of rūpaka—

atra hi dyūte rājyaṃ tādātmyenāropyate / tatra siṃhāsanarahitaṃ hi dyūtaṃ siṃhāsanasahitarājyatādātmyaṃ kathaṃ vahedityāroponmūlakayuktinirāsāyāropyamāne rājye'pi siṃhāsanarāhityaṃ kalpyate tena dṛḍhāropaṃ rūpakamevedam/ na viśeṣoktiḥ/
  —Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II. p-439.

Again, the example “bhavanti yatrauṣad hayo rajanyāma tailapūrāḥ suratapradīpāḥ” given by Vāmana has been cited by Bhoja as an instance of vicitrāvibhāvana.

It is evident that most of the Sanskrit rhetoricians have accepted viśeṣokti as a figure based on the exception of the rule of cause and effect. Udbhaṭa is probably the first rhetorician who furnishes this type of characteristics of the figure.

His definition of the figure is—

yat sāmagrye'pi śaktīnāṃ phalānutpattibandhanam/
viśeṣasyābhidhitsātastadviśeṣoktirucyate//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 5.4.

—When, with a purpose of establishing some peculiarity, the non-production of effect is described even in the presence of all powers the figure is called viśeṣokti.

Two varieties of the figure have been mentioned by Udbhaṭā—one with the expression of reason for non-production of effect and the other where this reason is not expressed^[1] . These two varieties have been later popularly designated as uktanimittāviśeṣokti and anuktanimittāviśeṣokti.

Ruyyaka has given a clear and popular definition of the figure—

kāraṇasāmagrye kāryānutpattirviśeṣoktih/
  —Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-126.

—This definition has been widely accepted by later rhetoricians like Mammaṭa^[2] , Jayadeva^[3] , Vidyādhara^[4] , Vidyānātha^[5] , Viśvanātha^[6] , Appayya Dīkṣīta^[7] , Jagannātha^[8] etc.

Ruyyaka has also put forth the popular two-fold division of the figure as:

1. uktanimittāviśeṣokti and
2. anuktanimittā viśeṣokti.

Mammaṭa has mentioned a third type of the figure called acintyanimittāviśeṣokti. This variety has been included in the broad division of anuktanimittāviśeṣokti by Ruyyaka, Viśvanātha etc.

From the different opinions of Sanskrit rhetoricians regarding the figure viśeṣokti, it can be stated that this figure is generally considered to be a figure based on adverse causation. It is the non-production of effect even when the entire set of causes is present. This leads to the speculation that some special circumstances have occurred during the course of action. The whole process eventually reveals some special trait belonging to the object under description. This figure can be of two broad types—when the cause for the non-production of effect is expressed (uktanimittā) and when this cause is not expressed (anuktanimittā).

Vāmana’s treatment of the figure viśeṣokti is close to Bhāmaha and can be also allied to the definition furnished by Daṇḍin. But his notion of the figure is entirely different from later Sanskrit rhetoricians. By admitting himself that his viśeṣokti frequently involves rūpaka, Vāmana has probably hinted about the irresolute status of the figure as an independent individual figure. Later rhetoricians like Ruyyaka and Jagannātha have, therefore, treated Vāmana’s viśeṣokti as a variety of rūpaka and have devised a new concept of the figure.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

darśitena nimittena nimittādarśanena ca/
tasyābandho dvidhālakṣye dṛśyate lalitātmakaḥ//
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 5.5.

[2]:

viśeṣoktirakhaṇḍeṣu kāraṇeṣu phalāvacaḥ/
  —Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.163.

[3]:

viśeṣoktiranutpattiḥ kāryasya sati kāraṇe/
  —Candrāloka (of Jayadeva) 5.78.

[4]:

yadi kāraṇasākalye kāryāsiddhistadāviśeṣoktiḥ/
  —Ekāvalī (of Vidyādhara) 8.36.

[5]:

tatsāmagryamanutpattirviśeṣoktirnigadyate/
  —Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa (of Vidyānātha) Chapter-VIII, p-423.

[6]:

sati hetau phalābhāve viśeṣoktistathādvidhā/
  —Sāhitya-darpaṇa (of Viśvanātha) 10.67.

[7]:

kāryājanirviśeṣoktiḥ sati puṣkalakāraṇe/
  —Kuvalayānanda (of Appayyadīkṣīta) 35.

[8]:

prasiddhakāraṇakalāpasāmānādhikaraṇyena varṇyamānākāryānutpattirviśeṣoktiḥ/
  —Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II. p-437.