काव्यालङ्कार (आचार्य भामह - भारतीय काव्यशास्त्र एवं अलङ्कार-सिद्धान्त मूल महाग्रन्थ सटीक)

100 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
-60. It has been already elaborately stated that
similarity in every respect is not to be expected.
Perhaps according to the poet’s intention the idea
of the conch is not to be entertained.
60. This verse seems to suggest that the author
is prepared to condone the fault of the surplusage
of Upamāna. The idea that a resemblance in all
respects is not necessary which finds expression here
has already been dealt with in Verse 43. The author
pleads that perhaps according to the poet the conch
does not enter into the picture. This explanation,
though far from satisfactory, is offered by the author
simply to placate the admirers of Rāmaśarman’s
poetry. This surplusage of Upamāna is the converse
of the deficiency of Upamāna dealt with at the out-
set. In other words there is surplusage of Upameya
in the one case and surplusage of Upamāna in the
other. In the verse सूर्यांशुसंमीलितलोचनेषु surplusage of
Upameya is necessitated to justify the common
attribute दीनेषु. दैन्य in the peacocks’ faces will be
inconceivable unless it is expressly traced to the
two causes set out in the other two adjectives while
the दैन्य on the Upamāna side is self-evident. So the
surplusage of Upameya in that verse is justifiable.
In the present verse, is the surplusage of Upamāna
necessary ? Is there anything incomprehensible in
the Upamāna without the mention of the moon ?
But when once a comparison is instituted involving