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

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

84 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
as a case where a common characteristic between
Upamāna and Upameya is absent as stated in the
previous verse. They will say कियन्तः which sug-
gests scarcity is the common characteristic of both..
प्रतिवस्तूपमा concluded. उपमा continues.
यदुक्तं त्रिप्रकारत्वं तस्याः कैश्चिन्महात्मभिः ।
निन्दाप्रशंसाऽऽचिख्यासाभेदादत्राभिधीयते ॥ ३७ ॥
37. As to the threefold division of Upamā
that has been enunciated by great men into that
sounding in censure, praise or a desire to convey,
our remark follows.
37. This verse refers to a threefold classifi-
cation of Upamā into निन्दा, प्रशंसा and आचिख्यासा made by
rhetoricians more ancient than Bhāmaha. Daṇḍin
also notices these types.
सामान्यगुणनिर्देशात् त्रयमप्युदितं ननु ।
मालोपमादिः सर्वोऽपि न ज्यायान् विस्तरो मुधा ॥३८॥
38. By a reference to their common characteri-
stic all the three have been reviewed. All other
classifications as Mālopamā and the rest are not of
much consequence. This elaboration is in vain.
38. For निन्दोपमा Daṇḍin's Kāvyādarśa cites the
following. पद्मं बहुरजश्चन्द्रः क्षयी ताभ्यां तवाननम् । समानमिति
सोत्सेकमिति निन्दोपमा स्मृता ॥ II-30. For प्रशंसोपमा the follow-

SECOND PARICCHEDA 85
ing illustration is given there. ब्रह्मणोऽप्युद्भवः पद्मश्चन्द्रः
शम्भुशिरोभृतः । तौ तुल्यौ त्वन्मुखेनेति सा प्रशंसोपमोच्यते ॥ II—31.
For आचिख्यासोपमा the example given there is चन्द्रेण त्वन्मुखं
तुल्यमित्याचिख्यासु मे मनः । स गुणो वाऽस्तु दोषो वेत्याचिख्यासोपमां विदुः ॥
II—32. Since we have mentioned the common
characteristic of the species of Upamā, त्रयमप्युदितं ननु
we have indeed included the said three types. They
do not deserve a separate mention. So also is मालो-
पमा. न ज्यायान् The classification into मालोपमा and
others is not important. बिस्तरो मुधा An elaboration
is unnecessary. For मालोपमा the following illustra-
tion is given in Kāvyādarśa :—पूष्णयातप इवाहीव पूषा व्यो-
म्नीव वासरः । विक्रमस्त्वय्यधालक्ष्मीमिति मालोपमा मता ॥ II—42.
उपमादोषाः सप्त ।
हीनताऽसंभवो लिङ्गवचोभेदो विपर्ययः ।
उपमानाधिकत्वं च तेनासद्दशतापि च ॥ ३९ ॥
त एत उपमादोषाः सप्त मेधाविनोदिताः ।
सोदाहरणलक्ष्माणो वर्ण्यन्तेऽत्र च ते पृथक् ॥ ४० ॥
39. Deficiency of Upamāna, improbability,
differences in gender and number, impropriety of
comparison, surplusage in Upamāna and the dis-
similarity of Upamāna :
40. These are the seven flaws of Upamā de-
clared by Medhāvin. They are hereunder separately
described with illustrations and characteristics.

86 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
39 & 40. Medhāvin's enumeration of seven
defects of उपमा is mentioned with approval by
Bhāmaha. मेधाविन् must be an author of a work in
poetics, more ancient than Bhāmaha. His work
is not available now. Medhāvin is referred to later
on in II—88—प्रसंख्यानमिति मेधाविनोत्प्रेक्षाभिहिता क्वचित् । Medhā-
vin (or Medhāvirudra) is named and quoted by
Namisādhu in his commentary on Rudraṭa's Kāvyā-
laṁkāra I—1 and XI—24.
हीनता (i)
⁵स मारुता¹कम्पितपीतवासा
⁴बिभ्रत्स³लीलं शशिभा²समब्जम् ।
⁷यदुपवीरः प्रगृहीतशार्ङ्गः
सेन्द्रायुधो मेघ इवा¹⁰बभासे ॥ ४१ ॥
41. That hero of Yadus, clad in a yellow cloth
shaking in the wind, sportively bearing the conch
shining like the Moon and holding the Śārṅga bow,
shone like a cloud accompanied by a rainbow.
41. This verse illustrates the first Upamādosha
known as हीन or हीनता. This fault occurs where on
the Upamāna side all the factors of the Upameya do
not find a counterpart. मारुतेन आकम्पितं पीतं वासः यस्य Bear-
ing a yellow garment waving in the breeze. शशिभासं
अब्जं सलीलं बिभ्रत् Gracefully bearing his moon-white
conch. प्रगृहीतशार्ङ्गः Holding his Śārṅga bow. स यदुपवीरः

SECOND PARICCHEDA 87
Kṛṣṇa. सेन्द्रायुधः मेघ इव Like a cloud possessed of a
rainbow. आवभासे Shone. This verse is cited by
Namisādhu on Kāvyālaṁkāra XI—24 with शशिभासि
शङ्खं in the place of शशिभासमब्जम्.
शक्रचापग्रहादत्र दर्शितं किल कार्मुकम् ।
वासःशङ्खानुपादानाद्धीनमित्यभिधीयते ॥ ४२ ॥
42. By the mention of the rainbow the bow on
the Upameya side has been set off in comparison.
By the absence of features corresponding to the gar-
ment and the conch the Upamā is said to be deficient
on the Upamāna side.
42. The author points out the application of
the defect known as हीन in this verse. On the Upa-
meya side there are three factors—the yellow gar-
ment, the conch and the bow. On the Upamāna
side, only one factor is set out viz., the rainbow.
The features corresponding to the yellow garment
and the conch are not set out on the Upamāna side.
Contrast this with Verse 58 where two factors viz.,
the yellow garment and Śārṅga bow are referred
to on the Upameya side and three factors viz., the
lightning, the rainbow and the moon are mentioned
on the Upamāna side. So that exemplifies अधिक or
उपमानाधिकत्वं, the 6th fault in the list given above.
In the present verse if the lightning and the moon
are also expressly mentioned it will be free from
objection.

BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
सर्वं सर्वेण सारूप्यं नास्ति भावस्य कस्यचित् ।
यथोपपत्ति कृतिभिरुपमासु प्रयुज्यते ॥ ४३ ॥
43. For any object a full similarity in all res-
pects is not possible. Similarity is set out by clever
people in similes as far as is practicable.
43. Then arises the question whether the fault
is to be presumed in all cases where all the factors of
the Upameya do not find a counterpart on the Upa-
māna side. Not so. Daṇḍin says:—न लिङ्गवचने भिन्ने न
हीनाधिकतापि वा । उपमादूषणायलं यत्रोद्वेगो न धीमताम् ॥ And in fact
our author is going to cite Verse 46 supra as an
illustration of an ostensible case of हीन which does
not amount to दोष. Verses 43, 44 & 45 serve as an
introduction to the same. This verse states that a
similarity of two objects in all respects cannot be
expected. An Upamā is well employed if it stands
to reason. It is so employed by great men without
reference to the number of correspondences between
Upamāna and Upameya. Otherwise all similes
will become absurd. This idea is set out in the
next verse.
अखण्डमण्डलः क्वेन्दुः क्व कान्ताननमद्युति ।
यत्किंचित्कान्तिसामान्याच्छशिनैवोपमीयते ॥ ४४ ॥
44. Where is the Moon in his full disc and
where is a woman's face without radiance? By rea-

SECOND PARICCHEDA 89
son of a fragment of splendour in common it is
compared to the Moon itself.
44. The Moon and a lady’s face are generally
compared. But do they agree in their degrees of
brilliance? By a fragment of lustre a lady’s face is
compared to the moon. An all-round resemblance
is incompatible.
किंच काव्यानि नेयानि लक्षणेन महात्मनाम् ।
दृष्टं वा सर्वसारूप्यं राजमित्रे यथोदितम् ॥ ४५ ॥
45. Further the compositions of great poets
have to be explained in conformity with the rules.
Is absolute similarity seen anywhere ? In Rāja-
mitra we have the following.
45. Poems of great poets which are accepted
as the best specimen of poetry can be justified only
by a not too rigorous application of definitions. दृष्टं
वा सर्वसारूप्यं Is an entire similarity seen anywhere?
Rājamitra is a poetic work from which the next
verse is cited which illustrates an exemption from
the defect of हीन. Rājamitra is not available now.
The work is referred to again later on in III—10.
समाहितं राजमित्रे यथा क्षत्रिययोषिताम् ।
रामप्रसत्त्यै यान्तीनां पुरोऽदृश्यत नारदः ॥
From this reference it may be inferred that
the work राजमित्रं deals with the history of Paraśu-

90 BHĀMAHĀLAṄKĀRA
rāma ending with his peace towards Kshatriyas as-
the title would suggest.
सूर्यांशुसंमीलितलोचनेषु
दीनेषु पद्मानिलनिर्मदेषु ।
साध्व्यः स्वगेहेष्विव भर्तृहीनाः
केका विनेशुः शिखिनां मुखेषु ॥ ४६ ॥
46. Into the miserable faces of peacocks with
eyes shrunk by the Sun's rays and bereft of joy due
to the breeze from lotuses the peacocks' voices
went into hiding like chaste ladies who had lost
their husbands into their miserable homes.
46. केका: The notes of peacocks. Amara:—केका
वाणी मयूरस्य. विनेशुः The jubilant cries of peacocks be-
came extinct. Where? शिखिनां मुखेषु Within the faces
(throats) of the peacocks. How are peacocks' faces?
सूर्यांशुभिः संमीलिते लोचने येषां तेषु. Summer not relished by
peacocks, their eyes are said to be closed by the
Sun's rays. पद्मानिलनिर्मदेषु Stripped of joy or intoxica-
tion due to breeze from lotuses. The plentiful bloom
of lotuses in summer is not agreeable to peacocks.
As a consequence of the above two traits, दीनेषु the
peacocks' faces are depressed. An analogy for the
extinction of peacocks' cries is furnished in the 3rd
foot of the verse. भर्तृहीनाः साध्व्यः स्वगेहेषु इव As chaste
ladies recently widowed would sink within their

SECOND PARICCHEDA 91
homes. On the Upameya side मुखेषु is qualified by
three attributes. On the Upamāna side there are
no corresponding features adjectival to खगेहेषु. Then
does this exhibit the defect of हीन ? No. दीनेषु will
apply equally to खगेहेषु. The widow's homes are
miserable. What about the other two attributes ?
सूर्यांशु etc. and पद्मानिल etc. are only symptoms contri-
buting to the depression prevailing in the peacocks'
faces. Without those adjectives दीनेषु will be puzzl-
ing. So there is necessity for the Upamāna to be
augmented by additional factors. No such necessity
arises on the Upamāna side. It is as clear as cry-
stal that recently widowed ladies' homes will be
miserable. So this comes under the exemption
provided by Daṇḍin in यत्रोद्वेगो न धीमताम्. Vāmana in
his Kāvyālaṁkāra (IV-ii-10) cites this verse with
the following comment—अत्र बहुत्वमुपमेयधर्माणामुपमानात् । न ।
विशिष्टानामेव मुखानामुपमेयत्वात् । तादृशेष्वेव केकाविनाशस्य संभवात् ।
असंभवः (ii)
निष्पेतुरस्यादिव तस्य दीप्ताः
शरा धनुर्मण्डलेमध्यभाजः ।
जाज्वल्यमाना इव वारिधारा
दिनार्धभाजः परिवेषिणोऽर्कात् ॥ ४७ ॥
शाखावर्धनस्य ।
47. Fiery arrows emerged as though from his

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 ॥