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

64 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
Or the whole may be repeated in all pādas. This
is difficult to compose but good.
16. In this verse the author dispels the impres-
sion that a repetition should take place in all the
four pādas. He states that it may occur either in
two contiguous pādas alone or in alternate pādas.
अनन्तर means contiguous. The repetition may be
at the end of the 1st and 2nd feet or at the end of
the 2nd and 3rd feet or at the end of the 3rd and 4th
feet. एकान्तर means alternate ; interrupted by one.
A repetition in alternate pādas may be at the end of
the 1st and 3rd feet or at the end of the 2nd and 4th
feet. Daṇḍin profusely gives examples of these
varieties. कृत्स्नं च सर्वपादेषु The whole foot may be
repeated in all the remaining pādas. An example
of the same may be cited from Bhāravi—विकाशमीयुर्ज-
गतीशमार्गणाः विकाशमीयुर्जगतीशमार्गणाः। विकाशमीयुर्जगतीशमार्गणाः विका-
शमीयुर्जगतीशमार्गणाः॥ Kir. XV—52. दुष्करं साधु तादृशं A good
composition of that sort is difficult. The reading
दुष्कृतं in the place of दुष्करं is wrong.
तुल्यश्रुतीनां भिन्नानामभिधेयैः परस्परम् ।
वर्णानां यः पुनर्वादो यमकं तन्निगद्यते ॥ १७ ॥
17. A repetition of letters similar in sound but
mutually different in meaning is called Yamaka.
17. Yamaka is defined in this verse. It would
have been more appropriate to place this before

SECOND PARICCHEDA 65
Verse 9 at the commencement of the section on
Yamaka.
प्रतीतशब्दमोजस्वि सुश्लिष्टपदसन्धि च ।
प्रसादि स्वभिधानं च यमकं कृतिनां मतम् ॥ १८ ॥
18. Yamaka is accepted by men of letters,
which consists of words with reputed meanings,
which contains vigour, is formed of words well-knit
in coalescence and is perspicuous and elegant in
expression.
18. This verse describes the features of a good
Yamaka and the next verse deals with a bad one.
ओजस् and प्रसाद have already been explained. In fact
all the features referred to in this verse are essen-
tial for every good poetry.
नानाधात्वर्थगम्भीरा यमकव्यपदेशिनी ।
प्रहेलिका सा ह्युदिता रामशर्माच्युतोत्तरे ॥ १९ ॥
19. Replete with a multiplicity of roots and
their meanings and claiming to be Yamaka, what
can be called a Prahelikā, occurs in Rāmaśarman's
Achyutottara.
19. यमकव्यपदेशिनी A bad Yamaka is no Yamaka
at all so far as poetry is concerned. It simply bears
the name of Yamaka. नानाधात्वर्थगम्भीरा. The word गम्भीर
is used in ridicule. A bad poetry is unfathomable.
Its meanings have to be traced to roots, popular or
5

66 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
obscure, to be derived in a strained manner. By the
way it may be pointed out that in this species of
poetry resort is to be had to एकाक्षरनिघण्टु and similar
mysterious ways. If it is not Yamaka, then
what is it ? It is only a Prahelikā, a riddle. So
says Bhāmaha. Rāmaśarman’s work known as Ach-
yutottara abounds in such mystic utterances. The
chief purpose of a Prahelikā is to bamboozle the
hearer or to amuse him, which will be properly a
subject of discussion among persons seeking literary
recreations in play. Daṇḍin says—क्रीडागोष्ठीविनोदेषु तज्ज्ञै-
राकीर्णमन्त्रणे । परव्यामोहने चापि सोपयोगाः प्रहेलिकाः ॥ Kāvyādarśa
III—97. So Daṇḍin’s idea as also of Bhāmaha is
that such composition cannot be seriously considered
as poetry. Daṇḍin refers to a set of sixteen Pra-
helikās in Kāvyādarśa, 3rd Pariccheda, 66 to 124.
काव्यान्यपि यदीमानि व्याख्यागम्यानि शास्त्रवत् ।
उत्सवः सुधियामेव हन्त दुर्मेधसो हताः ॥ २० ॥
20. If such compositions which are intelligible
with the help of commentaries like Śāstras constitute
poems, it is a joy for wise men only. Lo ! Dull-
witted persons (like me) are damned.
20. In disparagement of poetry which thus
needs tortuous methods of interpretation the author
exclaims [उत्सवः सुधियामेव It is a feast for the ultra-
wise. हन्त दुर्मेधसो हताः But what about poor people ?

SECOND PARICCHEDA 67
They are totally damned. The raillery intended by
the author is quite obvious. Compare this verse
with that of Bhaṭṭi which occurs almost at the end
of Bhaṭṭi Kāvya or Rāvaṇavadha which runs as fol-
lows:—व्याख्यागम्यमिदं काव्यं उत्सवः सुधियामलम् । हता दुर्मेधसश्चास्मिन्
विद्वत्प्रियतया मया ॥ Obviously Bhaṭṭi has before him Bhā-
maha's condemnation of difficult poetry. The word
अलं in Bhaṭṭi suggests that it is no shame if a poet is
intelligible only to the learned. On the other hand
it is a matter of pride for learned scholars. Simi-
larly if dullards are unable to understand a poem, it
is no disgrace for a poet. I am विद्वत्प्रियः —fond of
learned men. If they are pleased I am satisfied. So
says Bhaṭṭi. On a comparison of the above verses
of Bhāmaha and Bhaṭṭi Mr. D. T. Tatacharya unhesi-
tatingly establishes the priorty of Bhāmaha to
Bhaṭṭi. Mr. P. V. Kane's halting suggestion to the
contrary is therefore thrown overboard. With this
verse ends Bhāmaha's treatment of शब्दचित्र or शब्दालंकारs.
At this stage it would be advantageous to note
the different gradations of poetry according to later
Ālaṁkārikas ever since the promulgation of Dhvani
by Ānandavardhana, the author of Dhvanyāloka.
The best type of poetry is Dhvani or a Kāvya where
व्यङ्ग्य or the suggested import reigns supreme. The
next variety is गुणीभूतव्यङ्ग्य where the suggested import
is subordinated or plays adjunct to the expressed
meaning. The third type is called अर्थचित्र, abounding

68 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
as it does in Arthālaṁkāras or figures of speech.
The fourth and last is शब्दचित्र which abounds in Śabdā-
laṁkāras or embellishments bearing on the sound.
The four types have been beautifully summarised
by Nīlakaṇṭha Dīkshita thus:—
कृते युगे व्यञ्जनयाऽवतीर्णे त्रेतायुगे सैव गुणीबभूव ।
युगे तृतीये तु ततोऽर्थचित्रं युगे तुरीये यमकप्रपञ्चः ॥
अर्थालंकारेषु रूपकम् (1)
उपमानेन यत्तत्त्वमुपमेयस्य रूप्यते ।
गुणानां समेतां दृष्ट्वा रूपकं नाम तद्विदुः ॥ २१ ॥
21. Rūpaka arises where on a consideration of
the equality of qualities the characteristic of an
Upamāna is ascribed to the Upameya.
21. From this verse onward Bhāmaha deals
with Arthālaṁkāras. It is to be borne in mind
that since Bhāmaha belongs to a very early stage
in the history of Sanskrit poetics his definitions are
crude and the finish of later rhetoricians cannot be
expected of him. In the rest of this Pariccheda
he mentions nineteen Arthālaṁkāras and in the 3rd
Pariccheda he deals with twentyfour Arthālaṁkā-
ras. While all the later Aalaṁkāra treatises which
are now popular set out Arthālaṁkāras with Upamā
as the starting point, Bhāmaha begins with रूपक in
consonance with his statement—रूपकादिमलंकारं in I-14

SECOND PARICCHHEDA 69
infra. Rūpaka is generally rendered in English as
metaphor. In Verses 21 to 24 the author deals with
रूपक. Verse 21 defines रूपक, Verse 22 classifies it
into two, Verse 23 illustrates the first type of रूपक
and Verse 24 illustrates the second type of रूपक. गुणानां
समतां दृष्ट्वा On a consideration of the commonness of
qualities. उपमानेन उपमेयस्य तत्त्वं Identity. यत् रूप्यते तत्
रूपकं. रूपक or metaphor arises where there is complete
identification of Upamāna and Upameya, both be-
ing expressed. Rūpaka is so called, because the रूप or
colour or the form of the उपमान is ascribed to the
उपमेय. The colour of Upamāna is fully imparted to
the Upameya. Upameya shines in the colours of
Upamāna. मुखचन्द्रः is a typical example of रूपक. मुखमेव
चन्द्रः मुखचन्द्रः The moon in the form of the face. Com-
pound words setting out a रूपक or रूपकसमासs as they
are called, fall under the मयूरव्यंसकादि group sanc-
tioned by Pāṇini. The essence of Rūpaka is आरोप as
distinguished from अध्यवसान which is of the essence
of अतिशयोक्ति. आरोप is the identification of the Upa-
meya with an Upamāna without the Upameya being
eclipsed by the Upamāna. विषयिणा अनिगीर्णस्य विषयस्य तेनैव
सह तादात्म्यप्रतीतिः आरोपः. अध्यवसान is the identification of
the Upameya with an Upamāna which completely
eclipses the Upameya. निगीर्णस्य पुनर्विषयस्य अन्यतादात्म्य-
प्रतीतिः अध्यवसायः. To express the same idea in simpler
language, in Rūpaka the Upameya will be express-
ed. In Atiśayokti it merges into the Upamāna ;

70 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
the Upamāna alone is expressed and the Upameya
is left to be inferred. मुखचन्द्रं पश्य will be an exam-
ple of रूपक, whereas चन्द्रं पश्य used with reference to
the face will serve as an example of अतिशयोक्ति.
समस्तवस्तुविषयमेकदेशविवर्ति च ।
द्विधा रूपकमुद्दिष्टमेतत्तच्चोच्यते यथा ॥ २२ ॥
22. It may bear on all the elements of the
figure of speech or only on a portion. Thus Rūpaka
is set out as twofold. Examples follow.
22. In समस्तवस्तुविषयं रूपकं all the factors on the
Upameya side are expressly identified with their
counterparts on the Upamāna side. In एकदेशविवर्ति
रूपक only some are identified, the remaining being
altogether omitted or left to be inferred.
शीकराम्भोमदसृजस्तुङ्गा जलददन्तिनः ।
निर्यान्तो मदयन्तीमे शक्रकार्मुकवारणाः ॥ २३ ॥
23. These lofty elephants of clouds, discharg-
ing sprays of rut in the form of waters and equip-
ped with housings in the form of rain-bow, emer-
ging out, impassion (the lovers).
23. जलदा एव दन्तिनः जलददन्तिनः. Clouds are identi-
fied with elephants. तुङ्गाः Lofty. शीकराम्भ एव मदः तं
सृजन्तीति शीकराम्भोमदसृजः. Clouds would shower waters.
Elephants discharge streams of rut. Just as clouds

SECOND PARICCHHEDA 71

are identified with elephants, the showers of rain
are identified with streams of ichor. शक्रकार्मुकमेव वारणः
येषां ते शक्रकार्मुकवारणाः. वारण means वारवाण. Clouds would
be provided with rainbow. Elephants are provided
with housings. The rainbow on the Upameya side
is identified with an elephant's housings on the
Upamāna side. Most of the manuscripts read शक्रकार्मुक-
कारणं. This will perhaps mean 'by reason of the
rainbow which is exhibited.' But this reading will
militate against the character of the रूपक as समस्तवस्तु-
विषय. इमे जलददन्तिनः निर्यान्तः सन्तः Emerging out or pervad-
ing the sky. मदयन्ति Rouse infatuation (of lovers).
In the place of मदयन्ति there is also a reading मण्डयन्ति,
and in the place of वारणाः or कारणं a different reading
is काननं. Thus the Chowkhamba edition reads the
2nd half of the verse as निर्यान्तो मण्डयन्तीमे शक्रकार्मुककाननम्.
Of course काननं मण्डयन्ति may be interpreted as—The
elephants of clouds beautify the forest of the rain-
bow. But the idea does not seem to be a happy
one. We hear of the rainbow beautifying the
clouds, not vice versa. The reading वारणाः in the
place of कारणम् or काननम् is suggested by Mr. D. T.
Tatacharya without manuscript authority, but we
have accepted the same as being a most happy read-
ing. He cites Vāchaspatya for treating वारण as a
synonym for वारवाण. In this verse, since showers of
rain, the rainbow and the clouds are identified with
streams of ichor, housings and clouds, all the factors

72 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
on the Upameya side are expressly identified with
their counterparts on the Upamāna side. रूपकं embo-
died in this illustration is समस्तवस्तुविषयं.
तडिद्वलयकक्ष्याणां बलाकामालभारिणाम् ।
पयोमुचां ध्वनिर्धीरो दुनोति मम तां प्रियाम् ॥ २४ ॥
24. The loud thunder of clouds tied by ropes
of encircling lightning and wearing flower-wreaths
in the form of the rows of cranes torments my be-
loved.
24. This verse illustrates the एकदेशविवर्ति type
of Rūpaka. कक्ष्या = गजबन्धनरज्जुः. तडिद्वलया एव कक्ष्याः येषां तेषां
तडिद्वलयकक्ष्याणां Possessed of tying ropes in the form of
the circular streaks of lightning. बलाकामाला एव मालाः
बिभ्रतां बलाकामालभारिणां Bearing garlands in the form of
the rows of cranes. The cranes' flight towards clouds
in jubilation in the rainy season is described in Me-
ghasandeśa thus:—गर्भाधानक्षणपरिचयान्नूनमाबद्धमालाः सेविष्यन्ते
नयनसुभगं खे भवन्तं बलाकाः। Both तडिद्वलयकक्ष्याणां and बलाकामाल-
भारिणां are adjectival to पयोमुचां. धीरः ध्वनिः तां मम प्रियां दुनोति.
दुनोति Present tense, 3rd person singular of दु to inflict
pain upon, 5th Conjugation, Parasmaipada. Just
as lightning and cranes are compared with कक्ष्या and
माला, clouds have no definite counterpart expressed.
At best their counterpart (the elephants) is only sug-
gested. Hence here the express identification bears
only on some parts of the analogy, and as such the

SECOND PARICCHEDA 73
Rūpaka is एकदेशविवर्ति. माला in a compound shortens its
final vowel when followed by भारिन्. Vide Pāṇini:—
उष्ट्रकेषीकामालानां चिततूलभारिषु. Hence the form मालभारिन्.
दीपकालंकारः (२)
आदिमध्यान्तविषयं त्रिधा दीपकमिष्यते ।
एकस्यैव व्यवस्थत्वादिति तद्भिद्यते त्रिधा ॥ २५ ॥
अमूनि कुर्वतेऽन्वर्थामस्याख्यामर्थदीपनात् ।
त्रिभिर्निदर्शनैश्चेदं त्रिधा निर्दिश्यते यथा ॥ २६ ॥
25. Dīpaka is deemed threefold according to
the place where it rests, at the beginning or in the
middle or at the end. Since one and the same feature
is found at three stages the figure of speech is divid-
ed into three.
26. These make its name true to its meaning
by virtue of casting light over different objects.
This is set out in three manners by three examples.
25 & 26. The author treats of दीपकालंकार in Verses
25 to 29. Dīpaka is so called because the predicate
denoting an attribute common to several objects is
employed with reference to one which is availed of
by the others too in the same way as a lamp lit for
a house illumines the street as well. दीपसादृश्यात् दीपकं.
दीपक = दीप + कन् (इवार्थे). Vide Pāṇini :—संज्ञायां च. The
predicate may be placed almost at the beginning

74 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
of a statement or at its middle or at its end. This
threefold location of the predicate gives rise to the
threefold varieties of आदिदीपक, मध्यदीपक and अन्तदीपक
which are respectively illustrated in Verses 27,
28 & 29. Verse 25 gives the said threefold classifi-
cation. Verse 26 hints the definition of दीपक. अर्थ-
दीपनात् By illuminating the objects. The 1st half of
this vese is cited in Lochana (page 38) while dealing
with the point that in a Dīpaka, though उपमा is
suggested there is no Dhvani since the suggestion
does not predominate over दीपक.
आदिदीपकम् (i)
मदो जनयति प्रीतिं साऽनङ्गं मानभङ्गुरम् ।
स प्रियासंगमोत्कण्ठां साऽसह्यां मनसः शुचम् ॥ २७ ॥
27. Infatuation gives rise to attachment,
attachment to love destructive of self-respect, love
to an eagerness for the beloved’s union and eager-
ness to intolerable pain of the mind.
27. This verse illustrates आदिदीपक. जनयति em-
ployed in the first sentence is to be taken along
with the succeeding three sentences also. This may
be treated also as an illustration of मालादीपक accord-
ing to Daṇḍin. Abhinavagupta in his Lochana,
commenting on the Dhvanyāloka passage—अपह्नुति-
दीपकयोः पुनर्वाच्यस्य प्राधान्यं व्यङ्ग्यस्यानुयायित्वं प्रसिद्धमेव (N. S. P. edi-

SECOND PARICCHEDA 75
tion Page 40) refers to this verse, sets out the ob-
jector’s view that this is an example of Dhvani
inasmuch as Upamā is suggested between each pre-
ceding statement and every succeeding sentence in
this verse and refutes it by explaining that व्यङ्ग्य is
not dominant, but only follows the expressed idea.
The passage from Lochana runs thus:—मदो जनयति...
शुचम् । इति । अत्राप्युत्तरोत्तरजन्यत्वेऽप्युपमानोपमेयभावस्य सुकल्पत्वात् ।
From the illustration given it is not to be presumed
that each succeeding idea in Dīpaka should be con-
nected with its preceding idea. In fact there may
be Dīpaka between disconnected objects as in the
illustration in Chandrāloka :—मेधां बुधः सुधामिन्दुर्बिभर्ति वसुधां
भवान् which will be an example of मध्यदीपक according
to Bhāmaha.
मध्यदीपकम् (ii)
मालिनीरंशुकभृतः स्त्रियोऽलंकुरुते मधुः ।
हारीतशुकवाचश्च भूधराणामुपत्यकाः ॥ २८ ॥
28. Spring beautifies ladies decorated with
wreaths and clad in garments, beautifies the voices
of Mynas and parrots and also the adjoining slopes
of mountains.
28. Here the predicate अलंकुरुते governs three
objects—स्त्रियः, वाचः and उपत्यकाः. This verse describes
the influence of the spring season on womenfolk,
on the voices of birds and on natural sites like

76 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
mountain-slopes. Women are decked with flowers
which Spring puts forth in plenty. The voices of
parrots suggestive of peacocks and cuckoos also
grow sweet in the spring. Slopes adjoining moun-
tains are covered with verdure and bloom due to
spring. Here the predicate अलंकुरुते is used in the
middle of the sentence. Or मधुः अलंकुरुते governs two
objects only—स्त्रियः and उपत्यकाः, the latter qualified
by हारीतशुकवाचः to be treated as a Bahuvrīhi compound.
हारीतानां शुकानां च वाचः यासु ताः. Or मधुः is separately the
subject of स्त्रियः अलंकुरुते, and हारीतशुकवाचः subject of भूधराणां
उपत्यकाः अलंकुर्वते, अलंकुरुते being amended so as to suit the
plural number in वाचः. उपत्यका A slope adjoining a
mountain. Amara:—उपत्यकाद्रेरासन्ना भूमिः.
अन्तदीपकम् (iii)
चीरीमतीररण्यानीः सरितः शुष्यदम्भसः ।
प्रवासिनां च चेतांसि शुचिरन्तं निनीषति ॥ २९ ॥
29. Summer wishes to put an end to forests
with tree-barks getting dry, to rivers with waters
being dried up and to the hearts of travellers
in exile.
29. Here the predicate अन्तं निनीषति is employed
at the very end of the verse which is therefore an
example of अन्तदीपक. शुचिः Summer. अन्तं नेतुं इच्छति निनीषति
Desires to lead to extinction. Three objects are
mentioned as sought to be extinguished. अरण्यानी: Big

SECOND PARICCHEDA 77
forests. Amara:—महारण्यमरण्यानी. How are they ? -
चीरीमती :Abounding in dry tree-barks. The use of चीर in
the feminine gender is based on the analogy of मृणाली
and justified on the principle—स्त्री स्यात्काचिन्मृणाल्यादिः विव-
क्षाऽपचये यदि. An object of any other gender may be
used in the feminine gender where meagreness of
the object concerned is sought to be conveyed. With
the advance of summer tree-barks get lighter. Or
चीरी is an insect. Vide Amara :—झङ्कारी चीरुका चीरी झिल्लिका
च समा इमाः. The second object is शुष्यदम्भसः सरितः Rivers-
with waters getting dry. The third object is प्रवासिनां
चेतांसि The hearts of travellers in distant countries.
The heart-break of separated lovers in exile is sug-
gested. From the foregoing illustrations it can be
gathered that in आदिदीपक the common predicate is
employed in the first foot of a verse, in मध्यदीपक in
the second or third foot and in अन्तदीपक in the last
foot.
उपमालंकारः (3)
विरुद्धेनोपमानेन देशकालक्रियादिभिः ।
उपमेयस्य यत्साम्यं गुणलेशेन सोपमा ॥ ३० ॥
30. A similarity in some respect, of an Upa-
meya with an Upamāna differing in place, time,
action and the like is called Upamā.

78 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
30. The author devotes a large section to Upa-
mālankāra, running through 35 verses up to Verse
64. This verse gives a definition of Upamā. देशकाल-
क्रियादिभिः विरुद्धेन उपमानेन सह उपमेयस्य गुणलेशेन यत् साम्यं सा
उपमा. An Upamā or a simile involves four factors.
(1) Upameya, the thing compared and relevant.
(2) Upamāna, the standard of comparison ; a non-re-
levant thing with which the Upameya is compared.
(3) साधारणधर्म or the common characteristic of the
Upamāna and the Upameya which is predicated in
the context. (4) उपमावाचक, words expressive of simi-
larity viz., as, like etc. In the sentence चन्द्र इव मुखं
कान्तं, चन्द्र or the moon is the Upamāna, इव is Upamā-
vāchaka, मुखं is the Upameya and कान्तं represents
साधारणधर्म. This is an example of पूर्णोपमा. But where
one or more factors are absent the simile is said to
be लुप्तोपमा. The distinction between पूर्णोपमा and लुप्तोपमा
is elaborately dealt with in later works of rhetoric
including Appayya Dīkshita’s Kuvalayānanda. In
view of the statement यदुक्तं त्रिप्रकारत्वं तस्याः in Verse 37
supra which refers to उपमा, obviously it follows that
according to Bhāmaha प्रतिवस्तूपमा which is dealt with
in Verse 34 supra is only a variety of Upamā and
not a separate Alaṁkāra to which status it has been
raised by later rhetoricians. According to Dandin
also प्रतिवस्तूपमा is only a variety of Upamā. In fact
Daṇḍin in Kāvyādarśa II-15 to 50 gives any number
of varieties of Upamā as hereunder given.

SECOND PARICCHHEDA 79

1. धर्मोपमा 12. संशयोपमा 23. असाधारणोपमा
2. वस्तूपमा 13. निर्णयोपमा 24. अभूतोपमा
3. विपर्यासोपमा 14. श्लेषोपमा 25. असंभावितोपमा
4. अन्योन्योपमा 15. समानोपमा 26. बहूपमा
5. नियमोपमा 16. निन्दोपमा 27. विक्रियोपमा
6. अनियमोपमा 17. प्रशंसोपमा 28. मालोपमा
7. समुच्चयोपमा 18. आचिख्यासोपमा 29. वाक्यार्थोपमा
8. अतिशयोपमा 19. विरोधोपमा 30. प्रतिवस्तूपमा
9. उत्प्रेक्षितोपमा 20. प्रतिषेधोपमा 31. तुल्ययोगोपमा
10. अद्भुतोपमा 21. चटूपमा 32. हेतूपमा
11. मोहोपमा 22. तत्त्वाख्यानोपमा
    Later rhetoricians discountenance this elaborate
    classification of Daṇḍin. In fact most of the types
    of Upamā referred to by Daṇḍin are treated by them
    as separate Alaṁkāras. Of these प्रतिवस्तूपमा No. 30 is
    referred to by our author in Verses 34, 35 and 36
    supra. Nos. 16, 17 & 18 are referred to by our
    author in Verse 37 but refused recognition as a se-
    parate class in Verse 38. No. 28 and the rest are
    also referred to in Verse 38 where the author dis-
    approves of such endless classification. The defini-
    tion of Upamā given in the verse under comment
    refers to an Upamāna which is different from the
    Upameya in respect of place, time and action and
    by the word आदि are included nature, shape etc. विरुद्ध
    simply means different, not contrary. साम्यं or like-
    ness is said to be by गुणलेश, some small common qua-
    lity. Upamā arises where similarity is expressed

80 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
between two different objects. But where by a
poetic stroke a thing is compared to itself to suggest
its matchlessness it will amount to अनन्वय which is
referred to in Verse 45 of the 3rd Pariccheda.
Example:—इन्दुः इन्दुरिव श्रीमान्. That the comparison can
be only in respect of some portion and not in all
respects which is suggested by गुणलेशेन in the defini-
tion is fully brought out in Verses 43 & 44 supra
where it is accurately stated that no two objects can
agree in all respects. साम्यं refers to expressed simi-
larity, not merely implied. In the latter case it
will fall within the province of उपमाध्वनिः. The classi-
fication into श्रौती उपमा and आर्थी उपमा which is made in
Kāvya Prakāśa and later works of Poetics does not
also find a place in the scheme of Bhāmaha.
यथैवशब्दौ सादृश्यमाहेतुर्व्यतिरेकिणोः ।
दूर्वाकाण्डमिव श्यामं तन्वी श्यामालता यथा ॥ ३१ ॥
31. The words ‘as’ and ‘like’ denote similarity
between two differing objects. Example. Black
like the stem of Dūrvā grass ; the lady is slim as
a Śyāmā creeper.
31. व्यतिरेकिणोः Between two different objects.
यथैवशब्दौ सादृश्यं आहतुः The words ‘as’ and ‘like’ express
similarity. Examples of the use of यथा and इव are
set out thus:—दूर्वाकाण्डमिव श्यामं Green like the blade of
Dūrvā grass. यथा श्यामा लता (तथा) तन्वी Slim like the

SECOND PARICCHEDA 81
Śyāmā creeper. In the first half of the verse the
order is यथा and इव whereas in the second half it is
इव and यथा. The reason for the reversal of the order
is perhaps due to the fact that where यथा is used,
तथा has to be imported.
विना यथैवशब्दाभ्यां समासाभिहिता परा ।
यथा कमलपत्राक्षी शशाङ्कवदनेति च ॥ ३२ ॥
32. Without the words 'as' and 'like,' similari-
ty can be expressed by the compound. Example.
Lotus-eyed lady ; Moon-faced lady.
32. This verse refers to a case where even
without the words—यथा and इव similarity is conveyed.
This occurs in compounds where the Upamāvāchaka
is necessarily dropped. कमलपत्रे इव अक्षिणी यस्याः सा कमल-
पत्राक्षी. शशाङ्क इव वदनं यस्याः सा शशाङ्कवदना. In addition to यथा
and इव any number of words like निभ, संकाश, नीकाश etc.
are given by Daṇḍin as expressive of similarity in
Kāvyādarśa, 2nd Pariccheda, Verses 57 to 65.
वतिनापि क्रियासाम्यं तद्वदेवाभिधीयते ।
द्विजातिवदधीतेऽसौ गुरुवच्चानुशास्ति नः ॥ ३३ ॥
33. In the same way similarity of action can be
expressed by the suffix Vat (Vati) too. He studies
like a Brahmin; he governs us like a Guru.
33. वत् (वति) is a suffix laid down by Pāṇini to
denote likeness in two Sūtras—तेन तुल्यं क्रिया चेद्वतिः and
6

82 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
तत्र तस्येव. In the sense of तस्मिन्निव or तस्येव or तेन तुल्यं,
वत् is added to nouns. तेन तुल्यं is a case where a simi-
larity of action is conveyed and can be used only
as an adverbial adjunct. The two examples given
by Bhāmaha to illustrate the use of वत् are governed
by the Sūtra—तेन तुल्यं etc. असौ द्विजातिना तुल्यं द्विजातिवत्
अधीते. This and the next example refer perhaps to a
king. He studies like a Brahmin. गुरुणा तुल्यं गुरुवत् च
नः अनुशास्ति He governs us like a Guru.
प्रतिवस्तूपमा ।
समानवस्तुन्यासेन प्रतिवस्तूपमोच्यते ।
यथेवानभिधानेऽपि गुणसाम्यप्रतीतिः ॥ ३४ ॥
34. Prativastūpamā is said to occur where by
a statement of similar ideas there arises the know-
ledge of a similarity of characteristics in spite of the
absence of the words—‘as’ and ‘like’.
34. Where a parallel idea is set out in two
different sentences प्रतिवस्तूपमा arises. Words denot-
ing similarity like यथा, इव etc. are not employed.
But the likeness in qualities is suggested.
साधुसाधारणत्वादुर्गुणोऽत्र व्यतिरिच्यते ।
स साम्यमापादयति विरोधेऽपि तयोर्यथा ॥ ३५ ॥
35. The characteristic, the sharing of riches
with the virtuous or the like, here differs from

SECOND PARICCHHEDA 83
the characteristic set out in the parallel statement.
In spite of the said difference it suggests a paral-
lelism.
35. But there is no common characteristic
between the Upamāna and the Upameya in this va-
riety. As will appear in the illustration given in
Verse 36, साधुसाधारणश्रीत्व is the characteristic of Upa-
meya and स्वादुपाकफलानम्रत्व is the characteristic of
the Upamāna. But to bring it under an example of
Upamā we have to admit an imaginary common-
ness of attribute brought out by बिम्बप्रतिबिम्बभाव. वस्तुतो
भिन्नयोरपि उपमानोपमेयधर्मयोः परस्परसादृश्यादभिन्नयोः पृथगुपादानं बिम्ब-
प्रतिबिम्बभाव इत्यालङ्कारिकसमयः.
कियन्तः सन्ति गुणिनः साधुसाधारणश्रियः ।
स्वादुपाकफलानम्राः कियन्तो वाऽध्वशाखिनः ॥ ३६ ॥
36. How many are there men of merit who
share their riches in common with the virtuous ?
How many are there way-side trees which bend
with sweet ripe fruit ?
36. Here we have two parallel sentences which
can be welded by importing यथा and तथा. How many
are there virtuous persons sharing their riches with
others? The idea is they are very rare. In the same
way trees on the way that would yield fruits to
travellers are also rare. It is to be noted that ac-
cording to later Ālaṃkārikas this will not be treated