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

92 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
mouth as he operated at the middle of his bended
bow like blazing showers of water from the Sun at
mid-day surrounded by a ring of halo. This verse
is the composition of Śākhāvardhana.
47. This verse illustrates a piece of poetry
vitiated by the second fault known as असंभव. धनु-
मण्डलमध्यभाजः तस्य (राज्ञः) आस्यादिव निष्पेतुः Arrows seemed to
emerge from the mouth of the king as he was work-
ing his bow at the centre. Such was the quickness
of his action. There seemed to be no delay due to
the drawing of arrows from the quiver. दीप्ताः शराः
निष्पेतुः. An analogy for the emergence of the fiery
arrows is furnished in the second half of the verse.
दिनार्धभाजः परिवेषिणः अर्कात् जाज्वल्यमानाः वारिधारा इव. This verse
is quoted by Mammaṭa in Kāvya Prakāśa, 10th
Ullāsa, with the following comment: — अत्रापि ज्वलन्त्यो-
ऽम्बुधाराः निष्पतन्त्यो न संभवन्तीत्युपनिबध्यमानोऽर्थोऽनौचित्यमेव पुष्णाति.
कथं पातोऽम्बुधाराणां ज्वलन्तीनां विवस्वतः ।
असंभवादयं युक्त्या तेनासंभव उच्यते ॥ ४८ ॥
48. How can blazing showers of water emerge
from the Sun ? Since it is impossible and the same
is described, this illustrates the defect of Asam-
bhava.
48. This points out the defect of असंभव or impos-
sibility in the above illustration.

SECOND PARICCHEDA 93
तत्रासंभाविनाऽर्थेन कः कुर्यादुपमां कृती ।
को नाम वह्निनौपम्यं कुर्वीत शशलक्ष्मणः ॥ ४९ ॥
49. Which clever man will describe an ana-
logy with an impossible thing ? Who will draw an
analogy of the Moon with fire ?
49. A comparison with impossible things re-
flects great lack of wit on the part of an author.
यस्यातिशयवानर्थः कथं सोऽसंभवो मतः ।
इष्टं चातिशयार्थत्वमुपमोत्प्रेक्षयोर्यथा ॥ ५० ॥
50. But where the idea of intensity is sought
to be conveyed, how will it amount to impossibility ?
An idea of immensity is welcome in Upamā and
Utprekshā. Example follows:—
50. An exemption from the defect of असंभव is
laid down here in cases where intensity or some
superior merit is intended to be conveyed. The
author says that such analogies often occur in
Upamā and Utprekshā.
पुञ्जीभूतमिव ध्वान्तमेष भाति मतङ्गजः ।
सरः शरत्प्रसन्नाम्भो नभःखण्डमिवोज्झितम् ॥ ५१ ॥
51. This elephant shines like darkness con-
densed. The tank with waters clear in autumn ap-
pears as though it were a fragment of the sky cast
down.

94 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
'51. The first half of the verse illustrates an
Upamā which appears to be vitiated by असंभव but
not really so, and the second illustrates उत्प्रेक्षा of that
sort. An elephant is likened to darkness concen-
trated. A tank with its waters rendered limpid by
autumn is conceived of as a fragment of the sky
fallen on the ground. These two statements are
quite approved of as good poetry.
लिङ्गभेद-वचनभेद-विपर्ययाः। (iii, iv & v)
अथ लिङ्गवचोभेदावुच्येते सविपर्ययौ ।
हीनाधिकत्वात्स द्वेधा त्रयमप्युच्यते यथा ॥ ५२ ॥
52. Now we deal with the differences in gender
and number and also with Viparyaya. The last one
is twofold—Hīna and Adhika—too low or too big.
All the three are illustrated hereunder.
52. The author proposes to deal with three
faults—लिङ्गभेद, वचनभेद and विपर्यय. The last one is of
two kinds—हीन and अधिक.
लिङ्गभेद-वचनभेदोदाहरणम्।
अविगाह्योऽसि नारीणामनन्यमनसामपि ।
विषमोपलभिन्नोर्मिरापगेवोत्तितीर्षतः ॥ ५३ ॥
53. You are impenetrable even to ladies ex-
clusively devoted to you like a river with waves
split by rugged stones to one desirous to cross.

SECOND PARICCHEDA 95
53. This verse illustrates both लिङ्गभेद and वचनभेद.
A king who is unfathomable even to his devoted la-
dies is compared to a river flowing through rugged
rocks which is not fordable. त्वं The king, the Upa-
meya, is masculine. आपगा (river) is feminine. So
this illustrates लिङ्गभेद. Similarly नारीणां is in the
plural whereas उत्तितीर्षतः is in the singular. So there
is वचनभेद. But if उत्तितीर्षतः is substituted by उत्तितीर्षतां,
वचनभेद will be obviated. But then लिङ्गभेद will continue.
हीनविपर्ययोदाहरणम् ।
क्वचिदग्रे प्रसरता क्वचिदापत्य निघ्नता ।
शुनेव सारङ्गकुलं त्वया भिन्नं द्विषां बलम् ॥ ५४ ॥
54. The enemies' host was sundered by you
like a herd of deer by a dog, yourself sometimes
marching ahead and sometimes turning round and
attacking precipitately.
54. This verse illustatres हीनविपर्यय i. e., impro-
priety due to comparison of an object with an Upa-
māna of a far inferior level. The king is com-
pared to a dog. Verse cited in Keśavamiśra's Alaṁ-
kāraśekhara V—1, at page 18.
अधिकविपर्ययोदाहरणम् ।
अयं पद्मासनासीनश्चक्रवाको विराजते ।
युगादौ भगवान्ब्रह्मा विनिर्मित्सुरिव प्रजाः ॥ ५५ ॥

96 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
55. This ruddy goose seated on a lotus-flower
shines like Lord Brahmā about to engage in creating
the world at the beginning of a Yuga.
55. This verse illustrates अधिकविपर्यय Impropriety
due to the comparison of an object with an Upa-
māna of a far superior level. Here a चक्रवाक bird is
compared to ब्रह्मा the creator of the world. This verse
is cited by Mammaṭa in the 10th Ullāsa of Kāvya
Prakāśa to illustrate अनुचितार्थ. This is also cited by
Appayya Dīkshita in his चित्रमीमांसा with the substitu-
tion of वेधाः for ब्रह्मा.
लिङ्गभेदे पूर्वपक्षः।
ननूपमीयते पाणिः कमलेन विकासिना ।
अधरो विद्रुमच्छेदभासा बिम्बफलेन च ॥ ५६ ॥
56. It may perhaps be objected thus. A hand
(masculine) is generally compared to a blooming
lotus (neuter), and the lower lip (masculine) to a
Bimba fruit (neuter) shining like a bit of coral.
56. An objection is raised that a difference in
gender cannot be treated as a Dosha in view of the
usages of poets. पाणिः, masculine, is compared by
poets to कमलं neuter. Similarly अधरः masculine is
compared to बिम्बं neuter. Such comparisons cannot
be brushed aside as faulty. विद्रुमच्छेदभासा may be taken
along with अधरः by inserting सहितः in the middle.

SECOND PARICCHHEDA 97
विद्रुमस्य छेदः, तस्य भाः तया सहितः अधरः. Or विद्रुमच्छेदभासा can be
treated as adjectival to बिम्बफलेन. विद्रुमच्छेदस्येव भाः यस्य तेन
बिम्बफलेन. If अधरः be compared to विद्रुमः or विद्रुमच्छेदः there
will be no occasion at all for लिङ्गभेद. ननु in the verse
indicates the starting of an objection. Now Verse 56
sets out an objection relating to लिङ्गभेद, and Verse 57
gives the answer. Why are these two verses placed
after the treatment of विपर्यय and not immediate-
ly after लिङ्गभेद which will be their natural place ?
Answer. The author in Verse 52 deals with three
faults in a batch and gives examples for the same
in Verses 53, 54 & 55 at a stretch. Therefore the
present objection and answer in Verses 56 & 57
respectively could not have been inserted in the
middle.
लिङ्गभेदे समाधानम् ।
उच्यते काममस्त्विदं किंतु स्त्रीपुंसयोरयम् ।
विधिर्नाभिमतोऽन्यैस्तु त्रयाणामपि नेष्यते ॥ ५७ ॥
57. We answer. No doubt such is the case.
But an analogy is prohibited only between males
and females (objects in the masculine and feminine
genders). Others disapprove of analogy in cases of
disparity in all the three genders.
57. उच्यते starts the answer. कामं अस्तीदं No doubt
such usages are frequent. The answer is that the
7

98 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
relationship of Upamāna and Upameya is not ap-
proved of only in a case where one is स्त्री and the
other पुमान्. In the cases referred to in Verse 56 the
comparison is between objects in the masculine and
neuter genders. विधिः in the 2nd half of the verse
means औपम्यविधिः or उपमानोपमेयभावविधिः. अन्यैस्तु sets out a
stricter view. According to others there should
be absolutely no difference in gender between Upa-
māna and Upameya. Of course this view is not
acceptable to our author.
उपमानाधिकत्वम् (vi)
स पीतवासाः प्रगृहीतशार्ङ्गो
मनोज्ञभीमं वपुराप कृष्णः ।
शतह्रदेन्द्रायुधवान्निशायां
संसृज्यमानः शशिनेव मेघः ॥ ५८ ॥
रामशर्मणः ।
58. That Kṛshṇa, clad in yellow garment and
holding the Śārṅga bow, attained a personality
both charming and terrific like a cloud possessed of
lightning and the rainbow, coming in contact with
the moon at night.
This verse is that of Rāmaśarman.
58. This verse illustrates the Dosha of उपमानाधि-
कत्व. शतह्रदा Lightning. इन्द्रायुधं Rainbow. Kṛshṇa with

SECOND PARICCHEDA 99
his yellow garment and the Śārṅga-bow is compared
to a cloud possessed of lightning and the rainbow
and also coming into contact with the moon. The
first two factors on the Upamāna side have their
counterparts on the Upameya side. But with regard
to the contact with the moon its counterpart viz.,
contact with his conch is omitted. So there is sur-
plusage in Upamāna. Contrast this with Verse 41
infra which illustrates deficiency of Upamāna.
Verse cited in Kāvya Prakāśa X with the comment
—अत्रोपमेयस्य शङ्खादेरनिर्देशे शशिनो ग्रहणमतिरिच्यत इत्यधिकपदत्वम् ।
शशिनो ग्रहणादेतदाधिक्यं किल न ह्ययम् ।
निर्दिष्ट उपमेयेऽर्थे वाच्यो वा जलजोऽत्र तु ॥ ५९ ॥
59. By the mention of the Moon there is sur-
plusage of Upamāna. Anything corresponding to it
has not been mentioned on the Upameya side. Or
the conch must be expressly mentioned.
59. The surplusage in Upamāna is clearly set
out in this verse. It is no answer that by the men-
tion of the moon on the Upamāna side the conch on
the Upameya side is implied. If there is an express-
ed factor on one side there should be a correspond-
ing expressed factor on the other side.
न सर्वसारूप्यमिति विस्तरेणोदितो विधिः ।
अभिप्रायात्कवेर्नात्र विधेया जलजे मतिः ॥ ६० ॥

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

SECOND PARICCHEDA 101
the Moon, its corresponding feature on the Upameya
side has necessarily to be expressed.
आधिक्यमुपमानानां न्याय्यं नाधिकता भवेत् ।
गोक्षीरकुन्दहलिनां विशुद्ध्या सदृशं यशः ॥ ६१ ॥
61. A multiplicity of Upamānas is legitimate,
but not the surplusage of an Upamāna. In pure
whiteness fame is equal to cow's milk, jasmine
and Balarāma.
61. The author elucidates what उपमानाधिकत्व
means. It means only additional factors of an Upa-
māna in a simile for which there are no correspond-
ing factors on the Upameya side. It does not refer
to additional Upamānas. One and the same Upa-
meya is possible to be compared to a number of Upa-
mānas. In the illustration under comment fame is
compared to milk, jasmine flower and Balarāma.
This simile is not faulty. The Genitive case in
गोक्षीरकुन्दहलिनां when juxtaposed with सदृशं is sanctioned
by Pāṇini :—तुल्यार्थैरतुलोपमाभ्यां तृतीयान्यतरस्याम्. Balarāma's
person is reputed to be of white colour. Cf. Mahā-
bhārata, Śalyaparva, Adhyāya 61—
अथ रामं निजग्राह केशवो विनयान्वितः ।
बाहुभ्यां पीनवृत्ताभ्यां प्रयत्नाद्वलवद्वली ॥
सितासितौ यदुवरौ शुशुभातेऽधिकं तदा।
संगताविव राजेन्द्र कैलासाञ्जनपर्वतौ ॥
एकेनैवोपमानेन ननु सादृश्यमुच्यते ।
उक्तार्थस्य प्रयोगो हि गुरुमर्थं न पुष्यति ॥ ६२ ॥

102 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
62. It may be asked, ‘Indeed by a single Upa-
māna similarity is expressed. The repetition of an
idea once expressed does not contribute to pregnancy
of meaning.’
62. This verse sets out an objection. The com-
mon characteristic referred to in the illustration is
विशुद्धि Whiteness or purity. By comparing fame to
cow’s milk the similarity is sufficiently brought
out. A maxim of Mīmāṁsā says—उक्तार्थानां अप्रयोगः No
repetition of an idea once expressed. गुरुमर्थं न पुष्यति
Such a repetition does not add to a richness of mean-
ing. The author has simply stated the objection.
But no answer follows. A verse containing the an-
swer is either lost to us or the author expects the
answer to be made out by the reader himself. We
would suggest the answer thus. No doubt in res-
pect of purity all the three Upamānas stand on the
same par. But there is a peculiarity of विशुद्धि the
common characteristic, relating to each Upamāna.
Milk is sweet, jasmine is sweet-smelling and Bala-
rāma is unconquerable. So the additional Upamānas
are not in vain. The king’s fame is pure and benign;
it is pure and transmits fragrance; it is pure and
unassailable.
असदृशता (vii)
वनऽथ तस्मिन्वनितानुयायिनः
प्रवृत्तदानार्द्रकटा मतङ्गजाः ।

SECOND PARICCHEDA 103
विचित्रबर्हाभरणाश्च बर्हिणो
बभुर्दिवीवामलविग्रहा ग्रहाः ॥ ६३ ॥
63. Then in that forest elephants following
their mates and possessed of temples wet with
streaming rut and peacocks decked in their multi-
coloured plumes shone like planets with their stain-
less bodies on the sky.
63. The author begins the last mentioned de-
fect viz., असदृशता or dissimilarity with an illustra-
tion. Here elephants and peacocks are compared
to planets. वनिताः अनुयातुं शीलमेषामिति वनितानुयायिनः Follow-
ing the she-elephants in love. प्रवृत्तं यत् दानं तेन आर्द्रः कटः
येषां ते प्रवृत्तदानाद्र्रकटाः Possessed of temples wet with
ichor ; infatuated elephants. विचित्राः बर्हा एव आभरणानि येषां ते
विचित्रबर्हाभरणाः Possessed of multi-coloured plumes for
their ornaments. बर्हिणः Peacocks. Amara :—मयूरो बर्हिणो
बर्ही. दिवि अमलविग्रहाः ग्रहाः इव बभुः. Verse cited by Nami-
sādhu on Rudraṭa’s Kāvyālaṁkāra XI—24 (with the
modification—वनिताविहारिणः प्रभिन्नदानाद्र्रकटाः) thus :—यत्रोपमा-
नोपमेययोः साम्यं नास्ति तदसादृश्यम् । यथा—वनेऽथ... । अत्र न किंचि-
द्दन्तिनां मयूराणां च ग्रहैः सारूप्यमस्तीति ।
ग्रहैरपि गजादीनां यदि सादृश्यमुच्यते ।
तथापि तेषां तैरस्ति कान्तिर्वाप्युग्रतापि वा ॥ ६४ ॥
64. If elephants and others are to be compar-
ed to planets, have they any of their effulgence or
fierceness in common ?

104 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
64. The author points out the defect of असदृशता
in the above illustration. The comparison is not
supported by any common characteristic. Is there
any resemblance between elephants, peacocks and
planets either in point of brilliance or fierceness ?
इत्युक्त उपमाभेदो वक्ष्यते चापरः पुनः ।
उपमादेरलंकाराद्विशेषोऽन्योऽभिधीयते ॥ ६५ ॥
65. Thus the varieties of Upamā have been
described. A different set of Alaṁkāras will be
dealt with later. Now we shall deal with Alaṁ-
kāras other than Upamā and those already dealt with.
65. So far three Arthālaṁkāras viz., रूपक, दीपक
and उपमा listed in Verse 4 infra have been dealt
with. The author promises to deal with further
Alaṁkāras. अपरः अलंकारसमुदायः प्रेयआदिः पुनः वक्ष्यते तृतीयपरि-
च्छेदे. But in the rest of this Second chapter a few
other Alaṁkāras omitting Upamā and those dealt
with already are described. The singular in अन्यो
विशेषः is rather misleading. It simply means अन्ये
अलंकारविशेषाः.
अपरे षडलंकाराः ।
आक्षेपोऽर्थान्तरन्यासो व्यतिरेको विभावना ।
समासातिशयोक्ती च षडलंकृतयोऽपराः ॥ ६६ ॥
66. Six other figures of speech are Ākshepa,
Arthāntaranyāsa, Vyatireka, Vibhāvanā, Samā-
sokti and Atiśayokti.

SECOND PARICCHEDA 105
66. This verse gives a list of six more Arthā-
laṁkāras.
वक्ष्यमाणोक्तविषयस्तत्राक्षेपो द्विधा मतः ।
एकरूपतया शेषा निर्देक्ष्यन्ते यथाक्रमम् ॥ ६७ ॥
67. Of these Ākshepa is twofold—that which
relates to what remains to be said and that which
relates to what has been said. The remaining Alaṁ-
kāras, each of a single type, will be dealt with
in order.
67. The first mentioned of this batch viz., आक्षेप
is twofold viz., that which relates to an idea intend-
ed to be expressed and that which relates to what
has been said. While Ākshepa is thus twofold, the
other five Alaṁkāras set out in the previous verse
are not of different kinds. This is only the view of
Bhāmaha. In later works on poetics they are also
subjected to a good deal of classification.
आक्षेपालंकारः (4)
प्रतिषेध इवेष्टस्य यो विशेषाभिधित्सया ।
आक्षेप इति तं सन्तः शंसन्ति द्विविधं यथा ॥ ६८ ॥
68. A negation or suppression of something
desired to be affirmed, which is calculated to em-
phasise its importance is Ākshepa. Learned men
divide it into two as already stated. Examples
follow :—

106 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
`68. The negation of a thing wished to be stat-
ed with a view to emphasising a peculiarity is call-
ed आक्षेप. Its twofold division into वक्ष्यमाणविषय and
उक्तविषय has been set out in the previous verse. Their
examples are set out in the next two verses in order.
This and the next verse are cited by Abhinavagupta
in Lochana (page 36) while establishing that Āk-
shepa is not an instance of Dhvani.
अहं त्वां यदि नेक्षेय क्षणमप्युत्सुका ततः ।
इयदेवास्त्वतोऽन्येन किमुक्तेनाप्रियेण ते ॥ ६९ ॥
69. If I fail to see you even for a moment,
then, oh ! it is sufficient, why say further an un-
pleasant thing to you ?
69. The first half of the verse sets out the be-
ginning of a statement intended to be made by a
lady when her lover proposes to go to a distant
place. She begins with saying, 'if even for a mo-
ment I fail to see you, then in my anxiety.' She
stops there and says 'this will do. Why need say
further unpleasant news?' The idea is—she will die
in her anxiety due to separation. The prospect of
death is वक्ष्यमाण. It was originally wished to be
stated, but cut short by a negation. This negation
is calculated to emphasise the serious nature of the
consequences that will follow. So this is an example
of Ākshepa of the वक्ष्यमाणविषय type. Verse cited in

SECOND PARICCHEDA 107
Lochana, page 36 ; also by Hemachandra in his
Kāvyānuśāsana, page 268.
स्वविक्रमाक्रान्तभुवश्चित्रं यन्न तवोद्धतिः ।
को वा सेतुरलं सिन्धोर्विकारकरणं प्रति ॥ ७० ॥
70. Wonder that you having brought the Earth
under subjection by your valour are not puffed up.
What is a bund in competence to disturb the Ocean?
70. This verse illustrates the second variety
of Ākshepa relating to उक्तविषय. This is addressed to
a king. That you are not puffed up after subjugat-
ing the whole earth by your valour is strange. The
second half of the verse gives an effective check to
the strangeness alluded to. What causeway can
agitate the Ocean? The Ocean is possessed of गाम्भीर्य
par excellence, and nothing can shake its dignity or
cause frivolity. In the same way, ‘You, the king,
it is not strange, remain unshaken.’ Strangeness
is expressed in the first half of the verse and is im-
pliedly negatived in the second half. So this is an
example of Ākshepa of the उक्तविषय type.
अर्थान्तरन्यासालंकारः (5)
उपन्यसनमन्यस्य यदर्थस्योदितादृते ।
ज्ञेयः सोऽर्थान्तरन्यासः पूर्वार्थानुगतो यथा ॥ ७१ ॥
71. The description of an idea other than the
one already said, in substantiation of the latter is
known as Arthāntaranyāsa. Example follows :—

108 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
71. Substantiation of a special or general state-
ment by means of a general or special statement
connected therewith is Arthāntaranyāsa. अर्थान्तरन्यास
lit., the employment of a different idea is so called
because a connected अर्थान्तर is resorted to for sub-
stantiating an idea which is the subject of the con-
text. The example cited in Chandrāloka for this
figure of speech is हनूमानब्धिमतरद्दुष्करं किं महात्मनाम्. Verse
cited by Namisādhu on Rudraṭa's Kāvyālaṁkara
VIII—24.
परानीकानि भीमानि विविक्षोर्न तव व्यथा ।
साधु वाऽसाधु वाऽऽगामि पुंसामात्मैव शंसति ॥ ७२ ॥
72. You do not shudder as you are about to
enter into the terrific hosts of enemies. Good or
bad that is to come, one's own mind betrays.
72. This verse is an example of Arthāntara-
nyāsa. The absence of fear on the part of the king
while entering into his enemies' troops is justified
by the statement that mind is an index of the com-
ing good or evil.
हिशब्देनापि हेत्वर्थप्रथनादुक्तसिद्धये ।
अयमर्थान्तरन्यासः सुतरां व्यज्यते यथा ॥ ७३ ॥
73. If the word 'because' is used this Arthān-
taranyāsa becomes clearly apparent since the rea-
son substantiating a previous statement is fully
brought out. Example follows.

SECOND PARICCHEDA 109
73. The former illustration sets out an Ar-
thāntaranyāsa without an employment of words
such as हि because, to indicate that one statement
is justified or substantiated by another. Now the
author states that Arthāntaranyāsa may sometimes
contain the employment of such words. This does
not alter the nature of the figure of speech but only
makes it clear. However, the author gives a sepa-
rate example to meet such cases in the verse that
follows.
वहन्ति गिरयो मेघानभ्युपेतान्गुरूनपि ।
गरीयानेव हि गुरून्बिभर्ति प्रणयागतान् ॥ ७४ ॥
74. Mountains bear the clouds that approach
them though heavy. Because only a greater one
supports great ones that have approached in friend-
ship.
74. The reception given by mountains to clouds
is substantiated by the readiness of great people
to entertain or support other great people. On the
general treatment of Arthāntaranyāsa by our author
we wish to observe that the first illustration given
in Verse 72 would, under later Ālaṅkārikas,
come under the head of काव्यलिङ्ग of the वाक्यार्थहेतुक
type. According to them the हेतु or cause presented
by one of the two statements going to make up
Arthāntaranyāsa is समर्थक whereas in Kāvyaliṅga it
is निष्पादक. In one case the cause substantiates an

110 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
idea, in the other it justifies an idea. In the illustra-
tion given in Verse 72 the king's state of mind be-
tokening an ensuing success is the cause of his ab-
sence of fear in entering the enemies' hosts. So the
हेतु is निष्पादक and depicts काव्यलिङ्ग. In the second illus-
tration given in Verse 74 a special statement is sub-
stantiated by a general statement. So the हेतु involv-
ed is समर्थक. In effect, according to the later Alaṁ-
kārikas, where the relationship of the main idea
and the subsidiary idea is सामान्यविशेषभाव, the figure of
speech is Arthāntaranyāsa, and if it is any other
relationship it is Kāvyaliṅga. There is one other
Alaṁkāra according to later rhetoricians named
अनुमान which seems to overlap on Arthāntaranyāsa
and Kāvyaliṅga. The example of अनुमान is अस्ति किंचि-
द्यदनया मां विलोक्य स्मितं मनाक्. अनुमान occurs where a cause
set out in one sentence or clause serves as an index
of the idea in the main sentence. In Anumāna the
हेतु is ज्ञापक, in Arthāntaranyāsa it is समर्थक, and in
Kāvyaliṅga it is निष्पादक. Fortunately our author
mentions only Arthāntaranyāsa and omits the other
two. His idea is that all the three represent but
one figure of speech.
व्यतिरेकालंकारः (6)
उपमानवतोऽर्थस्य यद्विशेषनिदर्शनम् ।
व्यतिरेकं तमिच्छन्ति विशेषापादनाद्यथा ॥ ७५ ॥

SECOND PARICCHEDA 111
75. Where in a comparison the superiority of
the Upameya is set out they deem it as Vyatireka
since a distinction is brought out. Example
follows.
75. In व्यतिरेक a distinction is set out between
two like objects with a view to bringing out the
superiority of the Upameya. The example given in
Chandrāloka is शैला इवोन्नताः सन्तः किन्तु प्रकृतिकोमलाः.
सितासिते पक्ष्मवती नेत्रे ते ताम्रराजिनी ।
एकान्तशुभ्रश्यामे तु पुण्डरीकासितोत्पले ॥ ७६ ॥
76. Your eyes possessed of eyelashes and shin-
ing like copper are both white and black whereas
the white and black lotuses are solely white or black.
76. A lady's eyes are generally compared to
lotuses, white or blue. A lady's eyes are black in
the centre i.e., the portion represented by pupils and
white around. They also bear the reddish colour of
copper due to transfusion of white and black streaks.
On the other hand the Upamāna viz., पुण्डरीक is pure-
ly white. Vide Amara :- पुण्डरीकं सिताम्भोजम्. And नीलोत्पलं
is wholly blue black. The Upameya is therefore
marked by a distinction which raises it above the
Upamānas.
विभावनालंकारः (7)
क्रियायाः प्रतिषेधे या तत्फलस्य विभावना ।
ज्ञेया विभावनेवासौ समाधौ सुलभे सति ॥ ७७ ॥