The Fifth Delight
Shri Raghavendra Gurusarvabhauma
56. Kākatālīya Vākyārtha (ಕಾಕತಾಳೀಯ ವಾಕ್ಯಾರ್ಥ)
It was decided that the scholarly debate (Vidyat Sabha) would be held in the palace for three days under the presidency of Sudhīndra, starting from Mārgaśira Bahula Bidige (a lunar calendar date). Having defeated Shyāmadīkṣita in a debate and crushing all their hopes, Vēṅkaṭanātha was specially honored by the king in the royal court, which caused great distress to the jealous scholars.
Now, they conspired to humiliate Vēṅkaṭanātha in front of the king and thereby tarnish the reputation of Sudhīndra. As luck would have it, they found a powerful ally in Vibudhānanda Bhaṭṭāchārya, a learned scholar from North India. This renewed their enthusiasm. Raghunātha Bhūpāla had honored Vibudhānanda with the title of Astānapanḍita (royal court scholar), recognizing him as an expert in literary sciences (Sāhityaśāstra). Vibudhānanda also held the prestigious title of Bhaṭṭāchārya.
This time, they devised a cunning plan to defeat Vēṅkaṭanātha in Alaṅkāraśāstra (the science of rhetoric and poetics) and take revenge.
The scholarly debate commenced under the presidency of Śrī Sudhīndratīrtha. The royal assembly hall was filled with scholars, poets, musicians, and prominent citizens. Vibudhānanda, along with his envious associates, ascended the stage and declared, “If there is any brave scholar here who dares to engage in a Vākyārtha (the debate over interpretation of literary and philosophical statements) with me in Alaṅkāraśāstra, let him come forward!”
Śrī Sudhīndra smiled subtly and glanced at Vēṅkaṭanātha. Understanding his guru’s intent, Vēṅkaṭanātha stepped forward and took his seat on the stage. Vibudhānanda then declared, “If I am defeated, I shall renounce my title of Bhaṭṭāchārya.”
After establishing the rules of debate and appointing the mediators, the discussion began.
Vibudhānanda: "Ācārya, your previous victories in the royal court were mere coincidences (Kākatālīya), as there were no worthy scholars present at the time."
Vēṅkaṭanātha: "Your argument is baseless. It is an improper analogy (Viṣama Dṛṣṭānta) (ವಿಷಮ ದೃಷ್ಟಾಂತ). Can you logically reconcile and prove that my past victory was coincidences? (Kākatālīya?) (ಕಾಕತಾಳೀಯ )"
Vibudha (mockingly): "Leave that aside. Do you even know what Kākatālīya (ಕಾಕತಾಳೀಯ) (coincidences) means?"
Vēṅkaṭa: "You, who claim to be debating Alaṅkāraśāstra (ಅಲಂಕಾರಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ), are unaware of its meaning?"
Vibudha: "Are you even competent to debate in Alaṅkāraśāstra (ಅಲಂಕಾರಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ)?"
Vēṅkaṭa: "No need for wordy rhetoric, start the debate."
Vibudha: "Alright, tell me, where does the word Kākatālīya (ಕಾಕತಾಳೀಯ) originate from?"
Vēṅkaṭa: "It appears in the examples of Lūpopamālaṅkāra. (ಲುಪೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ)"
Vibudha: "Fine, elaborate a bit."
Vēṅkaṭa: "Lūpopamālaṅkāra (ಲುಪೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) is just a subcategory of Upamālaṅkāra (ಉಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ). Fundamentally, Pūrṇopamālaṅkāra (ಪೂರ್ಣೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ ) is the most renowned among them. Granting it primacy is universally accepted by all scholars of Alaṅkāraśāstra (ಅಲಂಕಾರಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ)?". In the study of Alaṅkāra(ಅಲಂಕಾರ), figures of speech are analyzed through similes (aupamya, ಔಪಮ್ಯ), logic (nyāya), and textual references (vachana) (ವಚನ). Why do we primarily introduce Upamālaṅkāra (ಉಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) before others?"
Vibudha: "Ācārya, just as Brahmasūtra holds the highest position in Vedantic philosophy in relation to Sūtrapada, and just as Madhvācārya is accorded the foremost place in Ācāryapada, similarly, in Alaṅkāraśāstra (ಅಲಂಕಾರಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ), Upamālaṅkāra (ಉಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ), which is fundamental to all rhetorical figures, is rightly introduced first under the term Alaṅkāra (ಅಲಂಕಾರ)."
Vēṅkaṭa: "Just as gold (jātarūpa - ಜಾತರೂಪ) inherently remains the same but transforms into different ornaments like earrings, crowns, bangles, armlets, and anklets through the craftsmanship of a goldsmith, similarly, the essence of Upamā remains singular. However, through variations in stylistic expression, it manifests in different figures such as Rūpaka (ರೂಪಕ) (Metaphor), Dṛṣṭānta (ದೃಷ್ಟಾಂತ) (Illustrative Simile), Dīpaka (ದೀಪಕ) (Illuminative Simile), and many others."
"Isn’t that correct, Bhaṭṭāchārya? Just as gold in different forms is still gold, Upamā (ಉಪಮಾ) in different expressive structures remains the foundation of all figures of speech."
Vibudha: "Well, fine. You’ve given an interesting but improper analogy. Now listen to my question—In the phrase Ātapa iva dīpo bhāti; 'ಆತಪ ಇವ ದೀಪೋ ಭಾತಿ (‘The lamp shines like the sun’), shouldn’t this be classified under Pūrṇopamālaṅkāra (ಪೂರ್ಣೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ)?"
Vēṅkaṭa: "Your example is invalid! A valid sādṛśya (similarity) must possess sahridaya hṛdayāhlādakatā; 'ಸಹೃದಯ ಹೃದಯಾ ಆಹ್ಲಾದಕತೈ (aesthetic delight for a cultured audience) and camatkāra-janakatā (ಚಮತ್ಕಾರ-ಜನಕತಾ ) (an element of wonder or charm), correct?
In your example Ātapa iva dīpo bhāti ('ಆತಪ ಇವ ದೀಪೋ ಭಾತಿ), neither sahridaya hṛdayāhlādakatā ('ಸಹೃದಯ ಹೃದಯಾಹ್ಲಾದಕತೈ ) nor camatkāra (ಚಮತ್ಕಾರ ) is present! This makes it an improper analogy (viṣama dṛṣṭānta - ವಿಷಮ ದೃಷ್ಟಾಂತ). Furthermore, Alaṅkāraśāstra dictates that the upamāna(ಉಪಮಾನ) (the object of comparison) should have a broader contextual scope, while the upameya (ಉಪಮೇಯ) (the subject being compared) should be more specific. Your example violates this fundamental principle!"
Vibudha (frustrated): "How so?"
Vēṅkaṭa: (laughing) "Your given example can be applied to Pratīpālaṅkāra (ಪ್ರತೀಪಾಲಂಕಾರ), but it does not belong to Pūrṇopamālaṅkāra! (ಪೂರ್ಣೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ )"
Vibudha: (dejectedly) "Yes, I slightly erred here. Let that be. Now tell me, why can’t the phrase 'Sadyō muṇḍitam atta hūṇa chibuka praspar’dhinārangakaṁ' (ಸದ್ಯೋ ಮುಂಡಿತಮತ್ತ ಹೂಣಚಿಬುಕ ಪ್ರಸ್ಪರ್ಧಿನಾರಂಗಕಂ ) be classified under Pūrṇopamālaṅkāra? (ಪೂರ್ಣೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ )"
Vēṅkaṭa: (smiling) "Oh, are you referring to the viewpoint of Citra Mīmāṁsākāra? (ಚಿತ್ರಮೀಮಾಂಸಾಕಾರ)"
Vibudha: (laughing sarcastically) "Indeed! The debate only becomes lively when one uses texts written by your guru Vijayīndra’s rival, Śrī Appayya Dīkṣita!"
Vēṅkaṭa: (smirking) "This is a case of Kavikalpitopamālaṅkāra; ಕವಿಕಲ್ಪಿತೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ (poetically imagined simile). It also lacks the characteristic of camatkāra janakatā (an element of aesthetic delight). Moreover, it is not conventionally accepted in poetic traditions. Thus, this example is also incorrect!"
Vibudha: (angrily) "Hmph! Then you provide an example that is universally accepted. Let’s see!"
Vēṅkaṭa: "Certainly! When providing an example for Pūrṇopamālaṅkāra, it is appropriate to first explain its definition, the significance of its components, and their respective functions.
Pūrṇopamālaṅkāra is defined as follows:
'Tatra ananya-paraṁ sādṛśya-varṇanam upamā - ತತ್ರ ಅನನ್ಯ-ಪರಂ ಸಾಮ್ಯ-ವರ್ಣನಂ ಉಪಮಾ ' – A simile (upamā) is the description of similarity between upameya (the object being described) and upamāna (the object of comparison) without being influenced by anything else.
Now, if stating just ‘sādṛśya-varṇana’ (the depiction of similarity) were sufficient, why was the term ‘ananya-para’ included? The reason is to avoid overgeneralization (ativyāpti) in upameya-upamāna svayālaṅkāra (self-contained figures of speech). While sādṛśya varṇana (depiction of similarity) occurs there too, ananya-para is added to specify that upamā strictly denotes an exclusive similarity between two separate entities.
In Upamālaṅkāra, there are two types—Pūrṇopamā and Luptopamā. When all four essential components—Upamāna (the standard of comparison), Upameya (the subject being compared), Sādhāraṇa Dharma - ಸಾಧಾರಣ ಧರ್ಮ (common attribute), and Vācaka- ವಾಚಕ (the word indicating the comparison)—are present, it is classified as Pūrṇopamā. When one, two, or three of these components are omitted, it is termed Luptopamālaṅkāra.
Furthermore, Pūrṇopamā itself is of two kinds: Śruti and Ārthī - ಆರ್ಥೀ.
If explicit comparative words such as iva (like), nāma (called), or sama (similar) are used, it is classified as Śruti.
If the comparison is implied through words like tulya (equal to) or sādṛśya viśiṣṭa dharmivācaka - ಸಾದೃಶ್ಯ ವಿಶಿಷ್ಟ ಧರ್ಮಿವಾಚಕ (attributes that indicate similarity), then it falls under Ārthī.
These two types of Pūrṇopamā further manifest in three grammatical structures—
1. Vākya (sentence),
2. Samāsa (compound words), and
3. Taddhita (derivative formations).
Thus, Pūrṇopamālaṅkāra can be classified into six distinct forms."
Vibudha: "Ācārya, that was an excellent explanation! Now, can you provide a specific example for each of these classifications?"
Vēṅkaṭa: "Thank you for your kind appreciation. First, let me explain the three types of Pūrṇopamā in Śruti (explicit comparison). Listen carefully—
In Kālidāsa’s Raghuvaṁśa, it is stated:
‘Yathā Prahlādanāchandraḥ Pratāpātapano Yathā, ಯಥಾ ಪ್ರಹ್ಲಾದನಾಚಂದ್ರಃ ಪ್ರತಾಪಾತಪನೋ ಯಥಾ
Tathaiva Sobhūdanvārtho Rājā Prakṛti Rañjanāt’, ತಥೈವ ಸೋಭೂದನ್ವರ್ಥೋ ರಾಜಾ ಪ್ರಕೃತಿ ರಂಜನಾತ್
Here, the common attribute (sādhāraṇa dharma) of meaning (anvārtha śabda - ಅನ್ವಾರ್ಥ ಶಬ್ದ) applies to both upamāna (the standard of comparison, such as the moon) and upameya (the subject being compared, i.e., the king). Because of this explicit comparative structure within a sentence, this qualifies as Pūrṇopamā at the vākya (sentence) level.
Now, for the Samāsa (compound word) level—
An example is:
‘Bhāsvāniva Śrīraghunāthanētuḥ’, ಭಾಸ್ವಾನಿವ ಶ್ರೀರಘುನಾಥನೇತುಃ
Here, 'Bhāsvān iva' forms a compound. As per Pāṇini’s aphorism ‘Ivena Nityasamāso Vibhakṣyalopacca - ಇವೇನ ನಿತ್ಯಸಮಾಸೋ ವಿಭಕ್ಷ್ಯ (Vibhakṣya) ಲೋಪಚ್ಚ (Lopacca)’, this is a nitya samāsa (permanent compound).
For the Taddhita (derivative formation) level—
An example is:
‘Dharaṇīramaṇasyāsya Kharadūṣaṇa Hāriṇaḥ!, ಧರಣೀರಮಣಸ್ಯಾಸ್ಯ ಖರದೂಷಣ ಹಾರಿಣಃ
Caturdaśasu Lokeṣu Rājate Rāmavaśaḥ!!’, ಚತುರ್ದಶಸು ಲೋಕೇಷು ರಾಜತೇ ರಾಮವಶಃ
Here, the vati - ವತಿ suffix is used in the aseva (meaning ‘not belonging to’) sense, thus making it a Taddhita Śruti Pūrṇopamā.
Now, considering Ārthī Pūrṇopamā—
In Bhūvanād’bhuta Vikṛtamatē Bhujadaṇḍoyaṁ Mahābhāgaḥ, ಭುವನಾದ್ಭುತ ವಿಕೃತಮತೇ ಭುಜದಂಡೋಯಂ ಮಹಾಭಾಗಃ
Sakala-dharitrī-dharaṇi Sādṛśaḥ Pratibhāti Bhujangarājēna, ಸಕಲಧರಿತ್ರೀಧರಣಿ ಸದೃಶಃ ಪ್ರತಿಭಾತಿ ಭುಜಂಗರಾಜೇನ
(alternate reading: Bhujageśvara Sannibho Bhāti!, ಭುಜಗೇಶ್ವರ ಸನ್ನಿಭೋಭಾತಿ)
Since the word sādṛśa is explicitly used, this is Ārthī Pūrṇopamā at the vākya level. If we take the alternate reading (Bhujageśvara Sannibho Bhāti), then this becomes Ārthī Pūrṇopamā at the Samāsa level as well.
For Taddhita Ārthī Pūrṇopamā—
‘Chakāsti Kīrti Bako’pi Kōpi, ಚಕಾಸ್ತಿಕೀರ್ತಿ ಬಕೋಪಿ ಕೋಪಿ
Rākāniśākāmuka Vatsasanna!, ರಾಕಾನಿಶಾಕಾಮುಕ ವತ್ನಸನ್ನ
Here, based on Pāṇini’s aphorism ‘Tēna Tūlyaṁ Kriyā Cēddatiḥ’('ತೇನ ತುಲ್ಯಂ ಕ್ರಿಯಾಚೇದ್ದತಿಃ'), the vati suffix is applied in the tulya (equal) sense, thereby classifying it under Taddhita Ārthī Pūrṇopamā.
Thus, I have explained the six types in detail. Are you satisfied now, Bhaṭṭāchārya?"
Vibudha: (Forcing a smile, concealing his dissatisfaction) "Well, it was quite satisfying, but I am not entirely content! Let’s see, can you explain Luptopamālaṅkāra (ಲುಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) as well?"
Vēṅkaṭa: (smiling gently) "Ah, I understand your curiosity! Perhaps the phrase 'Sāhitya Gandha Vidhurāḥ Mādhvāḥ’, ಸಾಹಿತ್ಯ ಗಂಧ ವಿಧುರಾಃ ಮಾಧ್ವಾ (Mādhvas lack literary fragrance) is lingering in your mind?"
Vibudha: (laughing superficially) "Ahaha! Nothing like that. It’s just that we are eager to see the extent of your expertise in Alaṅkāraśāstra."
Vēṅkaṭa: "I must not disappoint you, must I? Very well, listen carefully—
Luptopamālaṅkāra (ಲುಪೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) is primarily categorized into seven types:
1. Dharmaluptā, ಧರ್ಮಲುಪ್ತಾ
2. Vācakaluptā. ವಾಚಕಲುಪ್ತಾ
3. Upamānaluptā. ಉಪಮಾನಲುಪ್ತಾ
4. Dharmavācakaluptā, ಧರ್ಮವಾಚಕಲುಪ್ತಾ
5. Dharmopavānuluptā, ಧರ್ಮೋಪವಾನುಪ್ತಾ
6. Vācopameyaluptā, ವಾಚೋಪಮೇಯಲುಪ್ತಾ
7. Dharmopamānaluptā, ಧರ್ಮೋಪಮಾನಲುಪ್ತಾ
Of these, Dharmalupta is initially divided into Śruti and Ārthī (ಶ್ರತಿ, ಆರ್ಥಿ). However, since Dharmalupta does not occur in Śruti or Taddhita (ಶೌತಿ-ತದ್ಧಿತ), it ultimately reduces to five forms.
I shall now present examples of these types based on the compositions of my revered Gurupāda (guru’s works)."
Seeing this, Śrī Sudhīndra, Yajñanārāyaṇa Dīkṣita, and Raghunātha Bhūpāla smiled in delight. The scholars, astonished and enthused, eagerly proceeded with the next phase of the debate.
Vēṅkaṭa:
"Vaṁ yathā himarucir nava chandrikēva | ವಂ ಯಥಾ ಹಿಮರುಚಿರ್ನವ ಚಂದ್ರಿಕೇವ
Hāsa-prabhākuvalayēna samē ca nētra | ಹಾಸಪ್ರಭಾಕುವಲಯೇನ ಸಮೇ ಚ ನೇತ್ರ
Tasyā manōharalatā-sadṛśau ca bāhū | ತಸ್ಯಾ ಮನೋಹರಲತಾಸದೃಶೌ ಚ ಬಾಹೂ
Vācassudhābailaharī nikurumbakalpā ||" ವಾಚಸ್ಸುಧಾಬೈಲಹರೀ ನಿಕುರುಂಬಕಲ್ಪಾ
Here, the five comparative words—yathā (as), iva (like), samā (equal to), sadṛśa; ಸದೃಶ (resembling), and kalpā (akin to)—are applied successively, demonstrating five types of Dharmaluptopamālaṅkāra (ಧರ್ಮಲುಪ್ತಾ ಉಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) in unison.
As for Vācakalupta (ವಾಚಕಲುಪ್ತ ) (elision of comparative indicators), it occurs in seven forms based on grammatical derivations:
1. Ṇamul (ಣಮುಲ್') suffix in karma sense, '
2. Ṇamul (ಣಮುಲ್ ) suffix in kartṛ sense,
3. Kṛc (ಕೃಚ್ ) suffix in karma sense,
4. Kṛc (ಕೃಚ್ ) suffix in adhikaraṇa sense,
5. Kṛ (ಕೃ ) suffix,
6. Ṇin suffix,
7. Samāsa (compound formation).
Scholar: "O Master, you are explaining so many details—can you provide authoritative textual evidence for this?"
Vēṅkaṭa: "Scholars, it seems that you have not examined Sārvabhauma Cintāmaṇi! There is no shortage of proof. Listen—
‘Ivādi dharmaluptād vividhē, Ṇamulci ca Kṛm | ಇವಾ ಆದಿ ಧರ್ಮ ಲುಪ್ತಾ ದ್ವಿವಿಧೇ, ಣಮುಲ್‌ಚಿ ಚ ಕೃಮ್‌
Tathā Ṇinau samāsē ca saṣā prakīrtitā ||’ ತಥಾ ಣಿನೌ ಸಮಾಸೇ ಚ ಸಷಾ ಪ್ರಕೀರ್ತಿತಾ
This establishes the different types of Dharmaluptopamālaṅkāra (ಧರ್ಮಲುಪ್ತಾ ಉಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ). But that is not all—I shall also present the Pāṇinian (ಪಾಣಿನಿಯ) grammatical rules that support this!"
The Ṇamul suffix is authorized for both upamāna (comparisons) and karma cases, as per the rule "Upamānē karmani ca, kartṛkarmaṇorupapadayōḥ" (ಉಪಮಾನೇ ಕರ್ಮಣಿ ಚ, ಕರ್ತೃಕರ್ಮಣೋರುಪಪದಯೋ).
The Kṛc suffix is validated in karma cases by the Vārtika extension "Upamānādācāre, adhikāraṇācēti vaktavyam" (ಉಪಮಾನಾದಾಚಾರೇ, ಅಧಿಕಾರಣಾಚೇತಿ ವಕ್ತವ್ಯಂ).
The Kṛ suffix is prescribed under the rule "Kartṛj salōpaśca" (ಕರ್ತೃಜ್ ಸಲೋಪಶ್ಚ).
The Ṇin suffix is established under "Kartṛ upamānē" (ಕರ್ತರುಪಮಾನೇ).
The omission of comparison words (vācaka-lopa) in compound formations is supported by "Upamānādi sāmañña vacanaiḥ" (ಉಪಮಾನಾದಿ ಸಾಮಾನ್ಯ ವಚನೈ).
Hearing this, the entire assembly erupted in thunderous applause, celebrating Vēṅkaṭanātha’s erudition.
Continuing, Vēṅkaṭanātha presented a single verse from his revered Guru’s Sāhitya Sāmrājya, demonstrating all seven types of Vācakalupta Upamā:
"Yaṁ parśa dīpa darśaṁ sahadi manasijaḥ kīṭanāśaṁ sanaṣṭaḥ | ಯಂ ಪರ್ಶ ದೀಪದರ್ಶ೦ ಸಹದಿ ಮನಸಿಜಃ ಕೀಟನಾಶಂ ಸನಷ್ಟ
Svāntē yō’ntaḥpurīyaṁ nija-bhavana-kṛtastam kumārīyati drāk || ಸ್ವಾಂತೇ ಯೋಂತಃಪುರೀಯಂ ನಿಜಭವನಕೃತಸ್ತಂ ಕುಮಾರೀಯತಿ ದ್ರಾಕ್
Mūla-stambhāyatē yasti bhuvana-bhavanē kōka-lālāpinī sā | ಮೂಲಸ್ತಂಭಾಯತೇ ಯಸ್ತಿಭುವನ ಭವನೇ ಕೋಕಲಾಲಾಪಿನೀ ಸಾ
Vāmāṅgē kalpavallī śrayati kuvalayaśyāmalā taṁ bhajāmi ||" ವಾಮಾಂಗೇ ಕಲ್ಪವಲ್ಲೀ ಶ್ರಯತಿ ಕುವಲಯಶ್ಯಾಮಲಾ ತಂ ಭಜಾಮಿ
Vēṅkaṭa: "Now, Bhaṭṭāchārya, let us see you align the seven types of Vācakalupta Alaṅkāra in this verse!"
(The audience erupts in excitement.)
Vibudhānanda, stunned by Vēṅkaṭanātha’s unmatched intelligence and precise analysis, gazed upwards in silence, unable to respond.
A scholar in the assembly then remarked, “Master, O Ācārya! Asking someone who cannot perform Aṣṭāvadhāna ; ಅಷ್ಟಾವಧಾನ (eight-fold cognitive multitasking) to perform Śatāvadhāna; ಶತಾವಧಾನ (hundred-fold cognitive multitasking) is unfair! We humbly request you to elucidate it yourself for our joy.”
Upon hearing this, Vibudhānanda, shaking with anger and frustration, retorted:
"I have remained silent not due to incompetence, but out of magnanimity! Let the glory rest upon the Ācārya, as he is so enthusiastic!"
The assembly burst into laughter.
Vēṅkaṭa: "It is my duty to fulfill the request of the esteemed audience! In the phrase ‘Dīpam iva paśyan’ (ದೀಪಮಿವ ಪಶ್ಯನ್ ) (seeing like a lamp), the term ‘Dīpadarśam’ (ದೀಪದರ್ಶಂ ) employs the Ṇamul (ಣಮುಲ್') suffix in the karma sense. In ‘Kīṭa iva naṣṭaḥ’ (ಕೀಟ ಇವ ನಷ್ಟ: ) (destroyed like an insect), the phrase ‘Kīṭanāśaṁ sanaṣṭaḥ’ (ಕೀಟನಾಶಂ ಸನಷ್ಟಃ ) uses the Ṇamul (ಣಮುಲ್') suffix in the kartṛ - ಕರ್ತೃ sense. In ‘Svāntē antaḥpura iva ācharati - ಸ್ವಾಂತೇ ಅಂತಃಪುರ ಇವ ಆಚರತಿ’ (acting like an inner chamber in the heart), ‘Antaḥpurīyati’ employs the Kṛc - ಕೃಚ್ suffix in the adhikaraṇa sense.
Similarly, in ‘Kumāra skandham iva ācharati’ - ಕುಮಾರ ಸ್ಕಂಧಂ ಇವ ಆಚರತಿ (acting like the shoulder of a prince), the phrase ‘Kumāriyati’ (ಕುಮಾರೀಯತಿ ) applies the Kṛc - ಕೃಚ್ suffix in the karma sense. In ‘Tribhuvana bhavane mūlastambha iva ācharati’ (ತ್ರಿಭುವನ ಭವನೇ ಮೂಲಸ್ತಂಭ ಇವ ಆಚರತೀ ) (acting like the foundation pillar of the three worlds), the ‘Mūlastambhāyatē’ (ಮೂಲಸ್ತಂಭಾಯತೇ ) phrase, based on ‘Saptamyadhikaraṇē’ (ಸಪ್ತಮ್ಯಧಿಕರಣೇ), takes the Kṛb - ಕೃಬ್ suffix in the adhikaraṇa sense.
Likewise, in ‘Kokila iva ālapati’ (ಕೋಕಿಲ ಇವ ಆಲಪತಿ ) (speaking like a cuckoo), ‘Kokilālāpinī’ (ಕೋಕಿಲಾಲಾಪಿನೀ ) takes the Ṇini (ಣಿನಿ ) suffix. In ‘Kuvalaya iva śyāmalā’ (ಕುವಲಯ ಇವ ಶ್ಯಾಮಲಾ ) (dark like a blue lotus), ‘Kuvalayaśyāmalā’ (ಕುವಲಯಶ್ಯಾಮಲಾ ) is a compound.
Thus, these seven types of Vācakaluptopamālaṅkāra (ವಾಚಕಲುಪ್ತಾಂಕಾರ) elegantly shine in this verse!"
Filled with supreme joy, the king and the scholars clapped and nodded in approval. Encouraged, Vēṅkaṭanātha continued—
Vēṅkaṭa: "Not just that, Upamānalupta (ಉಪಮಾನಲುಪ್ತ) is also of two types—occurring in sentences and compounds.
For example:
‘Dayādi guṇasampanna vitaraṇē raṇē | ''ದಯಾದಿ ಗುಣಸಂಪನ್ನ ವಿತರಣೇ ರಣೇ
Tatrāpi dharaṇīpāla tava tullo na vidyatē’ ತತ್ರಾಪಿ ಧರಣೀಪಾಲ !* ತವ ತುಲ್ಲೋ ನ ವಿದ್ಯತೇ
(Alternative reading: ‘Tattamāno na dṛśyatē’) (ತತ್ತಮಾನೋ ನ ದೃಶ್ಯತೇ).
Here, in the first phrase, Luptopamālaṅkāra (ಲುಪೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) appears in the vākya (ವಾಕ್ಯ ) (sentence) form. In the second reading, Tattamāno na dṛśyatē (ತತ್ತಮಾನೋ ನ ದೃಶ್ಯತೇ), Upamānalupta (ಉಪಮಾನಲುಪ್ತ) occurs in the samāsa (ಸಮಾಸ ) (compound).
Similarly, Dharmavācakalupta (ಧರ್ಮವಾಚಕಲುಷ್ಠೆ) has two types: Kṛc (ಕ್ಲಿಪ್ ) suffix and samāsa. This is stated in:
‘Dharmopamānayōrlōpē vākyaṅgā ca samāsagā’ (ಧರ್ಮ ಉಪಮಾನಯೋಃ ಲೋಪೇ ವಾಕ್ಯಗಾ ಚ ಸಮಾಸಗಾ) (it occurs in both sentences and compounds).
Dharmopamānalupta (ಧರ್ಮೋಪಮಾನಲುpta) also has two types, as per the rule:
‘Ivādērupamēyasya dvayōrlōpō bhavētmacit’ (ಇವಾದೇರುಪಮೇಯಸ್ಯ ದ್ವಯೋಃ ಲೋಪಃ ಭವೇತ್ಮಚಿತ್ ) (if both upameya and upamāna are omitted, it is classified accordingly).
Vācakopameyalupta - ವಾಚಕೋಪಮೇಯಲೋಪ್ತ is a single category. The three major omissions—Vācaka (ವಾಚಕ), Dharma, and Upamāna—occur across sentence and compound structures, making them threefold yet essentially a single category.
An example illustrating all six types is:
"Vṛthā mama bhramatahō Maheśvarē manasthitē | ವೃಥಾ ಮಮ ಭ್ರಮತಹೋ ಮಹೇಶ್ವರೇ ಮನಸ್ಥಿತೇ
Śrutō’sti tēna kiṁ samaḥ śrutō’thavāsti tattamaḥ ||" ಶ್ರುತೋಸ್ತಿ ತೇನ ಕಿಂಸಮಃ ಶ್ರುತೋಥವಾಸ್ತಿ ತತ್ತಮಃ
Here, ‘Kiṁ samaḥ’ represents omission in the vākya (sentence).
‘Tattamaḥ’ (ತತ್ತಮಃ ) represents omission in the samāsa (compound).
Similarly, another example:
"Ṣaḍampiyadhassadā tadampiyapaṅkajadvayē | ಷಡ್ ಅಂಪ್ರಿಯ ಧಸ್ಸ ಸದಾ ತದಂಫ್ರಿಪಂಕಜದ್ವಯೇ
Chakōrakīyasu sthitē tadānane śaśiprabhē ||" ಚಕೋರಕೀಯಸು ಸ್ಥಿತೇ ತದಾನನೇ ಶಶಿಪ್ರಭೆ
In the second line, omission of Dharmopamāna (ಧರ್ಮೋಪಮಾನ ) appears in both vākya and samāsa.
In the third line, Kṛc- (ಕ್ವಿಪ್ ) based Dharmavācakalupta (ಧರ್ಮವಾಚಕಲುಪೆಯು ) is observed in two ways.
In ‘Chakōrakīyasu’ (ಚಕೋರಕೀಯಸು) , Vācakopameyalupta (ವಾಚಕೋಪಮೇಯಲುಪ್ತ) is evident.
In ‘Śaśiprabhē’ (ಶಶಿಪ್ರಭೆ), Dharmopamānalupta (ಧರ್ಮೋಪಮಾನಲುಪ್ತ) is evident.
The Ṇini (ಣಿನಿ') suffix, its grammatical variations, and its appearance in different contexts have been demonstrated by Kāvyaprakāśikā (ಕಾವ್ಯಪ್ರಕಾಶಿಕಾ). Additionally, the Sārvabhauma Cintāmaṇi (ಸಾರ್ವಭೌಮನ 'ಚಿಂತಾಮಣಿ') has also illustrated Vācakalupta (ವಾಚಕ ಲುಪೈಯು ) in the Ṇini (ಣಿನಿ') suffix.
Now, Bhaṭṭāchārya, I have presented numerous examples of Luptopamālaṅkāra (ಲುಪೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) —yet, nowhere in these is there a trace of the Kākatālīya (ಕಾಕತಾಳೀಯ ) principle that you earlier invoked.
So tell me, how can you still compare my past encounter and victory to a mere Kākatālīya (ಕಾಕತಾಳೀಯ ) coincidence?"
Vibudhānanda (ವಿಬುಧಾನಂದ) had no answer. Unable to counter, his face turned grim with frustration. Finally, he blurted out:
Vibudha: "Ācārya! I declare that all your arguments so far are incorrect!"
Vēṅkaṭanātha, smiling, retorted:
Vēṅkaṭa: "Bhaṭṭāchārya, if my arguments are incorrect, then kindly refute them with solid evidence!"
Vibudha: (proudly) "Oh, is that so? Fine, listen—All the classifications of Luptopamālaṅkāra (ಲುಪೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) you have presented—whether sevenfold, fivefold, or otherwise—I do not accept them. Why? Because they are not validly accepted classifications. Even Ālaṅkārikas (ಆಲಂಕಾರಿಕ ) (rhetoricians) do not acknowledge such distinctions. While these divisions may create a certain degree of aesthetic novelty (camatkāra-viśeṣa) (ಚಮತ್ಕಾರವಿಶೇಷ), they are ultimately incorrect.
This excessive classification is nothing more than an exhibition of grammatical scholarship (śabda-śāstra) (ಶಬ್ದಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ), intended only to demonstrate personal erudition rather than to present logically acceptable variations. Your analysis proves your mastery over grammar, but it fails to establish distinctions that are valid in Alaṅkāraśāstra, does it not?"
Vēṅkaṭa: (smiling) "Bhaṭṭāchārya, I am grateful that you have so joyfully praised my expertise in Śabdaśāstra (ಶಬ್ದಶಾಸ್ತ್ರ)! Since you have accused me of misrepresenting accepted rhetorical distinctions, why don’t you explain the sambhāvita prakāras (ಸಂಭಾವಿತ ಪ್ರಕಾರ ) (logically valid classifications) that are accepted by Ālaṅkārikas (ಅಲಂಕಾರಿಕ) ? I shall listen and enjoy!"
Vibudha: "You first claimed that Luptopamālaṅkāra (ಲುಪೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) has seven varieties. That is incorrect. Beyond the omission of Vācaka (ವಾಚಕ ) (comparative word) and Upamāna (ಉಪಮಾನ ) (standard of comparison), there are other omissions possible. Here is an example:
‘Yattayā mēlanaṁ tatra lābhō mē yaccha tadratēḥ | ಯತ್ತಯಾ ಮೇಲನಂ ತತ್ರ ಲಾಭೋ ಮೇ ಯಚ್ಚ ತದ್ರತೇಃ
Tadētatkākatālīyaṁ avitarkita-saṁbhavam ||’ ತದೇತತ್ಕಾಕತಾಲೀಯಂ ಅವಿತರ್ಕಿತಸಂಭವಮ್
This example illustrates the valid rhetorical distinctions accepted by Ālaṅkārikas (ಅಲಂಕಾರಿಕ). How so?
Here, the words Kāka (ಕಾಕಾ ) (crow) and Tāla (ತಾಲ ) (palm tree) are syntactically linked (vṛttiviṣaya) (ವೃತ್ತಿವಿಷಯ), forming an inherent conceptual association (Kākatāla-samavēta-kriyā) (ಕಾಕತಾಲಸಮವೇತಕ್ರಿಯಾ).
According to Pāṇini’s rule ‘Ivā’rtha samāsāccha tadviṣayāt’ (ಇವಾರ್ಥ ಸಮಾಸಚ್ಚ ತದ್ವಿಷಯಾತ್), this leads to the compound formation Kākatāla (ಕಾಕತಾಲ), derived from Kākāgamanaṁ iva Tālapatanam iva Kākatālu (ಕಾಕಾಗಮನಮಿವ ತಾಲಪತನಮಿವ ಕಾಕತಾಲು )—meaning “just as a crow’s arrival coincided with the fall of a palm fruit.”
Thus, when the speaker describes his accidental union with a secluded beauty as similar to Kākatāla-sama-gamana (ಕಾಕತಾಲ ಸಮಾಗಮ) (a coincidental event), it results in a legitimate rhetorical expression.
Further, Kākatālam iva Kākatālīyaṁ (ಕಾಕತಾಲಮಿವ ಕಾಕತಾಲೀಯಂ ) follows the second Pāṇinian principle ‘Ivā’rtha samāsāccha tadviṣayatvāt’ (ಇವಾರ್ಥ ಸಮಾಸಾಚ್ಚ ತದ್ವಿಷಯತ್ವಾತ್), which justifies the Cha (ಛ ) suffix (छ प्रत्यय).
Finally, just as the crow unintentionally benefits from the palm fruit falling, the speaker similarly takes advantage of the lady’s isolation.
This construction results in:
1) Upamānalupta (ಉಪಮಾನಲೋಪ ) (elision of the standard of comparison), because Kāka-tāla sama-gamana is implied rather than explicitly stated.
2) Vācakalopta (ವಾಚಕಲೋಪ ) (elision of the comparative word), because it is established through compounding rather than direct comparison.
3) The combined effect leads to Vācakopamānaluptālaṅkāra (ವಾಚಕ ಉಪಮಾನ ಲುಪ್ತ ಅಲಂಕಾರ), a valid and recognized rhetorical structure!"
Vibudha: (proudly) "Ācārya, your claim that Dharmalupta (ಧರ್ಮಲುತ್ತೆ) has only five types is incorrect. Why? Because we find examples of Dvirbhāva (ದ್ವಿರ್ಭಾವ ) (duplication) in expressions like ‘Paṭuḥ paṭuḥ Dēvadattaḥ’ (ಪಟುಃ ಪಟುಃ ದೇವದತ್ತಃ).
Here, according to the rule ‘Prakārē Guṇavacanasya’ (ಪ್ರಕಾರೇ ಗುಣವಚನಸ್ಯ), Dvirbhāva (ದ್ವಿರ್ಭಾವ ) expresses sādṛśya (ಸಾದೃಶ್ಯಾ ) (similarity), meaning 'Dēvadatta (ದೇವದತ್ತ) is like one who is skilled (paṭu) (ಪಟು)'.
This implies that Dēvadatta (ದೇವದತ್ತ) is not inherently skilled but indistinguishable from one who is. Since the term Paṭuḥ Paṭuḥ (ಪಟುಃ ಪಟುಃ ) is used twice, it reinforces the idea of Dvirbhāva (ದ್ವಿರ್ಭಾವ ) Guṇavacana (ಗುಣವಚನಾ), forming a compound structure (samāsa) (ಸಮಾಸ). Thus, this does not support a fivefold classification of Luptopamā.
Similarly, Dharmalupta cannot be limited to just sentence (vākya) and compound (samāsa) structures.
The rule ‘Karmadhārayavaduttarēṣu’ (ಕರ್ಮಧಾರಯವದುತ್ತರೇಷು ) establishes the formation of samāsavadbhāva (ಸಮಾಸವದ್ಭಾವ). This results in an aikapada (ಐಕಪದ ) (single-word structure) rather than a sentence-based one. Since this excludes the sentence structure, your classification of samāsa (ಸಮಾಸ ) and vākya becomes invalid.
Moreover, your claim that Vācakalupta (ವಾಚಕಲುpta) has seven types is also unacceptable. Why? Because Vācakalopa also appears in Kvip ('ಕ್ವಿಪ್ ) suffix (klip) formations and Taddhita (ತದ್ಧಿತ ) (secondary derivatives).
Consider the following example:
‘Yadbhaktānāṁ sukhamayaḥ saṁsāropapavargati | ಯದ್ಭಕ್ತಾನಾಂ ಸುಖಮಯಃ ಸಂಸಾರೋಪಪವರ್ಗತಿ
Taṁ Śaṁbhumabhajan martaḥ Caṁcācandra-kalādharaṁ ||’ ತಂ ಶಂಭುಮಭಜನ್ ಮರ್ತಃ ಚಂಚಾಚಂದ್ರಕಲಾ ಧರಂ
(Alternate reading: ‘Sō’kāhitā kṛtēḥ’) (ಸೋಕಹಿತಾಕೃತೇಃ).
Here, in ‘Apavargavat ācharati’ (ಅಪವರ್ಗವತ್ ಆಚರತಿ), the klip (ಕ್ರಿಪ್ ) suffix is omitted within a compound, demonstrating Vācakalopa (ವಾಚಕ ಲೋಪ).
In ‘Caṁcā’ (ಚಂಚಾ), meaning ‘like trembling grass’, the tan suffix (Tanupratyaya) (ತನ್ ಪ್ರತ್ಯ) is omitted, as per the rule ‘Iva prati-kṛti’ (ಇವೇ ಪ್ರತಿಕೃತಿ ) (comparison through analogy).
Thus, in two instances—both the klip (ಕ್ರಿಪ್ ) suffix and the tan suffix—Vācakalopa (ವಾಚಕ ಲೋಪ) is śāstra-vihita (ಶಾಸ್ತ್ರವಿಹಿತ ) (grammatically sanctioned).
Furthermore, your claim that Upamānuṣa (ಉಪಮಾನುಷೆ) exists only in vākya and samāsa is incorrect because it does not occur in Taddhita (ತದ್ದಿತ).
For example:
‘Nṛṇāṁ yaṁ sēvā mānānāṁ saṁsāropapavargati | ನೃಣಾಂ ಯಂ ಸೇವಾ 'ಮಾನಾನಾಂ ಸಂಸಾರೋಪಪವರ್ಗತಿ'
Taṁ Śaṁbhumabhajan martaḥ Caṁcācandra-kalādharaṁ ||’ ತಂ ಶಂಭುಮಭಜನ್ ಮರ್ತೃಃ ಚಂಚಾಚಂದ್ರಕಲಾಧರಂ
Here, in ‘Caṁcā Tṛṇa-Puruṣaḥ’ (ಚಂಚಾತೃಣಪುರುಷಃ), kanu (Kanupratyaya) undergoes elision (Kano’rluk) (ಕನೊರ್ಲುಕ್), resulting in Vācakalopa (ವಾಕ್ಯಲೋಪ). Since klip (Kvippratyaya) is omitted in taddhita, Upamānuṣa does not extend beyond vākya and samāsa.
Additionally, your claim that Dharmopamānalupta (ಧರ್ಮೋಪಮಾನುlupta) is only of two types—vākya and samāsa—is incorrect. Dharmopamānalupta (ಧರ್ಮೋಪlupta) also occurs in Taddhita.
For example:
‘Tadētatkālīyamāyāṁ’ (ತದೇತತ್ಕಾಲೀಯಮಾಯಾಂ)
Here, the suffix ‘Pratyayārthōpayāmaṁ’ (ಪ್ರತ್ಯಯಾರ್ಥೋಪಯಾಮಾಂ ) is applied.
In ‘Avitarkita-Saṁbhavam’ (ಅವಿತರ್ಕಿತ ಸಂಭವಂ), since the comparative word (dharmopamāna) (ಧರ್ಮೋಪಮಾನ ) is omitted, both elements undergo elision.
Thus, because Luptopamālaṅkāra (ಲುಪೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) has multiple contestable variations, your classifications are neither aligned with Ālaṅkāraśāstra nor do they generate camatkāra (aesthetic delight)!"
Vēṅkaṭa: "Swāmī, I am quite astonished after hearing your argument! It appears that you have interpreted my explanations through the lens of Kaścit Kāntā Vākyārtha! (ಕಶ್ಚಿತ್ಕಾಂತಾ ವಾಕ್ಯಾರ್ಥ)
All I have done is present the classifications as expounded by the great Ālaṅkārikas (ಆಲಂಕಾರಿಕ), without offering any opposition to them. This fact is evident to everyone in the assembly."
(From the gathering of scholars, shouts of approval—‘Ahudu, Ahudu!’ (Yes, yes!)—echoed in agreement.)
"Let that be. At least pay attention to my next explanation with an open mind—perhaps it will resolve your doubts!"
Vibudha: (mockingly, but with concealed frustration) "No, Swāmī! Nowhere have you stated that Luptopamālaṅkāra (ಲುಪೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ) has eight types! You simply evaded it, and that evasion gave rise to my doubts!"
Vēṅkaṭa: (smiling) "Oh, so is it my fault that while I was methodically explaining the general and specific divisions as illustrated by ancient Ālaṅkārikas (ಆಲಂಕಾರಿಕ) , you hastily dismissed them without due consideration?
If you persist in opposing the views of the Pūrvācāryas (ಪೂರ್ವಾಚಾರ), won’t you end up contradicting your own stance?
This would not only result in self-contradiction (svavirodha) but also lead to:
1. Svavachana-virodha (contradiction within one’s own statements),
2. Sthanīya-virodha (contradiction with foundational principles),
3. Sakriyā-virodha (contradiction in logical application).
Thus, three defects (doṣas) (ದೋಷ) become inevitable in your argument!"
(At this, Dīkṣitas (ದೀಕ್ಷಿತ), the King, and the gathered scholars enthusiastically applauded, exclaiming, ‘Sādhu, Sādhu!’ in praise of Vēṅkaṭanātha.)
The entire assembly burst into waves of laughter. Vibudhānanda, thoroughly embarrassed, turned pale. He realized his mistake.
Yet, suppressing his inner turmoil and attempting to maintain composure, he feigned nonchalance and said,
"Fine, fine… Let’s hear what you have to say next!"
Vēṅkaṭa: "For instance, saying 'Mukō’ham' (ಮುಕೋSಹಂ ) (I am mute) results in Svavachana-virodha (self-contradiction). Similarly, stating 'Mē mātā vandhyā' (ಮೇ ಮಾತಾ ವಂಧ್ಯಾ ) (My mother is barren) creates Sakriyā-virodha (contradiction in logical action). Just like this…."
Vibudha: (Interrupting before Vēṅkaṭa can complete his statement) "Enough, enough, Swāmī! I understand everything now!"
"What do you wish to say next?"
Vēṅkaṭa: (laughing) "Good! If you have understood, that is well and good. Now, let me present an explanation from a highly respected scholar—one who belongs to your very own philosophical tradition and is an extraordinary expert in Alaṅkāraśāstra.
In his work Alaṅkāranikaṣa, this esteemed scholar, making none other than Śrīmat Sudhīndratīrtha his central figure, composed a detailed analysis of Luptopamālaṅkāra (ಲುಪೋಪಮಾಲಂಕಾರ). I shall now narrate that explanation."
Vibudha: (surprised) "What? A scholar from our tradition wrote a treatise on Alaṅkāraśāstra, using your guru as the central figure? Can you share a couple of examples? I would like to hear them!"
Vēṅkaṭa: "Why are you so astonished, Bhaṭṭāchārya? Does learning belong to a single sect?
Genuine scholars, regardless of their background, recognize excellence and honor it.
Isn’t it natural to venerate those who possess merit, eligibility, and universal acclaim?
For instance, look at Raghunātha Bhūpāla! He was exalted as a patron in Raghunātha Bhūpāliyam, a renowned Alaṅkāra treatise composed by the illustrious poet Kṛṣṇayajva (ಕೃಷ್ಣಯಜ್ಜ).
The work gained such stature that even great scholars and the Mahāprabhus themselves requested my revered Guru Śrī Sudhīndratīrtha to compose a commentary on it.
Did our revered Guru hesitate, thinking,
'This work was composed by a gṛhastha (householder), and I am a paramahaṁsa (ascetic), so I must not write a commentary on it'?
No! With his vast heart and boundless wisdom, he composed Sāhitya-Sāmrājyaṁ, a world-renowned, profound, and extensive commentary, blessing the text with his scholarship.
Similarly, your own tradition's scholars, recognizing the greatness of my Gurupāda, chose to make him the central figure in Alaṅkāranikaṣa!
So what is surprising in that?"
(Hearing Vēṅkaṭa’s words, the entire assembly erupted in applause, appreciating his wisdom.)
Vēṅkaṭa: "Now, as per your request, I shall provide an example from Alaṅkāranikaṣa. Listen carefully—
Śrīmat Sudhīndra Vratī-Sārvabhauma! ಮತ್ ಸುಧೀಂದ್ರ ವ್ರತಿ ಸಾರ್ವಭೌಮ
Gāmbhīrya-Madāryam Urguṇō’ptaḥ | ಗಾಂಭೀರ್ಯ ಮದ ಆರ್ಯ ಮು ಗುಣ ಒಫ್ಟ್ (Ofṭ)
Tulya yā na trimu-viṣṭapēṣu ತುಲ ಯಾ ನ ತ್ರಿಮು ವಿಷ್ಟಪೇಷು
Niśāmyatē kō’pi niśamyatē vā || ನಿಶಾಮ್ಯತೇ ಕೋಗಿಪಿ ನಿಶಮ್ಯತೇ ವಾ
This verse…"
Vēṅkaṭa:
"Śrīmat Sudhīndratīrtha Pratisārvabhauma! Your depth, generosity, and supreme virtues are unparalleled in the three worlds—no one has been heard of, nor seen, who is your equal!"
In this verse, the word tulyaḥ indicates a general comparison (sāmānya upamā). However, a specific point of comparison (upamā-viśeṣa) is absent because only kō’pi ("someone") is mentioned, without naming any specific entity. Since there is no explicitly stated upamāna (standard of comparison), Upamāna-lupta occurs at the vākya (sentence) level.
If we take an alternate reading—Tatanti bhō na triṣu viṣṭapēṣu—then Tatanti forms a compound structure where Upamāna-lupta occurs at the samāsa (compound) level. This example strongly aligns with the Avāntara Vibhāga (sub-classification) that I explained earlier.
Vibudha: (impressed) "Well said! That was quite interesting. Now, provide another example."
Vēṅkaṭa:
"Listen carefully, Swāmī—
Ślāghākampōttamāṅgā visarada-bhinavānanda-sāndrāntaraṅgā | ಶ್ಲಾಘಾಕಂಪೋತ್ತಮಾಂಗಾ ವಿಸರದಭಿನವಾನಂದ ಸಾಂದ್ರಾಂತರಂಗಾ
Bāṣpaugha-sādadāpāṅgā prasama-pulakānkūra-nirandritāṅgā || ಬಾಪೌಘಸಾದಪಾಂಗಾ ಪ್ರಸಮರಪುಲಕಾಂಕೂರ ನೀರಂದ್ರಿತಾಂಗಾ
Śruṇvanti Śrī Sudhīndra-Vratilaka! Mahustāvakī kīrtim ucci | ಶ್ರುಂತಿ ಶ್ರೀಸುಧೀಂದ್ರವ್ರತಿಲಕ ! ಮಹುಸ್ತಾವಕೀ ಕೀರ್ತಿಮುಚ್ಚಿ
Gōtrakṣābhadguhāntē haya-mukhamithunaiḥ yōginō gīyamānām || ಗೋತ್ರಕ್ಷಾಭದ್ಗುಹಾಂತೇ ಹಯಮುಖಮಿಥುನೈ: ಯೋಗಿನೋ ಗೀಯಮಾನಾಮ್
"O Śrī Sudhīndra Vratilaka! In the caves of Mount Kailāsa, celestial beings with horse-like faces (the Gandharva couple) sing your divine, radiant fame. The yogis attentively listen to this celestial song. As these highly skilled Gandharvas sing in praise, they tremble in excitement, their hearts overflow with fresh, unbounded bliss, their eyes well up with tears, they cast sidelong glances full of emotion, they experience goosebumps like a veil covering their bodies, and their skin glistens with sacred sweat. The yogis are deeply absorbed, immersed in the bliss of this divine melody!"
Here, we see Dharmavācaka-lupta Alaṅkāra (ಧರ್ಮವಾಚಕ ಉಪ್ತಾಲಂಕಾರ) . How?
1. In ‘Haya-mukha’ (ಹಯಮುಖ), the phrase is derived from ‘Hayasya Mukham iva Mukham yasya’ ('ಹಯಸ್ಯ ಮುಖಮಿವಮುಖಂ ಯಸ್ಯ ) (One whose face is like that of a horse).
However, in this structure, according to Saptamyupamānapūrvasya (ಸಪ್ತಮ್ಯುಪಮಾನಪೂರ್ವಸ್ಯ ) Uttarapadalopaśca (ಉತ್ತರ ಪದಲೋಪಶ್ಚ ) (grammatical rule), the comparative indicator Mukha is omitted.
2. Since the dharmavācaka (common attribute) is implied rather than explicitly stated, Dharmavācaka-lupta occurs.
3. Since the phrase is expressed in a samāsa (compound), the Upamāna (comparison standard), Dharmavācaka (common attribute), and Vācaka (comparative marker) are all omitted.
Thus, this verse simultaneously demonstrates the lupta (omission) of three elements:
Upamāna-lupta (omission of the standard of comparison),
Dharmavācaka-lupta (omission of the descriptive attribute),
Vācaka-lupta (omission of the comparative marker).
"Bhaṭṭāchārya, according to Sāhitya Cintāmaṇi, the scholar holds that Vācaka-lupta does not merely occur in Ṇamul and similar affixes but is also present in the Ṇini suffix.
Thus, instead of sevenfold, Vācaka-lupta can extend to twenty varieties—though such an extensive classification is not traditionally accepted within Luptopamālaṅkāra.
For instance, the previous śloka states:
'Ṇini gato Vācaka-lopaśca Vallyā Vaiśākha iti' (ಣಿನಿಗತೋ ವಾಚಕಲೋಪಶ್ಚ ವಲ್ಲ್ಯಾ ವೈಶಾಖೇತಿ)
Thus, in the example Nāgendragāmī, one must analyze how Vācakalopa is illustrated according to Cintāmaṇi's viewpoint."
Vēṅkaṭa: (smiling) "Very well, listen carefully—here is the perfect example that integrates Upamāna-lupta, Dharmopamāna-lupta, Vākya, Taddhita, and Samāsa, all within a single verse!"
"Yarāṇām asya ca samāgamo yaccha vadho’sya kṛtaḥ | (ಯರಾಣಾಮಸ್ಯ ಚ ಸಮಾಗಮೋ ಯಚ್ಚ ರ್ವಧೋಸ್ಯ ಕೃತಃ)
Upanatamētad akasmād āsīt bata kākatālīyam ||" (ಉಪನತಮೇತದಕಸ್ಮಾದಾಸೀತ್ ಬತ ಕಾಕತಾಲೀಯಮ್)
(“The coming together of enemies and his sudden demise—this all happened unexpectedly! Indeed, it was purely coincidental, just like the proverbial Kākatālīya event!”)
1. Upamāna-lupta (Omission of the standard of comparison):
The phrase "Akasmād āsīt bata kākatālīyam" implies a comparison to an accidental event but does not explicitly mention a reference point (upamāna), making this Upamāna-lupta.
2. Dharmopamāna-lupta (Omission of the common attribute along with the standard of comparison):
The comparison to an unexpected event is incomplete because neither a standard (upamāna) nor its defining characteristic (dharma) is explicitly stated. This creates Dharmopamāna-lupta.
3. Vākya (Sentence-based structure):
The entire sentence structure expresses Luptopamālaṅkāra by omitting the Upamāna and Dharma, while still indicating an implicit comparison.
4. Samāsa (Compound structure):
If rephrased as "Kākatālīya-upanata-vṛttam" (an event that occurred like the Kākatālīya instance), the omission of comparison words in the compound structure confirms Samāsagata Luptopamā.
5. Taddhita (Derivative suffix structure):
The word Kākatālīya itself is derived from Kāka (crow) and Tāla (palm fruit) using Taddhita suffixes, creating Taddhitagata Luptopamā.
Having heard this brilliant integration, the entire assembly of scholars erupted in applause.
Vibudhānanda, overwhelmed, rose from his seat and bowed respectfully.
Vibudha: "Ācārya! I am fully satisfied now. Your ability to provide an example that encapsulates all these intricate classifications proves beyond doubt that you are truly an unparalleled scholar of Alaṅkāraśāstra! I humbly accept my defeat!"
With that, Vibudhānanda acknowledged Vēṅkaṭanātha’s supreme erudition, and the debate concluded with the royal court resounding in admiration and celebration.
Vēṅkaṭa: "With just one word—‘Kākatālīyam’—I have integrated all three elements of omission!"
Explanation:
The words Kāka (crow) and Tāla (palm tree) form a conceptual link (vṛttiviṣaya), where the phrase Kākatālīya kriyā (coincidental action) is derived.
According to ‘Māsāccha Tadviṣayāt’ (a grammatical principle), a samāsa (compound) is formed between the two words.
The implied meaning of the compound is ‘Kākāgamanaṁ iva Tālapatanam iva’—"just as a crow’s arrival coincided with a falling palm fruit."
This analogy extends to Devadatta’s unexpected encounter with thieves—Kākatāla Samāgama Sadṛśa (just like the coincidence of a crow and a falling palm fruit).
The second step of compounding, ‘Kākatālam iva’, follows the grammatical rule ‘Samāsāccha Tadviṣayāt’, which justifies the Cha (छ) suffix.
The parallel between Devadatta’s murder by thieves and a crow’s accidental death by a falling palm fruit completes the comparison.
Why This is a Triple Omission (Luptopamālaṅkāra):
1. Vācakopamāna-lupta (Comparative Indicator Omission):
In the Samāsārtha Upamā (compound-based simile), the Upamāna (standard of comparison) is implied rather than explicitly stated, leading to vācakalopa (elision of comparative words like iva).
2. Upamāna-lupta (Standard of Comparison Omission):
In the Pratyayārtha Upamā (suffix-based simile), the Upamāna (point of comparison) is missing, since kāka-vadha (the crow’s death) is only implied.
3. Dharmopamāna-lupta (Common Attribute Omission):
The phrase ‘Upanatamētadakasmāt’ describes the event as accidental, but omits the common attribute (dharma), thus qualifying as Dharmopamāna-lupta.
"Thus, I have successfully harmonized all three types of omission in a single expression!"
"Swāmī Vibudhānanda! At the start of this debate, you objected that my past victory over the royal scholars was mere ‘Kākatālīya’ coincidence. Twice, I asked you to logically prove this claim, yet you failed to do so. Now, tell me—what do you have to say on this matter?"
"Forgive me, Ācārya! It is true that I initially dismissed your victory as mere coincidence. However, witnessing your profound scholarship, your precise argumentative style, your unparalleled analytical brilliance, and your extraordinary depth in Alaṅkāraśāstra, I stand in awe. I now realize that my earlier judgment was incorrect."
"I joyfully retract my statement. Meeting a great scholar like you is my fortune! Now I understand why the revered Yajñanārāyaṇa Dīkṣita holds you in such high esteem. I earnestly request you to accept me as a part of your esteemed scholarly circle and to extend your affectionate regard towards me."
(As Vibudhānanda Bhāṭṭāchārya humbly bowed in acknowledgment, the entire assembly erupted in thunderous applause, celebrating Vēṅkaṭanātha’s intellectual triumph and Vibudhānanda’s gracious acceptance of truth.)