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

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 ॥

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.