25: Definition of Tulyayogitā Alaṃkāra

Tulyayogitā is a well -known figure of speech in Sanskrit Poetics.

Bhāmaha is the first rhetorician to define and illustrate tulyayogitā. He defines the figure as—

nyūnasyāpi viśiṣṭena guṇasāmyavivakṣayā/
tulyakāryakriyāyogādityuktātulyayogitā//
  — Kāvyālaṃkāra (of Bhāmaha) 3.27.

—This definition of the figure corresponds to the definition of the figure dīpaka furnished by Mammaṭā, Vidyādhara etc^[1] .

The definition put forth by Daṇḍin is also quite dissimilar from some of the popular definitions of the figure—

vivakṣitaguṇotkṛṣṭairyatsamīkṛtya kasyacit/
kīrtanaṃ stutinindārthaṃ sāmatātulyayogitā//
  — Kāvyādarśa (of Daṇḍin) 2.330.

—According to Daṇḍin, in tulyayogitā a statement is made about a thing in order to make it equal with things possessing similar qualities. This statement is made for the sake of praising or blaming that thing. Bhoja is the only later rhetorician to support such a treatment of the figure.

He gives an identical definition of the figure with that of Daṇḍin and also adds—

anye sukhanimitte ca duḥkhahetau ca vastuni/
stutinindārthamevāhustulyatve tulyayogitām//
  — Sarasvatī-kaṇṭhābharaṇa (of Bhoja) 4.55.

Vāmana also gives a peculiar definition of the figure—

viśiṣṭena sāmyārthamekakālakriyāyogastulyayogitā/
  — Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.26.

—When, for the purpose of showing similarity with a superior person or thing, the mentioned person or thing is provided with the same action at the same time, the figure is called tulyayogitā.

According to Vāmana, tulyayogitā indicates a connection between the upamāna and the upameya with the help of an action. The purpose of this figure is to compare the upameya with the superior upamāna by mentioning a common action happening at the same time between the upameya and the upamāna.

The Kāmadhenu commentator clarifies this feature of the figure as—

viśiṣṭena guṇādhikenopamāneneti yāvat / arthādatra nyūnasyetyanenopameyasyetyavagamyate/ ekaḥ kālo yasyāḥ sāekakālātasyāṃ kriyāyāṃ sāmarthyaṃ yo yogaḥ sātulyayogitā /
  —Kāmadhenu, Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.26.

Vāmana illustrates the figure as—

jalanidhirasanāmimāṃ dharitrīṃ vahati bhujaṅgavibhurbhavadbhujaśca/
  —Kāvyālaṃkārasūtravṛtti (of Vāmana) 4.3.26.

—(Oh king!), this whole world surrounded by the ocean is being shouldered by the Lord of Serpents as well as your arm.

—Here the arm of the king is compared with the Lord of the Serpents. The common action which is performed at the same time by the king’s arm and the Lord of the Serpents is sustaining the burden of the earth. The purpose of the speaker is to indicate the equality of the king’s greatness with that of the Lord of the Serpents. Thus, the figure tulyayogitā is formed here.

Udbhaṭa is the first rhetorician to furnish the definition of tulyayogitā which later became the foundation-stone of the conventional definitions of the figure—

upamānopameyoktiśūnyairaprastutairvacaḥ/
sāmyābhidhāyiprastāvabhāgbhirvātulyayogitā//
  — Kāvyālaṃkārasārasaṃgraha (of Udbhaṭā) 5.7.

—The expression which conveys similarity between things that are all aprastuta or all prastuta is called tulyayogitā.

There is no scope of ‘upamānopameyabhāva’ in the figure because in tulyayogitā the things between which similarity is expressed are either all aprastuta or all prastuta.

Two varieties of tulyayogitā naturally arise from Udbhaṭā’s doctrine—

1. the first one where all the things mentioned are aprastuta and
2. the second one where all the things described are prastuta.

This concept of tulyayogitā is very much different from that of Bhāmaha, Daṇdin and Vāmana. Moreover, it is quite opposite to that of Vāmana as he trie s to impart ‘upamānopameyabhāva’ as an essential feature of the figure.

Mammaṭa defines the figure as—

niyatānāṃ sakṛddharmaḥ sāpunastulyayogitā/
  — Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.104.

—This definition is quite similar to Udbhaṭābut Mammaṭāadds that only one ‘sādhāraṇa dharma’ or common quality of the things which are similar must be stated in tulyayogitā.

The ‘Bālabodhinī’ commentator tries to justify this definition of tulyayogitā by analyzing the name of the figure—

tulyaścāsau yogaḥ sambandhaśca anva yaśca tulyayogaḥ ekadharmānvayaḥ ityarthaḥ soasti yeṣāṃ te tulyayoginaḥ teṣāṃ bhāvastulyayogiteti vyutpattiriti vodhyam/
  —Bālabodhinī, Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.104.

—He also quotes ‘Alaṃkāra-dīpikā’ of Āśādhara, a commentary on Appayya Dīkṣita’s ‘Kuvalayānandakārikā’, in his support^[2] .

Mammaṭa, like Udbhaṭā, furnishes two varieties of the figure—one which indicates similarity between the prākaraṇika or prastuta objects and the other between the aprākaraṇika or aprastuta objects.

Ruyyaka follows Udbhaṭāand Mammaṭāin the treatment of the figure and also points out that in the figure tulyayogitā the sense of similitude is always suggested—

aupamyasya gamyate padārthagatatvena prastutānāmaprastutānāṃ vā
samānadharmābhisambandhe tulyayogitā/
  — Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-70.

—He also clarifies that this similarity related to a single attribute between the objects should be mentioned in the form of a common action or quality—

tatra prākaraṇikānāmaprākaraṇikānāṃ vāsamānaguṇakriyāsaṃbandhe anvitārthātulyayogitā/
  — Alaṃkārasarvasva (of Ruyyaka) p-70.

—Ruyyaka divides tulyayogitā into four types on the basis of this theory—

1. Where all mentioned objects are prākaraṇika and the similarity is based on a common action.
2. Where all mentioned objects are prākaraṇika and the similarity is based on a common quality.
3. Where all mentioned objects are aprākaraṇika and the similarity is based on a common action.
4. Where all mentioned objects are aprākaraṇika and the similarity is based on a common quality.

Kuntaka, Hemacandra and VāgbhaṭāII have not admitted tulyayogitā.

Vāgbhaṭa I furnishes a definition of the figure which is very much similar to that of Vāmana—

upameyaṃ samīkartumupamānena yojyate/
tulyaikakālakriyayāyatra sātulyayogitā//
  — VKL. 4.88.

—Though VāgbhaṭāI does not clearly state that the purpose of the figure is to compare the upameya with a superior upamāna as advocated by Vāmana, his illustration of the figure supports Vāmana’s doctrine distinctly^[3] .

The definitions furnished by Jayadeva^[4] , Vidyādhara^[5] , Vidyānātha^[6] , Viśvanātha^[7] , Kavikarṇapūra^[8] and Jagannātha^[9] contain the conventional features of the figure mentioned by Udbhaṭā, Mammaṭa, Ruyyaka.

Appayya Dīkṣīta, in his ‘Kuvalayānanda’, has put forth three kinds of tulyayogitā. In the first type only the similarity of attribute (dharmaikyam) of the objects on hand (prastuta) or of objects not on hand (aprastuta) is mentioned—

varṇyānāmitareṣāṃ vādharmaikyaṃ tulyayogitā/
  — Kuvalayānanda (of Appayyadīkṣīta) 43.

—In the second type the similarity of the behavior towards a friend and an enemy is described—

hitāhite vṛttitaulyamaparātulyayogitā/
  — Kuvalayānanda (of Appayyadīkṣīta) 45.

—In the third type of tulyayogitā an object is described equal with those possessed by superior qualities—

guṇotkṛṣṭaiḥ samīkṛtya vaco'nyātulyayogitā/
  — Kuvalayānanda (of Appayyadīkṣīta) 46.

—It is clear from the definitions that the first type of tulyayogitā matches the common concept of the figure promoted by Udbhaṭā, Mammaṭa etc. The third type is a specific match to Vāmana’s definition. The second type is quite unique in itself.

From the various doctrines of Sanskrit rhetoricians about the figure tulyayogitā it can be concluded that there is more than one conception of the figure amongst the rhetoricians. Udbhaṭa, Mammaṭa, Ruyyaka, Vidyādhara etc have furnished a conventional and popular concept of the figure. On the other hand Bhāmaha, Daṇḍin, Vāmana etc have provided some unusual and remarkable features of the figure.

The common attributes of the figure are as follows—

i) In tulyayogitā the similarity between the prastuta objects or the aprastuta objects is indicated by one common attribute.

ii) This common attribute could be one common action or one common quality.

iii) The similarity in tulyayogitā is suggested.

Vāmana’s treatment of the figure adds certain criteria to it which are remarkable from its conventional conception. The special feature advocated by Vāmana for the figure enhances its charm and makes it more distinguished among the figures based on similarity.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

sakṛdvṛttistu dharmasya prakṛtāprakṛtātmanām/
saiva kriyāsu bahvīṣukāraksyeti dīpakam//
  — Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.156.

Also—

militānāṃ tathaiṣāṃ dīpakamityucyate/
  — Ekāvalī (of Vidyādhara) 8.16.

[2]:

tulyayogitetvanvartheyaṃ saṃ jñā/ tathācāhuḥ kuvalayānandakārikāvyākhyāyāmāśādharabhaṭṭāḥ “tulyāyogitāanvaya yatreti vyutpatteḥ'iti/
  —Bālabodhinī, Kāvya-prakāśa (of Mammaṭa) 10.104.

[3]:

tamasālupyamānānāṃ lokeasmin sādhuvartmanām/
prakāśanāya prabhutāmānostava ca dṛśyate//
  — VKL. 4.89.

[4]:

kriyādibhiranekasya tulyatātulyayogitā/
  — Candrāloka (of Jayadeva) 5.46.

[5]:

aupamyagamyatāyāṃ prakṛtānāṃ tulyadharmasaṃbandhe/
aprakṛtānāmathavācaturvidhātulyayogitājñeyā//
  — Ekāvalī (of Vidyādhara) 8.14.

[6]:

prastutānāṃ tathānyeṣāṃ kevalaṃ tulyadharmataḥ/
aupamyaṃ gamyate yatra sāmatātulyayogitā//
  —Pratāparudrayaśobhūṣaṇa (of Vidyānātha) Chapter-VIII, p-428.

[7]:

padārthānāṃ prastutānāmnyeṣāṃ vāyadābhavet/
ekadharmābhisambandhaḥ syāttadātulyayogitā//
  — Sāhitya-darpaṇa (of Viśvanātha) 10.46.

[8]:

prakṛtānāñcaikadoktirucyate tulyayogitā/
  — Alaṃkāra-kaustubha (of Kavikarṇāpūra) 8.266.

[9]:

prakṛtānāmevāprakṛtānāmeva vāguṇakriyādirūpaikadharmā- nvayastulyayogitā/
  — Rasa-gaṅgādhara (of Jagannātha) Chapter-II, p-317.